Fr Ripperger on intellectual pride...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIHBVmVZjKA
Thanks for the video. Listening. Fr. Ripperger's sermons are great. Intellectual pride is a very important trap to avoid. It is said that pride is the root of all vices; and in like manner that humility correspondingly must necessarily be the foundation of all virtues.
Quote from: St. Columba on January 31, 2019, 09:21:42 AM
Fr Ripperger on intellectual pride...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIHBVmVZjKA
I'm sure this was a good one for you to listen too, it will help you not to be too proud of your serving abilities.
It's a timely topic, but I'm going to have to disagree with Fr. on a few points.
First, notwithstanding the title, the topic wasn't really intellectual pride but intellectual dishonesty, which is related but not quite the same thing.
Intellectual pride isn't, strictly speaking, the pretense to knowledge that one does not have. One can indeed have all the knowledge he claims to have and yet still be intellectually proud, for the pride lies in the self-exaltation due to such knowledge, as though it comes from oneself and not from God and therefore makes one intrinsically better than others. The prime example is Satan. He was not mistaken at all on what he knew and what he did not. He knew and understand perfectly the consequences of his rebellion and yet chose to go through with it anyway. Whereas one can think he knows something, be mistaken, and yet not be guilty of intellectual pride; he is just mistaken. Of course intellectual pride would come in if he refuses to admit his mistake even though shown to him, precisely because it would force him to come down a notch in his self-estimation or in the eyes of others. Now, of course none are immune from this and so it's not true there is none of this in the Catholic world. Nevertheless, I'm not convinced it's the main issue.
For, refusing to admit mistakes and continuing to argue for one's point even though he can't refute his opponent's arguments but only makes a pretense of so doing is, properly speaking, intellectual dishonesty. There are other possible motives for failing to admit mistakes besides one's self-estimation or desiring to look good in the eyes of others - and in fact, most of the time I think, these motives are what are in play - the intellectual dishonesty stems from a very strong desire for what is claimed to be the truth to actually be the truth. True, this is a species of pride since humility is oriented toward the truth, regardless of what we would like to be the case. Nevertheless, it isn't properly speaking self-glorification due to one's knowledge or intellectual abilities. It's just wishful thinking.
But to avoid mistaken claims of knowledge, or to recognize them once made, it is necessary to teach critical thinking skills: what is fact and what is opinion, when is an opinion strongly supported by evidence and argumentation vs. only weakly supported, and when is an opinion not really the result of rational judgment at all but only of emotion and prejudice, and specifically in-group prejudice. From where I sit Catholics (trads or not) are not any better at this than society at large, where "truth" is largely determined by whether it fits in with the desired narrative or not. And the less one is concerned that his judgments might be motivated by mere emotion and prejudice, such that he attempts to take precautions to ensure this is not the case, the more likely (in fact, approaching near certainty) it is that this is the case.
Second, modern societal changes are here to stay, whether Fr. likes it or not.
I'm hardly a cheerleader for everything that goes on in higher education. Nevertheless, opening up the possibility of higher education (including post-graduate) to more and more people is a good thing overall. Sure, there are many people in higher education who don't belong there, but we aren't going back to levels in the early 20th century. There are many people who do have the skills and ability to go to college, and it is right that the opportunity is open to them.
And the "pay, pray, and obey" days for the laity are over, especially in the Information Age. Laity are going to discuss among themselves issues of philosophy and theology, whether priests like it or not, and attempts to censor such communications will much more harm than good. Without a Catholic presence on the Internet (as imperfect as such a thing will be) almost the entire forum will be given over to Protestants, Jews, Muslims, agnostics, and atheists; and priests have neither the numbers nor the time to be leading and participating in all these discussions themselves.
Signs of intellectual pride...as mentioned/implied in the talk...
1. More interested in own's own judgement than objective reality
2. Judging oneself (or one's intellect) to be greater than it is
3. Lack of recognition that they are prone to be mistaken
4. Wants his intelligence to be widely known
5. When others disagree with him, he tends to think they are just dumb
6. See no value in other people's intellectual work
7. Tend not to ask questions publically
8. Blind to one's own faults/errors, intellectual or otherwise
9. Don't like being corrected
Common Daughters of intellectual pride...
1. Lack of charity towards others (might be smart enough to simulate charity, but it is merely ersatz)
2. Derision
3. Envy
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on February 01, 2019, 12:39:57 PM
It's a timely topic, but I'm going to have to disagree with Fr. on a few points.
First, notwithstanding the title, the topic wasn't really intellectual pride but intellectual dishonesty, which is related but not quite the same thing.
If you will recall the first part of the tape, all pride -- intellectual or spiritual -- is a form of dishonesty because such pride fails to recognize one's own actual or possible defects in whatever area of pride is in question. Thus, humility, the opposite of pride, is merely honesty -- as opposed to an inflated view of self, which is objectively dishonest. Humility is of course not self-deprecation but an honest sense of proportionality in relationship to other human beings.
False humility, or false modesty, is not a virtue but another lie, so to speak, in that it is a denial of gifts, acquired skill, etc. Thus, one should not pretend not to have knowledge or understanding; such would be dishonest and even an insult to God. However, the most informed and knowledgeable human being is still not omniscient; the most rarefied knowledge pales in comparison to God's perfect knowledge because all human knowledge is imperfect.
I think Fr. Ripperger gives a perfect example in his mention of Sede Vacantism. ("Knowing" that the pope is a heretic, etc., based supposedly on "evidence.") That part is in the first half of the tape, as I recall. Nothing is more intellectually and spiritually prideful than asserting that one knows definitively the state of another person's intellect and soul. That is the kind of omniscient knowledge particular to God alone.
I may have lots of evidence that someone isn't particularly smart, but that may be possible to see only in particular academic areas and not other academic areas, or in particular understandings of concepts and how those concepts are explained. A person may be at the top of his academic field and still have scant knowledge of some other academic fields, topics, or principles. And being at the top of his own field does not give him license to be prideful about that. He got there not only because of hard work, and some of the hardest workers in the world are intellectually deficient, by the way. He got there partly due to God's generosity. It may be less arduous for him to arrive at great knowledge than someone with a lower IQ or mental disabilities to arrive at whatever knowledge the latter has. And thus those with great IQ's have no cause to be prideful about that; their IQ's are, without exception, gifts.
Quote from: Miriam_M on February 01, 2019, 06:29:56 PM
I think Fr. Ripperger gives a perfect example in his mention of Sede Vacantism. ("Knowing" that the pope is a heretic, etc., based supposedly on "evidence.") That part is in the first half of the tape, as I recall. Nothing is more intellectually and spiritually prideful than asserting that one knows definitively the state of another person's intellect and soul. That is the kind of omniscient knowledge particular to God alone.
If Fr Ripperger can't tell when someone is a formal public heretic, then that's something he needs to work on.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on February 02, 2019, 05:23:45 AM
Quote from: Miriam_M on February 01, 2019, 06:29:56 PM
I think Fr. Ripperger gives a perfect example in his mention of Sede Vacantism. ("Knowing" that the pope is a heretic, etc., based supposedly on "evidence.") That part is in the first half of the tape, as I recall. Nothing is more intellectually and spiritually prideful than asserting that one knows definitively the state of another person's intellect and soul. That is the kind of omniscient knowledge particular to God alone.
If Fr Ripperger can't tell when someone is a formal public heretic, then that's something he needs to work on.
Just like the rest of us
Quote from: Sempronius on February 02, 2019, 06:37:22 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on February 02, 2019, 05:23:45 AM
Quote from: Miriam_M on February 01, 2019, 06:29:56 PM
I think Fr. Ripperger gives a perfect example in his mention of Sede Vacantism. ("Knowing" that the pope is a heretic, etc., based supposedly on "evidence.") That part is in the first half of the tape, as I recall. Nothing is more intellectually and spiritually prideful than asserting that one knows definitively the state of another person's intellect and soul. That is the kind of omniscient knowledge particular to God alone.
If Fr Ripperger can't tell when someone is a formal public heretic, then that's something he needs to work on.
Just like the rest of us
That's right.
I've been called a heretic, a blasphemer and a Protestant by posters on this site for doubting Fatima.
Francis says "there is no Catholic God" and utters a new distortion of Church teaching just about every week. And yet we're not supposed to have an opinion on whether or not the man is Catholic.
QuoteNevertheless, opening up the possibility of higher education (including post-graduate) to more and more people is a good thing overall.
In the sense that higher education is available now across the economic strata, this is correct. A high IQ kid living in poverty now has a much better chance of making it to college and this is a huge benefit to society. (I took note of your use of the word "possibility".)
In the sense of college being available to everyone, or to put it more precisely, the encouragement of people to attend college regardless of their ability, this is a bad thing. I agree with Fr. At least half the people you see walking around a campus don't belong there and would be better served in a Tech school or even on-the-job training. And outside of STEM, most Master's and even PhD programs are a joke. Read a few sentences of Michelle Obama's dissertation if you need convincing.
All-in-all a helpful talk. I wish Fr. would steer clear of the politics. Be that as it may, if he follows his principles he should start preaching that it is ok for married people to get divorced and remarried, otherwise he is demonstrating intellectual pride.
Our necessity to engage in these discussions is being forced upon us. It is now up to the laity to decide if divorce/remarriage is acceptable. That is a bad thing, but it is also reality.
On "getting the leaders you deserve", I disagree. If society turns rotten, it is due to poor leadership. The leader didn't do his job. Now yes there is a balance where personal responsibility has to be factored in. The clear lack of leadership is evident to anyone who bothers to observe. Strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter.
And of course there is the horrible moral corruption in the Vatican. How did these fags end up there? Leaders not acting to fix the problem.
But if you exclude politics, which is a minor part of his talk, it has a lot of good information. Humility is extremely important in life. There is an added benefit that comes from being humble -- you spot phonies a lot easier. If someone is trying to kiss your butt, you spot it real quick.
Quote from: james03 on February 02, 2019, 11:58:39 AM
In the sense that higher education is available now across the economic strata, this is correct. A high IQ kid living in poverty now has a much better chance of making it to college and this is a huge benefit to society. (I took note of your use of the word "possibility".)
In the sense of college being available to everyone, or to put it more precisely, the encouragement of people to attend college regardless of their ability, this is a bad thing. I agree with Fr. At least half the people you see walking around a campus don't belong there and would be better served in a Tech school or even on-the-job training. And outside of STEM, most Master's and even PhD programs are a joke. Read a few sentences of Michelle Obama's dissertation if you need convincing.
As I said, I'm no cheerleader for the abuses in higher education. But even if the population of higher ed were cut in half it would still be vastly greater than at the beginning of the 20th Century. And I disagree with your characterization of post-graduate education. Women's Studies is a joke. Medicine is not a joke. Law is not a joke. Business is not a joke. Nursing is not a joke. And in STEM, despite everything, we still have the finest in the world, with many, many students coming from overseas.
Overall good talk, but I don't like Fr. R's constant trad bashing. Trads are trying to survive, trads can't trust their bishops, their pope, they don't know if he is a pope, they don't know who they can trust.
If they act a little funny it's because they have no stability. Trads "intellectual pride" is present from original sin that plagues everyone and the trads who are trying to figure out the church and know a bit too much is precisely because we weren't taught at all, and what we were taught wasn't Catholicism.
He's making it sound like we have all of these great leaders and we just don't listen, yet he admits our leadership is a mess.
James said it best though, if we're so off and he's got it right why doesn't he endorse divorce now to be consistent. He acts as if Pope St. Pius X is on the throne, not a man who tells others to call him "Jorge" and openly admitted his one statement is "perhaps heretical".
Lastly, we get the leaders we deserve is silly. It's an inversion of the theocracy of grace. God didn't give grace to the laity to give it to the priests, but grace to the leaders to give to the people. We aren't influential and if we were the Church wouldn't look like it does.
The lesser does not form the greater and grace is not a bottom up democracy. In the great book The Soul of the Apostolate he starts with the premise if the priest is holy the people are a step below him and all problems are a problem with the priesthood, where as if he's lukewarm or bad the people are vicious and immoral. St. Aelred said the same, that all the evils of the world are the evils of the priest.
Logically it would mean a vicious cycle ending in mutual destruction. If the people deserve a vicious leader than that leader would further erode the morals and goodness of the people making subsequent leaders more vicious with no means of escape until both are annihilated.
Quote from: bigbadtrad on February 02, 2019, 05:24:58 PM
Overall good talk, but I don't like Fr. R's constant trad bashing. Trads are trying to survive, trads can't trust their bishops, their pope, they don't know if he is a pope, they don't know who they can trust.
If they act a little funny it's because they have no stability. Trads "intellectual pride" is present from original sin that plagues everyone and the trads who are trying to figure out the church and know a bit too much is precisely because we weren't taught at all, and what we were taught wasn't Catholicism.
He's making it sound like we have all of these great leaders and we just don't listen, yet he admits our leadership is a mess.
James said it best though, if we're so off and he's got it right why doesn't he endorse divorce now to be consistent. He acts as if Pope St. Pius X is on the throne, not a man who tells others to call him "Jorge" and openly admitted his one statement is "perhaps heretical".
Lastly, we get the leaders we deserve is silly. It's an inversion of the theocracy of grace. God didn't give grace to the laity to give it to the priests, but grace to the leaders to give to the people. We aren't influential and if we were the Church wouldn't look like it does.
The lesser does not form the greater and grace is not a bottom up democracy. In the great book The Soul of the Apostolate he starts with the premise if the priest is holy the people are a step below him and all problems are a problem with the priesthood, where as if he's lukewarm or bad the people are vicious and immoral. St. Aelred said the same, that all the evils of the world are the evils of the priest.
Logically it would mean a vicious cycle ending in mutual destruction. If the people deserve a vicious leader than that leader would further erode the morals and goodness of the people making subsequent leaders more vicious with no means of escape until both are annihilated.
Thank you. I am not a big fan of him (Fr R).
Quote from: bigbadtrad on February 02, 2019, 05:24:58 PM
Lastly, we get the leaders we deserve is silly. It's an inversion of the theocracy of grace. God didn't give grace to the laity to give it to the priests, but grace to the leaders to give to the people. We aren't influential and if we were the Church wouldn't look like it does.
Thanks for the post bigbad!
I dunno...Fr R seems to be echoing the sentiments of St. John Eudes:
"The most evident mark of God's anger, and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world, is manifest when He permits His people to fall into the hands of a clergy who are more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than the charity and affection of devoted shepherds. They abandon the things of God to devote themselves to the things of the world and, in their saintly calling of holiness, they spend their time in profane and worldly pursuits. When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people and is visiting His most dreadful wrath upon them."
QuoteI dunno...Fr R seems to be echoing the sentiments of St. John Eudes:
And I disagree. The fall of Israel can be traced back to King Solomon worshiping an idol. Furthermore this results in a Catch 22. The only way we could get out of our current situation is if we got a good Pope and good bishops. However since we are in this morass, we will get the leaders we deserve, so we are stuck with a crappy Pope (whoever that is) and crappy bishops -- forever. Seems like an very unstable system. I'm not buying it.
One last thing is the observation of real life. A great military unit has a great leader with high standards. The soldiers' character has no bearing on his selection. You get a good leader and the soldiers will form a great unit. So yeah, I disagree with the Saint.
QuoteAnd I disagree with your characterization of post-graduate education. Women's Studies is a joke. Medicine is not a joke. Law is not a joke. Business is not a joke. Nursing is not a joke.
Fair enough, however Business is usually a joke. The only exception is if you take someone with real world experience, like an engineer, and send him to get an MBA. THAT is very beneficial. However most MBA's don't end up accomplishing much. You also left out the Liberal Arts. Grab number, 95% of the programs are worthless. Some are excellent. But that's a small number. Law can be good in certain situations. You need a decent school and good connections. A lot of law students are getting royally hosed. We agree that STEM is still good in the USA.
Intellectual humility includes having real respect for the thinking of others who have greater wisdom and authority (as well as knowledge, intellect, and education, and especially holiness) than we do. In the "old days" this would have included the Pope and clergy. Even today traditionalists generally seem to have this respect for traditionalist priests.
You should never follow even a truly qualified authority into error, but you can pause and give extra thought before you rush into trying to "figure everything out by yourself" and having too much confidence in your thinking (not in your logic, perhaps, but in your premises concerning matters beyond your knowledge and understanding). Given that our so-called authorities are so awful today, I think trads (and other struggling Catholics) sometimes try to build their own intellectual edifice based mostly on their own thinking - doing private interpretation of the Bible and of past Church teaching. I think modern priests, who should be qualified authorities and guides, were not properly taught in the seminaries, where the teaching should have used the traditional Catholic methods and followed true Catholic teachers. I would think that it was at least partly pride that ruined the seminaries too - following novel teachers with the goal of "freedom", rather than having intellectual docility towards the great Catholic thinking of the past.
But you can't deny your own reason and accept error only because some "authority" taught it. You need to proceed humbly and cautiously and prayerfully, with a docile attitude but ever alert to what is clearly contrary to Church teachings and solid thinking of the past.
You have to seek and stand firm for truth, but sometimes you might have to admit that "you just don't know", e.g. when it comes to the difficulties of the Church today, or matters that are beyond man's understanding (e.g. a full understand of God and His workings).
"False intellectual humility" might include laziness, self-deprecation, skepticism about knowing truth, and cowardice in standing up for it. A secret pride can also hide itself behind a veneer of humility.
Quote from: james03 on February 02, 2019, 06:52:54 PM
However since we are in this morass, we will get the leaders we deserve, so we are stuck with a crappy Pope (whoever that is) and crappy bishops -- forever. Seems like an very unstable system. I'm not buying it.
You don't have to buy it, you already own it. Look around you. This is reality. It's not going to change until the people change.
Quote from: james03 on February 02, 2019, 06:52:54 PM
One last thing is the observation of real life. A great military unit has a great leader with high standards. The soldiers' character has no bearing on his selection. You get a good leader and the soldiers will form a great unit.
Wrong. Send General Patton to the wrong country, and he could spend his whole life without ever forming a crack unit. A general has to work with the material he is given. The average American grunt was one of the best in the world. Other countries have never been able to form an effective fighting unit.
Quote from: james03 on February 02, 2019, 06:52:54 PM
So yeah, I disagree with the Saint.
Highly ironic considering this is a thread about "Intellectual Pride."
For the record, I wish to say that I also very much disagree with Fr. R's constant trad bashing, and mostly because he's basing his criticism on a narrow slice of the population that has little in common with the trads I know. He is simply not accurate in that regard, and it is just as much a form of stereotyping as any other form.
Point #2: For those easily discouraged, he can be dangerous to listen to, particularly in large quantity, and I've done that to myself recently, which has not always been helpful to my soul. With regard to doctrine, that's something else, and I find him reliable there. One just has to be careful with spirituality because he can stress the negative and can (again) stereotype.
Point #3: I think the point of his mentioning SV'ism was not a blanket condemnation of the position itself, or all those who hold it, but rather the claim of superior knowledge (i.e., certainty) of the illegitimacy of particular popes and the supposedly illegitimate position of sedeplenists. Although I doubt that he meant that all people who consider SV'ism as a viable option are in fact intellectually prideful, I do think he meant to apply the charge to those who accuse other Catholics of "not using their intellects," "not applying logic," "being willfully blind," etc. I do not think it is in itself prideful to wonder why one's own position (whatever the opinion on The Seat) is not more universally accepted. I do think it is prideful to assume that people who are not "certain" or unquestioning about The Seat are refusing to use their intellects (an act of will), mentally deficient (an insult), etc.
There are certain aspects of Fr. Ripperger that I admire. Other aspects i find problematic or a cause for caution. I didn't mean my remarks to stir such controversy, and I'm sorry that apparently they have.
QuoteWrong. Send General Patton to the wrong country, and he could spend his whole life without ever forming a crack unit. A general has to work with the material he is given. The average American grunt was one of the best in the world. Other countries have never been able to form an effective fighting unit.
Actually he would form an effective force. We're assuming he has the same materials (tanks, etc...). But what about the flip side? Is it your position that if you send in a worthless officer that takes over a unit the unit won't turn into a bunch of slackards? Of course they will. So what happens when you get worthless Popes that allow fags to run around and heretics to write?
QuoteHighly ironic considering this is a thread about "Intellectual Pride."
And this thread is about how Fr. R. went too far, e.g. sit quietly and accept Bergoglio's teaching on divorce. As far as the Saint, is it our Faith that he is infallible? Was he a Doctor of the Church? Even that didn't stop St. Thomas from being wrong.
edit:
QuoteIt's not going to change until the people change.
But according to the Saint they will perpetually have bad leaders, so how is that supposed to happen? Won't it be intellectual pride to disregard our faggot bishops and heresy spewing "Pope"?
Quote[11] The Lord therefore said to Solomon: Because thou hast done this, and hast not kept my covenant, and my precepts, which I have commanded thee, I will divide and rend thy kingdom, and will give it to thy servant.
Quote from: St. Columba on February 02, 2019, 06:00:30 PM
I dunno...Fr R seems to be echoing the sentiments of St. John Eudes:
"The most evident mark of God's anger, and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world, is manifest when He permits His people to fall into the hands of a clergy who are more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than the charity and affection of devoted shepherds. They abandon the things of God to devote themselves to the things of the world and, in their saintly calling of holiness, they spend their time in profane and worldly pursuits. When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people and is visiting His most dreadful wrath upon them."
Yes I knew the quote in advance and I thank you for providing it friend. The problem is not with the quote but the understanding of it is how we can square this with the many quotes from other saints, namely, the evils of the world start with the evils of the priesthood. God can raise up a St. Paul or the world can get a Martin Luther or Arius. Our goal is the harmonize the saints as best as possible without ever looking for an error. Even if one exists we should humbly present the opposite so as not to be their judge who are our judge at judgement time.
As I mentioned St. Aelred said the evils of the world are the evils of the priests. Read Dignity and Duties of the Priest by St. Alphonsus and he quotes many many many saints to the same belief. He has an entire chapter on this very topic.
I believe it best to understand this quote with the history of St. Anthony Mary Claret, the saint I believe is the prototype of fixing the crisis we are in.
If God sends us good leaders and we reject them, God will then send us terrible priests to show us our depravity, as a means to help us realize the spiritual goodness we threw away. The only way out is to bring back good clerics to shine light in the darkness.
Cuba fell into great sin and its clerics fell into concubinage. Many of the faithful weren't practicing and the priests were losing their mind in lust. When St Anthony arrived he went door to door of each church, speak to the priest, and determine their moral and theological fitness. He removed almost every priest and sent them to Havana for formation.
People yelled at him, they wanted their priests, their sacraments, and he was now denying them. His response? It's better to convert pagans than heretics quoting St. Thomas's Summa Contra Gentiles. Bad clerics would turn the faithful into heretics who believe they held the faith but didn't, whereas pagans who are colder are closer to God through their coldness and therefore easier to convert.
The people deserved it, they got their evil clerics as St. John said, but the light of restoration was a great leader through grace. Grace and holiness cannot be a movement from the bottom up. There is no such thing as lay restoration of the faith. At best the laity can preserve the faith in the face of evil as in the time of the Arians, and the Japanese. Nevertheless, even during Arianism many lost their faith. St. Athanasius's famous sermon "they have the churches we have the faith" is a call to greatness in a feeling of despair.
While it was the faithful who mainly preserved the faith during Arianism, there would never be a restoration to greatness without clerics who provide grace "gratia gratum faciens" (if my memory remembers that correctly) through their holiness and radiation of charity. A Mass said by St. John Vianney would deliver far more graces to the faithful and to the world than by an ordinary priest.
Saints spark restorations, not arguments, intelligence, or any other means. "The mind is not a vessel to be filled by a fire to be ignited." -St. Gregory the Great
St. John Eudes is teaching us (1) if people live badly, we risk being given bad Shepherds. But on the contrary (2) if we do penance and return to God with our whole hearts, He will without doubt give us good Shepherds. This is plain from the passage of Scripture he cites and how the Saint continues. Imagine if the Church had an Army not only of Popes, Bishops and Priests, but even of Nuns, Monks and Laity as St. John describes below.
http://protectthepope.com/?p=10021
"When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people, and is visiting His most dreadful anger upon them. That is why He cries unceasingly to Christians, "Return, 0 ye revolting children . . . and I will give you pastors according to my own heart" (Jer. 3, 14-15). Thus, irregularities in the lives of priests constitute a scourge visited upon the people in consequence of sin.'
Good priests are a sign of God's mercy
St John Eudes then goes on to examine the signs of good priests, and their value in God's sight. Here is a selection of some of the qualities of God priests that are particularly needed in these times, which are a sign of divine grace:
On the other hand, the greatest effect of God's mercy, the most precious grace He bestows upon mankind, is to send worthy priests, men after His own heart, seeking only His glory and the salvation of souls. The greatest blessing that God bestows upon a church, the most signal manifestation of divine grace, is to have a saintly shepherd, be he bishop or priest. This is indeed the grace of graces and the most priceless of all gifts for it includes within itself every other blessing and grace. What is a priest after God's heart? He is an inestimable treasure containing an immensity of good things.
'He is an ever burning and shining light set in the candelabra of Mother Church, burning before God and shining before men: burning in his own love for God, shining by his charity for his fellow man; burning with the perfection of his inner life, shining by the perfection of his exterior deportment; burning in fervent prayer for his people, shining by his preaching of the word of God.
The priest is a sun cheering the world by his presence and bearing. He brings heavenly blessings into every heart. He dispels the ignorance and darkness of error and radiates on every side bright beams of celestial light. He extinguishes sin and gives life and grace to the multitudes. He imparts new life to the weak, inflames the lukewarm, fires more ardently those who are aglow with the sacred flame of divine love.
He is an angel purifying, illuminating and perfecting the souls that God has entrusted to him. He is a seraph sent by God to teach men the science of salvation which is concerned only with knowing and loving Almighty God and His Divine Son, Jesus Christ. The priest is an archangel and a prince of the heavenly militia, waging constant war against the devil who strives to drag countless souls into the depths of hell.
He is a captain in the mighty army of God, always ready to battle for the glory of God and the defense of Holy Mother Church. He is ever prepared to lay siege to the world, the flesh and the devil. For him the conquest of kingdoms means only the salvation of souls for each soul is a kingdom more precious than all the empires of the world."
Quote from: bigbadtrad on February 02, 2019, 10:25:08 PM
I believe it best to understand this quote with the history of St. Anthony Mary Claret, the saint I believe is the prototype of fixing the crisis we are in.
That's not very promising, in that case. St. Anthony did the best he could in Cuba, and "the best" of a saint is a lot, but when he left, he shook the dust off his sandals and predicted terrible things ahead for the island.
Similarly, back in Spain, St. Anthony was the confessor to Queen Isabella II, but things didn't work out too well there either. Both of them were forced to flee to France, where they had to hide from assassins.
Then he had a stroke when he saw what was happening at Vatican I.
So my point is that even a saint with a proven track record of performing miracles cannot change the course of history for a nation or a church that is determined to lose their Faith. When the people are hell-bent on being bent for hell, even a saint cannot stand in front of the mob and stop them as they rush down the broad and easy road that leads to perdition.
Here is my main concern: excuse making for problems in the Church. So yes you can have a good Church with good clergy, and the people can get itchy ears for heresy and become materialistic. Perhaps their government is run by lazy rulers and stuff like that.
At the same time you can get a bad clergy where the laity are decent. This was the case in Vat. II and during the previous period. No one in the laity knew anything about some nut job named Teilhard de Chardin. We also have the fag clergy problem and the pedo problem. I'm not making excuses for that. During that time period 100's of thousands of Catholics would drudge through mud and rain to attend a Eucharistic Congress. We have the historical photos of that. I'm not buying that the problem was with the laity.
The only way we can get reform is with good leadership, which I believe will only happen after a schism, but I'm not a prophet. On the individual basis work on your spiritual life and go to the TLM. That's the best you can do, but we're not fixing this mess.
As far as Fr. R, good talk except that small part. Here's a question I would have asked him: what do you tell your kids when they ask about Bergoglio's teaching on divorce? You have to tell them something. Tell them to follow it, or you are guilty of spiritual pride?
I've told mine that it is likely Pope Benedict is still the Pope or we don't have a Pope.
Quote from: Maximilian on February 03, 2019, 01:53:29 PM
That's not very promising, in that case. St. Anthony did the best he could in Cuba, and "the best" of a saint is a lot, but when he left, he shook the dust off his sandals and predicted terrible things ahead for the island.
Thanks for the reply Max. I find that glass half empty. The seminaries were overflowing, piety in the priests, and reformed marriages for thousands of people living in sin.
QuoteSimilarly, back in Spain, St. Anthony was the confessor to Queen Isabella II, but things didn't work out too well there either. Both of them were forced to flee to France, where they had to hide from assassins.
I fail to understand why that's on him. Christ had assassins. That can't be attributed to His lack of holiness, the same for the Apostles. Success cannot be attributed to the worldly standards.
QuoteThen he had a stroke when he saw what was happening at Vatican I.
Amazing you know that too. So few people know this about him, but it's astounding to me. The story I remember, although not perfect, is he never saw so much heresy in his life than among cardinals and bishops at Vatican I.
QuoteSo my point is that even a saint with a proven track record of performing miracles cannot change the course of history for a nation or a church that is determined to lose their Faith. When the people are hell-bent on being bent for hell, even a saint cannot stand in front of the mob and stop them as they rush down the broad and easy road that leads to perdition.
Christ comes, most of the Apostles flee. Even after Pentecost we read St. John saying in the Revelation to BISHOPS:
"Yet there is one charge I make against thee; of losing the charity that was thine at first. Remember the height from which thou hast fallen, and repent, and go back to the old ways; or else I will come to visit thee, and, when I find thee still unrepentant, will remove thy candlestick from its place." Revelation 2: 4-5
Read the subsequent chapters where bishops are allowing all other crazy things from fornication, falling prey to idols, Satan is enthroned, etc.. I mean the Desert Fathers believed Christ was to return within 1-2 generations because there was no faith left on earth.
In other words, saints can only do so much. People always fall astray. It's the saints who rise the people up. The people left to their own caprices will fall astray every time. People will always be determined to go to Hell. Its historically true. The people cannot reverse that trend no more than a broken clock can fix itself. Getting the leaders we deserve cannot solve the problem, it's mutually guaranteed annihilation --> bad people --> worse leaders --> worse people --> vicious leaders --> (see how you can't fix that?)
To say we get the leaders we deserve makes no sense. Who is worthy of having a saint lead them? How can you "deserve" the presence of a saint? If it about deserve alone we all deserve Hell and viciousness all the time in mutual destruction.
All saints do is slow down destruction. No saint ever had a lasting effect on the community or the people after their death. The saints just give us a light, a place to shine in God's grace, and good leadership is impossible to deserve.
Ars deserved a drunk slob of a priest for their wickedness. St. John Vianney was not who they deserved, but what they needed. They certainly didn't deserve him.
On the contrary, and here I agree with James, how could the average family deserve Paul VI? All of those souls of priests who left, and families who left the faith deserved that? I have a hard time reconciling myself to use of the word "deserve". Maybe I'm myopic and as always I respect your thoughts Max, always have.
Quote from: Xavier on February 02, 2019, 11:28:47 PM
St. John Eudes is teaching us (1) if people live badly, we risk being given bad Shepherds. But on the contrary (2) if we do penance and return to God with our whole hearts, He will without doubt give us good Shepherds. This is plain from the passage of Scripture he cites and how the Saint continues.
It is quite striking to me how, quite often, popular piety, even when allegedly attested to by writings of Saints, involves a complete abandonment of logic.
What in the world is the function of good Shepherds, if not to lead people to God? But here, we have the existence of good Shepherds being dependent on the people already having returned to God, making their existence superfluous.
Quote from: bigbadtrad on February 03, 2019, 04:27:25 PM
QuoteSimilarly, back in Spain, St. Anthony was the confessor to Queen Isabella II, but things didn't work out too well there either. Both of them were forced to flee to France, where they had to hide from assassins.
I fail to understand why that's on him. Christ had assassins. That can't be attributed to His lack of holiness, the same for the Apostles. Success cannot be attributed to the worldly standards.
No, I wasn't blaming St. Anthony. Just the opposite. My point was that even a genuinely holy saint who performed many miracles can only do so much when the people don't want to be converted. When they want, in fact, to be converted away from the Faith and to secular pursuits.
Quote from: bigbadtrad on February 03, 2019, 04:27:25 PM
In other words, saints can only do so much. People always fall astray.
Yes, that's more or less what I was saying.
Quote from: bigbadtrad on February 03, 2019, 04:27:25 PM
It's the saints who rise the people up. The people left to their own caprices will fall astray every time. People will always be determined to go to Hell. Its historically true. The people cannot reverse that trend no more than a broken clock can fix itself.
Generally this is the case throughout history. But there have been times when it has been the reverse. Sometimes the people cry out to God for relief from their depraved leaders.
During the Great Western Schism, none of the numerous popes ever did anything to resolve the crisis.
Quote from: bigbadtrad on February 03, 2019, 04:27:25 PM
To say we get the leaders we deserve makes no sense. Who is worthy of having a saint lead them? How can you "deserve" the presence of a saint?
The American Indians were sent saints to bring them the Gospel on several occasions, sometimes by miraculous means. Father Pierre de Smet says that the Indians deserved this mercy of God due to their great virtue. He says that once an Indian man was converted, it was unthinkable that he would commit another mortal sin.
Quote from: bigbadtrad on February 03, 2019, 04:27:25 PM
On the contrary, and here I agree with James, how could the average family deserve Paul VI? All of those souls of priests who left, and families who left the faith deserved that? I have a hard time reconciling myself to use of the word "deserve".
I believe it. Did the average German or Japanese deserve to be fire-bombed? In one sense, their individual culpability doesn't seem so great. But collectively, yes, they were suffering the just retribution for the sins of their nation.
The average Catholic family in 1962 doesn't seem like they were so terrible that they deserved Vatican II and Paul VI, but in fact collectively they were. Just look at the ecstatic reaction to Vatican II at the time. "Good Pope John" was the Time "Man of the Year."
The ecstatic reception of Hitler by the German people led just a few years later to Dresden and then the post-war horrors. The ecstatic reception of John XXIII by the Catholic people led just a few years later to the firebombing of the Catholic religion and the post-Vatican II horrors.
H.L. Mencken said, "Democracy is when the people get what they deserve. And the get it good and hard." People wanted democracy in the Church. They got what they deserved. And they got it good and hard.
Quote from: bigbadtrad on February 03, 2019, 04:27:25 PM
Maybe I'm myopic and as always I respect your thoughts Max, always have.
A gracious compliment which I hope to deserve.
Unamsanctamcatholicam has a nice article on Jer 3:14-15, "Yes, we get the rulers we deserve. But thankfully, that is not the end of the story. "'Return to me,' declares the LORD Almighty, 'and I will return to you," (Zec. 1:3). Let us return to Him with all our hearts, praying for our priests, praying fervently for godly vocations, for rulers, spiritual and temporal, who will acknowledge God in all their ways and be men after God's own heart. Let us remember that God's glory must be sought and honored first, above all else - above the opinions of men, above the fads of the age, above one's own desires. Only when this is the conviction at the heart of the priesthood will this judgment be lifted from us." http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2014/02/return-o-ye-revolting-children.html
We see many incidents of the same in Israel's history. The issue imho is not at all who sinned first, Priests or Faithful. Probably the answer is both. But I think the right response is for us to take collective responsibility and now strive together to find the way back to God - all can play a part in the restoration imho, at least by prayer and sacrifice, whether Faithful, Nuns, Priests and Bishops, each in their own way. Each of us must seek and do God's will as best we can in our own state of life, strive to give Him maximum possible glory in all our actions, and implore graces in prayer and sacrifice for the Church and the world. Jesus and Mary have asked increased Holy Hours before the Blessed Sacrament as a simple means that all of us can use and that will hasten the Triumph of the Church. Yes, Priests should lead ideally even in this, but if they fail to do so, nothing prevents us from going to weep before the Eucharistic Lord ourselves and implore graces from Him there.
Quote from: Quarehere, we have the existence of good Shepherds being dependent on the people already having returned to God, making their existence superfluous.
Take the example of the promised future Holy Pope, surely a good Shepherd worth praying and waiting for. Can we say we deserve him today? Probably not. But we can have the confidence that the more we ardently pray, work, believe, hope for and desire his coming, God will hasten it, as He also promised Mother Mariana, and then, in the right order, the Shepherds will set things right. "Pray insistently without tiring and weep with bitter tears in the secrecy of your heart, imploring our Celestial Father that, for love of the Eucharistic Heart of my Most Holy Son and His Precious Blood shed with such generosity, and by the profound bitterness and sufferings of His cruel Passion and Death, He might take pity on His ministers and quickly bring to an end those ominous times, sending to this Church the Prelate that will restore the spirit of Her priests." https://www.michaeljournal.org/articles/roman-catholic-church/item/our-lady-of-good-success
Upon seeing the great moral and spiritual catastrophes impending for the 20th century, Mother Mariana offered her life in sacrifice to God to mitigate the trials as much as possible, and to hasten the sending of the Prelate (the future Holy Pope) who will set things right. It doesn't mean the existence of such Shepherds is superfluous. There are things only the Shepherds can do, God wills it so. It's said if we do our best, God will do the rest. If we do all in our power to pray for restoration and fulfil our duties of state, thus giving glory to God, He will send the Shepherds necessary for full restoration to come.
Mother Mariana, the holy Nun to whom this revelation was made, and her spiritual daughters, were able to participate in imploring and obtaining the graces needed for restoration. All Nuns can do the same, the Faithful as well, and every Priest and Bishop who desires to.
Quote from: Miriam_M on February 02, 2019, 09:56:42 PM
Point #3: I think the point of his mentioning SV'ism was not a blanket condemnation of the position itself, or all those who hold it, but rather the claim of superior knowledge (i.e., certainty) of the illegitimacy of particular popes and the supposedly illegitimate position of sedeplenists. Although I doubt that he meant that all people who consider SV'ism as a viable option are in fact intellectually prideful, I do think he meant to apply the charge to those who accuse other Catholics of "not using their intellects," "not applying logic," "being willfully blind," etc. I do not think it is in itself prideful to wonder why one's own position (whatever the opinion on The Seat) is not more universally accepted. I do think it is prideful to assume that people who are not "certain" or unquestioning about The Seat are refusing to use their intellects (an act of will), mentally deficient (an insult), etc.
Trads on this forum and elsewhere regularly accuse individuals - priests, bishops and laity - of not being Catholic, of being heretical, or Protestant, or schismatic, or whatever. Most Trads seem remarkably adept at spotting such individuals and calling them out.
Yet when it comes to Frances, it's the Catholics calling
him out for his heresies who are condemned.
That's quite a double standard. People who work to such double standards tend to be very irritating, and that might explain the accusations that you object to.
Quote from: bigbadtrad on February 02, 2019, 10:25:08 PMThe people deserved it, they got their evil clerics as St. John said, but the light of restoration was a great leader through grace. Grace and holiness cannot be a movement from the bottom up. There is no such thing as lay restoration of the faith. At best the laity can preserve the faith in the face of evil as in the time of the Arians, and the Japanese. Nevertheless, even during Arianism many lost their faith. St. Athanasius's famous sermon "they have the churches we have the faith" is a call to greatness in a feeling of despair.
"There is no such thing as lay restoration of the faith."
I have to agree with this, but it deserves some qualification. It's very true that priests are absolutely necessary for the maintenance and propagation of the Catholic faith. This is not so much due to the
holiness of individual priests or even the priesthood itself, but the simple fact that
they have been endowed with divine authority to preach the faith, and this divine authority to preach is so necessary for the success of the preacher that without it he doesn't even deserve to be called a preacher. You could have a layman extremely well-read in the scriptures, fathers, and scholastics, but send him out into the world and tell him to preach like an apostle and he will never succeed in bearing real fruit – this is the problem with Protestant pseudo-preachers and all their pseudo-apostolic shouting. Nothing happens in this universe without divine approval or permission, and for something
good to happen it must be done in obedience to divine authority and spiritual hierarchy. In order to preach the faith you must be
sent, i.e. by divine appointment. It has nothing to do with human skill.
That said, we need to remember one all-important thing: priests don't fall out of heaven, they come from families, i.e. from laymen. This is what Pope Pius X's mother said when he showed her his episcopal ring: she pointed to her wedding ring and said, "If I didn't have this ring, you wouldn't have that ring." So yes, laymen are necessary for the restoration of the Church, not in as direct a manner as priests and religious, but indirectly because it is in the "domestic church" (the family home) that ecclesiastics are born and bred.
So yes, the Church as a whole cannot be restored without the hierarchy (especially in its upper echelons) first being restored. But the pre-condition of this is the restoring of spiritual integrity to the Christian household, within which the majority of the members of the restored hierarchy will grow up.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on February 03, 2019, 04:55:54 PM
Quote from: Xavier on February 02, 2019, 11:28:47 PM
St. John Eudes is teaching us (1) if people live badly, we risk being given bad Shepherds. But on the contrary (2) if we do penance and return to God with our whole hearts, He will without doubt give us good Shepherds. This is plain from the passage of Scripture he cites and how the Saint continues.
It is quite striking to me how, quite often, popular piety, even when allegedly attested to by writings of Saints, involves a complete abandonment of logic.
What in the world is the function of good Shepherds, if not to lead people to God? But here, we have the existence of good Shepherds being dependent on the people already having returned to God, making their existence superfluous.
Good point, but we can distinguish: (1) an initial conversion, (2) a full restoration.
An initial conversion or about-face in the Church can only come from having men of high merit in positions of authority. This is the case in the Counter-Reformation period where we had men like St. Pius V, St. Charles Borromeo, and St. Philip Neri in that crucial starting stage.
But a full restoration of the Church to a state of health where the hierarchy is not only pulled up and dragged by a few eminent saints, but is flourishing as a whole: comes with the restoration of the Christian household and a devout lay population.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on February 04, 2019, 12:02:52 PM
Trads on this forum and elsewhere regularly accuse individuals - priests, bishops and laity - of not being Catholic, of being heretical, or Protestant, or schismatic, or whatever. Most Trads seem remarkably adept at spotting such individuals and calling them out.
Yet when it comes to Frances, it's the Catholics calling him out for his heresies who are condemned.
That's quite a double standard. People who work to such double standards tend to be very irritating, and that might explain the accusations that you object to.
I haven't condemned you. Have others on SD "condemned" you?
Heresy is a mortal sin. All mortal sins require not just grave matter [in the case of heresy, of denying the truths of the Catholic faith]; they require knowledge and consent. The question is, does Novus Ordo Priest Father X, or does Pope Francis, realize that what he is communicating is unquestionably heresy? Obviously, this relates to the knowledge portion. I don't know how aware you are of the abysmal seminary training that men of Francis' age received. As a relevant aside, a priest from a particular active congregation that is present in my town recently retired. (Thanks be to God; he is no longer mouthing his "heresies" -- labeled very loosely by me -- for impressionable college students to hear and implant in their souls.) His retirement was partly catalyzed, by the way, by his own unorthodox statements, which came to the attention of the local bishop by concerned laity, who reported him over a period of several years.
In any case, this priest, about the same age as Francis I, is fixated on only one period of the Church -- the unstable, unorthodox, experimental period of 1962 to about 1980 -- not that the period following that hasn't also been controversial, but the point is that the priest in question was only capable of referring to the Council time period in all of his homilies and in his stated world view. During his homilies he would constantly quote the Council documents, and nothing else (except also secular literature, which he was fond of quoting). Never once did he refer to Tradition or the traditional saints.
The other aspect of this priest was also his spirit of rebellion and independence, as evidenced in his homilies. This is the defining aspect of the Council and the period surrounding it, including in the secular world: the rejection of authority, the rejection of being subjugated to both human and divine authority, the refusal to recognize the established Church within the context of Tradition as the abiding authority.
Is this man "a heretic," or is he and was he (sadly, for his soul) very badly formed? We can say something objective about the latter; we cannot make a judgment about the former because that requires knowledge known to God. It would require our knowing that he was aware that the Council, if it did reverse doctrine, was a false council and had no binding effect on Catholics -- but that he was willing to join in a heretical movement nevertheless.
From everything I witnessed of this man, for 6 years, he falsely believed -- like thousands of priests of his generation -- that V2 authentically reversed de fide dogma and authentically invented new de fide dogma.
[needed the modification above]
Quote from: John Lamb on February 04, 2019, 12:25:57 PM
So yes, the Church as a whole cannot be restored without the hierarchy (especially in its upper echelons) first being restored. But the pre-condition of this is the restoring of spiritual integrity to the Christian household, within which the majority of the members of the restored hierarchy will grow up.
Well, then you got a problem. You can't restore the faith (which includes its presence in families) without priests, who have divine authority to preach it. But you can't get those priests without Christian families.
Maybe there's a problem with your top-down clericalist model, and there is more of a bottom-up aspect than you realize.
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on February 04, 2019, 01:49:33 PM
Quote from: John Lamb on February 04, 2019, 12:25:57 PM
So yes, the Church as a whole cannot be restored without the hierarchy (especially in its upper echelons) first being restored. But the pre-condition of this is the restoring of spiritual integrity to the Christian household, within which the majority of the members of the restored hierarchy will grow up.
Well, then you got a problem. You can't restore the faith (which includes its presence in families) without priests, who have divine authority to preach it. But you can't get those priests without Christian families.
Maybe there's a problem with your top-down clericalist model, and there is more of a bottom-up aspect than you realize.
I'll go with Saint Augustine on this one: If all of us catholics would stay celibate because of our love to God then Jesus would be come back much sooner. The Church isn't dependent on large families. (Maybe a bit controversial so I'm open for other ideas)
Quote from: Sempronius on February 04, 2019, 02:21:10 PM
I'll go with Saint Augustine on this one: If all of us catholics would stay celibate because of our love to God then Jesus would be come back much sooner. The Church isn't dependent on large families. (Maybe a bit controversial so I'm open for other ideas)
Three separate concepts: celibacy, chastity, continence. Which is it that you are recommending, or you think that St. Augustine recommended? By the way, I'll answer the question: He recommended chastity -- the universal commandment.
So perhaps it would be better framed as four concepts: celibacy particular to the priesthood, chastity binding universally on all, chastity particular to the vowed state, and continence.
He did not recommend universal celibacy because that would imply universal vocations for all men. Ditto for vowed chastity: that would require universal vocations for everyone. Together, they would put population at negative growth, certainly within a generation.
(1) The context of chastity is state in life. That means that chaste married couples will be conceiving and giving birth.
(2) The Church has never declared that the entire human race has vocations to priesthood or religious life. The call is for the few, not the many. Find where St. Augustine, on his own, recommended the entire human race to the priesthood and/or religious life. If he contradicted the Church, he is not to be followed.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1309.htm (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1309.htm)
10. But I am aware of some that murmur: What, say they, if all men should abstain from all sexual intercourse, whence will the human race exist? Would that all would this, only in charity out of a pure heart, and good conscience, and faith unfeigned; much more speedily would the City of God be filled, and the end of the world hastened. For what else does the Apostle, as is manifest, exhort to, when he says, speaking on this head, I would that all were as myself; or in that passage, But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remains that both they who have wives, be as though not having: and they who weep, as though not weeping: and they who rejoice, as though not rejoicing: and they who buy, as though not buying: and they who use this world as though they use it not. For the form of this world passes by. I would have you without care. Then he adds, Whoever is without a wife thinks of the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord: but whoever is joined in marriage, thinks of the things of the world, how to please his wife: and a woman that is unmarried and a virgin is different: she that is unmarried is anxious about the things of the Lord, to be holy both in body and spirit: but she that is married, is anxious about the things of the world, how to please her husband. Whence it seems to me, that at this time, those only, who contain not, ought to marry, according to that sentence of the same Apostle, But if they contain not, let them be married: for it is better to be married than to burn."
I hope I'm not pitting Saint Augustine against the Church, I'm sure if one would read the whole work one would find him congruent with other saints
Quote from: Miriam_M on February 04, 2019, 01:28:54 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on February 04, 2019, 12:02:52 PM
Trads on this forum and elsewhere regularly accuse individuals - priests, bishops and laity - of not being Catholic, of being heretical, or Protestant, or schismatic, or whatever. Most Trads seem remarkably adept at spotting such individuals and calling them out.
Yet when it comes to Frances, it's the Catholics calling him out for his heresies who are condemned.
That's quite a double standard. People who work to such double standards tend to be very irritating, and that might explain the accusations that you object to.
I haven't condemned you. Have others on SD "condemned" you?
Heresy is a mortal sin. All mortal sins require not just grave matter [in the case of heresy, of denying the truths of the Catholic faith]; they require knowledge and consent. The question is, does Novus Ordo Priest Father X, or does Pope Francis, realize that what he is communicating is unquestionably heresy? Obviously, this relates to the knowledge portion. I don't know how aware you are of the abysmal seminary training that men of Francis' age received. As a relevant aside, a priest from a particular active congregation that is present in my town recently retired. (Thanks be to God; he is no longer mouthing his "heresies" -- labeled very loosely by me -- for impressionable college students to hear and implant in their souls.) His retirement was partly catalyzed, by the way, by his own unorthodox statements, which came to the attention of the local bishop by concerned laity, who reported him over a period of several years.
In any case, this priest, about the same age as Francis I, is fixated on only one period of the Church -- the unstable, unorthodox, experimental period of 1962 to about 1980 -- not that the period following that hasn't also been controversial, but the point is that the priest in question was only capable of referring to the Council time period in all of his homilies and in his stated world view. During his homilies he would constantly quote the Council documents, and nothing else (except also secular literature, which he was fond of quoting). Never once did he refer to Tradition or the traditional saints.
The other aspect of this priest was also his spirit of rebellion and independence, as evidenced in his homilies. This is the defining aspect of the Council and the period surrounding it, including in the secular world: the rejection of authority, the rejection of being subjugated to both human and divine authority, the refusal to recognize the established Church within the context of Tradition as the abiding authority.
Is this man "a heretic," or is he and was he (sadly, for his soul) very badly formed? We can say something objective about the latter; we cannot make a judgment about the former because that requires knowledge known to God. It would require our knowing that he was aware that the Council, if it did reverse doctrine, was a false council and had no binding effect on Catholics -- but that he was willing to join in a heretical movement nevertheless.
From everything I witnessed of this man, for 6 years, he falsely believed -- like thousands of priests of his generation -- that V2 authentically reversed de fide dogma and authentically invented new de fide dogma.
[needed the modification above]
So all the bad priests and bishops who were badly formed get a pass and heaven.
QuoteSo Jane X comes into the confessional and she is in for a talk about contraception and her problems with her husband in this area.
Monsignor D keeps repeated over and over don't break up the family.
Jane X goes away and practices contraception to keep the family together which pleases her husband to no end.
Poor Monsignor he was poorly formed and was overwhelmed by VII. He gets a great big PASS by God.
Where does this end? Where? No body is accountable, that is where.
Your whole analysis of the past 50 years is full of holes, big ones.
Quote from: Miriam_M on February 04, 2019, 01:28:54 PM
The question is, does Novus Ordo Priest Father X, or does Pope Francis, realize that what he is communicating is unquestionably heresy?
I find it incredible that anyone could, in all seriousness, ask this.
It puts a new slant on the old question - Is the Pope Catholic?
Because now you're suggesting that the new answer is - He doesn't know.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on February 04, 2019, 08:22:22 PM
Because now you're suggesting that the new answer is - He doesn't know.
That's Bishop Williamson's position, sometimes referred to as "Mentevacantism."
Quote from: Maximilian on February 04, 2019, 08:43:58 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on February 04, 2019, 08:22:22 PM
Because now you're suggesting that the new answer is - He doesn't know.
That's Bishop Williamson's position, sometimes referred to as "Mentevacantism."
Ah, I didn't make the connection. Is that what 'Mentevacantism is? Francis doesn't realise he isn't Catholic because he wasn't taught the Catholic Faith in seminary?
And in the fifty or so decades since seminary, he hasn't bothered to find out?
That's some argument.
Archbishop Lefebvre's refutation of the absurdity of decades-long (even 30 years, let alone 60 year) sedevacantism is as valid now as ever, "The visibility of the Church is too necessary to Her existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope puts the Church in an inextricable situation. Who will tell us who the future Pope is to be? How, as there are no Cardinals, is he to be chosen? This spirit is a schismatical one for at least the majority of those who attach themselves to certainly schismatical sects like Palmar de Troya, the Eglise Latine de Toulouse, and others.
Our Fraternity absolutely refuses to enter into such reasonings. We wish to remain attached to Rome and to the Successor of Peter, while refusing his Liberalism through fidelity to his predecessors. We are not afraid to speak to him, respectfully but firmly, as did St. Paul with St. Peter. And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope, we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith.
Thus, I have never refused to go to Rome at his request or that of his representatives. The Truth must be affirmed at Rome above all other places. It is of God, and He will assure its ultimate triumph." https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm
Our Lady said very truly to a mystic, "And respect for a Priest is always a sign of a Christian education. Woe to those Priests who lose their apostolic ardour! Also Jesus said that. But woe also to those who think that they are right in despising them! Because they consecrate and hand out the True Bread that descends from Heaven. And that contact makes them holy, just like a sacred chalice, even if they are not totally holy. They will answer to God for it. You must consider them as such and not worry about anything else. You must not be more strict than your Lord Jesus, Who, at their command, leaves Heaven and descends to be raised by their hands.
You must learn from Him. And if they are blind, if they are deaf, if their souls are paralyzed and their thoughts are unsound, if they are lepers full of faults in strong contrast with their mission, if they are like corpses in sepulchers, then call Jesus that He may heal them and revive them. Call Him with your prayers, and your suffering, o victim souls. To save a soul is to predestine one's own soul to Heaven. But to save the soul of a Priest is to save a large number of souls, because every holy Priest is a net that drags souls to God. And to save a Priest, that is to sanctify: re-sanctify, is to create this mystical net ... a light to be added to your eternal crown. Go in peace."
Jesus and Mary, not once but a 1000 times, not through 1 mystic, but through several dozen, have been imploring (literally pleading) for something like a worldwide confraternity of victim souls praying and sacrificing for the Hierarchy, the Priesthood and those in Religious Life even from the Laity, because that is one of the greatest needs of our times. But few bother to listen to their pleas and we prefer to do it our own way. When all Catholics, Clerical and Lay alike, start listening to Jesus and Mary, our situation will begin to change.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on February 04, 2019, 09:04:01 PM
Quote from: Maximilian on February 04, 2019, 08:43:58 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on February 04, 2019, 08:22:22 PM
Because now you're suggesting that the new answer is - He doesn't know.
That's Bishop Williamson's position, sometimes referred to as "Mentevacantism."
Ah, I didn't make the connection. Is that what 'Mentevacantism is? Francis doesn't realise he isn't Catholic because he wasn't taught the Catholic Faith in seminary?
And in the fifty or so decades since seminary, he hasn't bothered to find out?
That's some argument.
I'm drawn to that view (first time I read that word). Many priests and bishops dont have the psychological resources to cope with the sexual revolution of our society. Its normal now for women to indulge in their fantasies and it puts a man out of his normal state of mind (especially in his youth if he most acutely feels that he is not the object of their desires.) Vatican 2 gives them some breathing space.
Quote from: Xavier on February 04, 2019, 10:45:10 PM
Jesus and Mary, not once but a 1000 times, not through 1 mystic, but through several dozen, have been imploring (literally pleading) for something like a worldwide confraternity of victim souls praying and sacrificing for the Hierarchy, the Priesthood and those in Religious Life even from the Laity, because that is one of the greatest needs of our times. But few bother to listen to their pleas and we prefer to do it our own way. When all Catholics, Clerical and Lay alike, start listening to Jesus and Mary, our situation will begin to change.
Do any of these 'mystics' who claim to speak for 'Jesus and Mary' ever suggest that the laity actually
DOES SOMETHING.
Apart from quietly suffering in the corner, that is.
Take no action against the blasphemies and insults against Christ and Our Lady that take place every day in a typical NO church? Do nothing? Just suffer?
While the horror show continues?
So, prayer and sacrifice for the Triumph of the Church does not count as "something"? Somebody should tell that to St. Anthony of Egypt, to whom St. Athanasius attributed many of the Church's victories over Arianism. This isn't a naturalistic fight, but a spiritual and supernatural battle.
The most important thing the laity can do is (1) fulfil well the duties of their own state of life, and (2) support good Bishops in the Church.
And yes, Bishops like St. Athanasius - who himself btw, though he held perfect Faith himself, did not neglect to work with other Bishops who perhaps didn't hold perfectly sound views, but intended to and were good - are a necessary part of restoration. It cannot be any other way.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on February 04, 2019, 08:22:22 PM
Quote from: Miriam_M on February 04, 2019, 01:28:54 PM
The question is, does Novus Ordo Priest Father X, or does Pope Francis, realize that what he is communicating is unquestionably heresy?
I find it incredible that anyone could, in all seriousness, ask this.
It puts a new slant on the old question - Is the Pope Catholic?
Because now you're suggesting that the new answer is - He doesn't know.
Yes, that is what I am suggesting, because seminarians, really beginning from about 1961, but certainly including the years of the Council convocations and 10-15 years following those, were plunged into chaotic and confusing teaching -- from a combination of confused formators, to outright renegade professors, theologians, and spiritual directors who made it up as they went along or so "personalized" Catholicism that it ceased to be recognizable. Teaching to priests lacked uniformity and was constantly apologizing for daring to sound Catholic. Lots of outright ambiguity, reflecting the ambiguity (literally multiple authorship of several documents) of the Council itself.
To some priests formed during that time period, you could ask them today -- those who are still alive-- to define Catholicism, and the answers would vary dramatically. To many, especially those influenced by Latin American Catholicism, the faith is not distinguishable from secular social justice, particularly the political Left. To others, it's about pro-life activism, modern "saints," repudiation of the Traditional movement, and the most modern of the so-called theologians -- Scott Hahn and company (i.e., "conservative" Catholicism). To other priests, all religion is local (borrowed from the phrase, "All politics is local"). By that I mean that Catholicism to them is Protestantism with Sacraments: each individual parish does not reflect the universal Tradition of the Church but rather local/cultural/ethnic/idiosyncratic Catholic life in both spirituality and liturgy. The predominant devotions and the variations within the Novus Ordo Mass at each parish reflect the popular preferences among parishioners.
Yes, it's my personal belief that Pope Francis is confused about what Catholicism is, and -- like his generation of priests -- has been confused for so long and living in a muddled, gray area for so long that he and they consider that state of ambiguity to be the universal norm for Catholics, and certainly the norm for themselves. That's the great irony of this: that what bothers them the most about Tradition is the definitive character of it, opposing the indefinite Church of the modern era with which they have come to identify and on which they stake their priesthood. That's why Tradition is considered the soft heresy by most of the hierarchy.
Quote from: Miriam_M on February 04, 2019, 01:28:54 PM
Heresy is a mortal sin. All mortal sins require not just grave matter [in the case of heresy, of denying the truths of the Catholic faith]; they require knowledge and consent.
Knowledge as a criterion of mortal sin means
knowledge of the act, knowledge of what one is doing. It's why someone who has lost his reason won't sin in what he subsequently does: he doesn't know what he is doing. It is not, as it's now generally spun by the Novus Ordo, a reference to a theory of subjective conscience that subjectivises sin, an "Oh, sorry God! I didn't know that was evil!".
An act of heresy, if one is actually committing it, is mortally sinful. But heresy, in its essence, involves pertinacity, a pertinacity in denying what one knows the Church to have taught.
QuoteThe question is, does Novus Ordo Priest Father X, or does Pope Francis, realize that what he is communicating is unquestionably heresy? Obviously, this relates to the knowledge portion. I don't know how aware you are of the abysmal seminary training that men of Francis' age received. As a relevant aside, a priest from a particular active congregation that is present in my town recently retired. (Thanks be to God; he is no longer mouthing his "heresies" -- labeled very loosely by me -- for impressionable college students to hear and implant in their souls.) His retirement was partly catalyzed, by the way, by his own unorthodox statements, which came to the attention of the local bishop by concerned laity, who reported him over a period of several years.
In any case, this priest, about the same age as Francis I, is fixated on only one period of the Church -- the unstable, unorthodox, experimental period of 1962 to about 1980 -- not that the period following that hasn't also been controversial, but the point is that the priest in question was only capable of referring to the Council time period in all of his homilies and in his stated world view. During his homilies he would constantly quote the Council documents, and nothing else (except also secular literature, which he was fond of quoting). Never once did he refer to Tradition or the traditional saints.
The other aspect of this priest was also his spirit of rebellion and independence, as evidenced in his homilies. This is the defining aspect of the Council and the period surrounding it, including in the secular world: the rejection of authority, the rejection of being subjugated to both human and divine authority, the refusal to recognize the established Church within the context of Tradition as the abiding authority.
You just answered your own question. A spirit of pride and rebellion in belief and doctrine is the spirit of heresy. These people quote Vatican II to support their errors while ignoring the Bible and 2,000-year tradition because they believe the council to teach
what they want to teach.
QuoteIs this man "a heretic," or is he and was he (sadly, for his soul) very badly formed? We can say something objective about the latter; we cannot make a judgment about the former because that requires knowledge known to God. It would require our knowing that he was aware that the Council, if it did reverse doctrine, was a false council and had no binding effect on Catholics -- but that he was willing to join in a heretical movement nevertheless.
No, it doesn't require knowing that, because committing heresy doesn't require knowing what you list.
QuoteFrom everything I witnessed of this man, for 6 years, he falsely believed -- like thousands of priests of his generation -- that V2 authentically reversed de fide dogma and authentically invented new de fide dogma.
And a reversal of what is de fide is in principle a pertincious denial of what the Church has taught; for a Catholic to place belief in such a reversal is heresy by definition. If he thought it's what the Church has always taught, that's another matter; but he clearly did know.
Moreover, Francis in his pronouncement on capital punishement, changed what he KNOWS was in the CCC. There's no question its pertinaceous.
Quote from: Miriam_M on February 05, 2019, 02:56:13 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on February 04, 2019, 08:22:22 PM
Quote from: Miriam_M on February 04, 2019, 01:28:54 PM
The question is, does Novus Ordo Priest Father X, or does Pope Francis, realize that what he is communicating is unquestionably heresy?
I find it incredible that anyone could, in all seriousness, ask this.
It puts a new slant on the old question - Is the Pope Catholic?
Because now you're suggesting that the new answer is - He doesn't know.
Yes, that is what I am suggesting...
Well out of the horses mouth:
"I feel like saying something that may sound controversial,
or even heretical, perhaps."
Min 4:11
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGOGfKeDKy8[/yt]
He admits his heresy. Journalists admit he delights doing interviews saying heretical things. There is no way he can't know. The stained glass in the church he says Mass condemns him.
Quote from: bigbadtrad on February 05, 2019, 04:19:21 AM
Quote from: Miriam_M on February 05, 2019, 02:56:13 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on February 04, 2019, 08:22:22 PM
Quote from: Miriam_M on February 04, 2019, 01:28:54 PM
The question is, does Novus Ordo Priest Father X, or does Pope Francis, realize that what he is communicating is unquestionably heresy?
I find it incredible that anyone could, in all seriousness, ask this.
It puts a new slant on the old question - Is the Pope Catholic?
Because now you're suggesting that the new answer is - He doesn't know.
Yes, that is what I am suggesting...
Well out of the horses mouth:
"I feel like saying something that may sound controversial, or even heretical, perhaps."
Min 4:11
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGOGfKeDKy8[/yt]
He admits his heresy. Journalists admit he delights doing interviews saying heretical things. There is no way he can't know. The stained glass in the church he says Mass condemns him.
Thats just an expression. One trad priest once said "This may sound heretical, but.."
Edit: or maybe he (Francis) doesnt take theology seriously, which is a fault of course
Quote from: Sempronius on February 05, 2019, 05:09:15 AM
Thats just an expression. One trad priest once said "This may sound heretical, but.."
Edit: or maybe he (Francis) doesnt take theology seriously, which is a fault of course
Sorry you're dead wrong. Maybe you didn't watch the video or maybe you agree with his heresy. His next line was "despite our differences, we are one." That is HERESY, not flippancy. I'm not one with heretics.
1st he acknowledges what he is going to say is heretical, then says heresy. You don't get more clear than that.
Flippancy is not a virtue, whether it is a priest or anyone else. Fr. Faber said there is no holiness without a hatred of heresy. If a priest makes heresy flippant, traditional or otherwise, he's wrong to do so.
Quote from: bigbadtrad on February 05, 2019, 06:13:56 AM
Fr. Faber said there is no holiness without a hatred of heresy.
This.
There is no holiness without a hatred of heresy.
Quote from: Kreuzritter on February 05, 2019, 03:59:02 AM
Knowledge as a criterion of mortal sin means knowledge of the act, knowledge of what one is doing. It's why someone who has lost his reason won't sin in what he subsequently does: he doesn't know what he is doing. It is not, as it's now generally spun by the Novus Ordo, a reference to a theory of subjective conscience that subjectivises sin, an "Oh, sorry God! I didn't know that was evil!".
Catechism of St Pius X:
"31 Q. When is there full advertence in sinning?
A. Full advertence in sinning is had when we know perfectly well that we are doing a serious evil."
If there is less than full advertence, then there is no mortal sin. If the person does not know it is serious sin, there is also no mortal sin, unless he were truly culpably ignorant (hard to guage in practice precisely when full culpability kicks in...).
Guys, guys, guys. If you want to get into this in greater depth, we can move it to the Sede Subforum, please. It wasn't my intention to provoke (as I said in a later reply) when I mentioned the "example of SV'ism." I was paraphrasing Fr. R. It's one thing to state "unequivocally" that one "knows" that Francis I is a heretic (even though that is not the Church's definition, given that the Church defines the heretical status of a pope as something formally declared, which no layman can do). It's another thing to start piling on posters who disagree with one's subjective (albeit logical) interpretation of Francis' intentions --based on his words-- an interpretation which carried to its logical conclusion inclines toward unorthodoxy, at the least.
I don't know where some of you have been, prior to Francis' accession. Have you not attended Mass at parishes and brought your children to parish priests who make Francis look like a trad? The unraveling of Catholic theology and the virtual standing on its head of Catholic theology permeated the Church after the Council. Francis is the fruit, not the cause. Better formed priests ring alarm bells at some of his public statements, but better formed are the minority. The majority are Yes Men. Many of them also symbolize, like Francis, the disintegration of recognizable Catholicism over the past half century. Others know better but are cowards. Others know better but are in denial -- "hoping" in charity that Francis does not mean what he says.
For the record, that, just there ^ is not my position. I do not believe that Francis does not mean what he says. I am not that naive. But beyond that, I cannot say. At best, he is ignorant. At second best, he has experienced and is still experiencing a prolonged crisis of faith. At worst, he is malevolent, but I cannot read his soul nor can anyone here.
My duty as a Catholic is not to figure out whether a single pope since the Council is or is not truly Catholic, is or is not ignorant, is or is not malevolent. My duty as a Catholic is to internally assent to the Faith and externally live the Faith, which includes obeying the Church. But I must disobey a false representation of that Church, whether it is proclaimed and lived in a parish priest or in a pope. And I know what the true representation is because the Church has declared that dogma cannot change and attempts to change it contradict Truth, and I was taught authentically to recognize the consistent Truth and to discard whatever opposes that. No parish priest and no pope has independent authority to do violence to that consistent body of belief; each of them is charged solemnly with upholding the permanent body of belief and not informally re-interpreting it subjectively.
Are Francis' public statements unorthodox? Yes, many, many of them.
Are his statements in substance heretical? Yes, many of them.
If one even privately holds to beliefs that contradict Church teaching, is that defined as the individual mortal sin of heresy? Yes.
Is that the same thing as being a formal heretic? Not according to the Church. Whether for priests or for popes, the cleric in question has to be formally declared so.
Is it likely that those appointed to recognize heresy in a pope (or anyone else) will do so? No.
Should we be mortified at that? We should be more than mortified; we should be enraged and filled with sorrow and indignation. We should feel betrayed, because we have been.
What should we do when we hear Francis' outrageous statements? The same thing we are obliged to do when we see any person, including a member of the clergy, commit grave matter: make acts of reparation on behalf of the ostensible sinner.
Francis is not going to be formally declared a heretic on a discussion forum and may never be, even long after his death. The true Church may never be restored to its former glory before The Second Coming. All of that means enormous suffering for those among the Church Militant who know that the interminable spectrum of gray is not the location of Catholic teaching.
The most nefarious effect of Francis' statements is not the intellectual confusion he creates among laity, nor even his abominable leadership of the clergy. It is his effect on private prayer of the laity. (JMO) I have lost dozens upon dozens of opportunities for indulgences directly because of him. Since I know that God reads my heart and will not be mocked, I cannot sincerely "pray for the Pope's intentions" because I cannot trust what those intentions are. And yes, I mean his intentions for the Church because I don't know what those are, and it sometimes frightens me what those intentions are. It saddens me enormously and discourages me greatly that I have been robbed of these opportunities for indulgences. Surely I am not alone.
None of the above means that I can "know" what his private beliefs are. There are times when I think he is all show -- that he makes provocative statements for and to his non-Catholic audience, who largely love him, while believing something quite different internally. I don't know any more what his private beliefs are, and I don't care, because the hierarchy in general, with a few brave exceptions, have been massive disappointments as clergy and as men. I do know that Francis' formal or informal heresy will not matter at my Particular Judgment, which is the only thing (between now and then) I have any control over.
Quote from: King Wenceslas on February 04, 2019, 03:43:01 PM
So all the bad priests and bishops who were badly formed get a pass and heaven.
Never said it; never implied it. For starters, their so-called formators will most likely get a pass to Hell. Secondarily, priests who encounter cognitive dissonance, theologically/doctrinally (what they were taught versus what Church documents say) and do not respond to their consciences, will be judged accordingly by Truth Himself. But that's not your or my judgment to make.
QuoteYour whole analysis of the past 50 years is full of holes, big ones.
Your whole understanding of what I posted about the past 50 years is full of holes, big ones.
Objectively, priests were taught errors. Many of those priests ascended to positions of bishop, cardinals, and popes. They continued, there, their erroneous teaching.
That is an accurate picture of the past 50 years.
Quote from: Miriam_M on February 05, 2019, 01:26:21 PM
What should we do when we hear Francis' outrageous statements? The same thing we are obliged to do when we see any person, including a member of the clergy, commit grave matter: make acts of reparation on behalf of the ostensible sinner.
This is a very common opinion among Trads.
When we see beach balls on the altar, dancing girls in the Sanctuary and all manner of appalling spectacles, we are obliged to
make acts of reparation on behalf of the ostensible sinner. But why aren't we also obliged to drive the blasphemers out of the church, or even to just stand up for once and say something?
Reparation/Victim Soul theology plays a part in this suppression of action. Many Trads have taken this concept so far that they seem to have forgotten that we're supposed to belong to the Church Militant.
Whatever happened to the Church Militant? Is the Church Militant, which we belong to, supposed to
only pray and make sacrifices. How about praying and making sacrifices and
then taking the Modernist destroyers by the scruff of the neck and driving them out of the Holy Place?
Quote from: St. Columba on February 05, 2019, 08:13:46 AM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on February 05, 2019, 03:59:02 AM
Knowledge as a criterion of mortal sin means knowledge of the act, knowledge of what one is doing. It's why someone who has lost his reason won't sin in what he subsequently does: he doesn't know what he is doing. It is not, as it's now generally spun by the Novus Ordo, a reference to a theory of subjective conscience that subjectivises sin, an "Oh, sorry God! I didn't know that was evil!".
Catechism of St Pius X:
"31 Q. When is there full advertence in sinning?
A. Full advertence in sinning is had when we know perfectly well that we are doing a serious evil."
If there is less than full advertence, then there is no mortal sin. If the person does not know it is serious sin, there is also no mortal sin, unless he were truly culpably ignorant (hard to guage in practice precisely when full culpability kicks in...).
If that means what you
contend it means, then it's moral subjectivism. And you can spin it any which way, it will remain moral subjectivism: an act is only truly morally evil if the actor believes it to be evil. The nature of the act and the motives of the heart be damned.
And this is where intellectualising morality in the pagan tradition of the Greeks, contrary to the morality of the heart of Hebrew scripture, leads us. Where the latter's knowledge is one of the heart and love, and the act is known to be evil by conscious experience of its essential nature as contrary to that of divine charity, in the former this knowledge is changed into knowledge of whether or not it is "wrong" in the sense of being "forbidden", where the usual schtick is to invoke the natural law of reason. And here, too, the moral relativist can step in.
On the one end of this we have hard legalism without love and mercy, and the legal loopholes of Pharisaism; on the other end, we have people knowing what the act
is and willing it from their hearts but being guilty of no mortal sin because they didn't "know" it's "evil". This view is incompatible with a belief in the existence of intrinsically evil acts and with every kind of belief in real essences.
However, note the wording of the Catechism: "full advertence in sinning is had when we know perfectly well
that we are doing a serious evil"; it does not say "when we know
what we are doing is a serious evil". The distinction is significant but easy to miss. In the first the object of our knowledge is our act which is evil; in the second, the object of our knowledge is the moral status of our act as evil. The one excuse is "I didn't know I was
committing an evil act", the other "I didn't know I was committing an
evil act." One of these fits into the morality taught by Christ; the other potentially excuses women intentionally killing their own babies in the womb.
.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on February 05, 2019, 03:47:25 PM
But why aren't we also obliged to drive the blasphemers out of the church, or even to just stand up for once and say something?
How do you mean? Grab them by the arm and drag them out of the church so you receive a battery charge? You will be denounced by every priest and bishop in sight. And you'll have a misdemeanor on your record, probably won't see jail time though...unless you do it again because it didn't work the first time. The person you dragged out will have become a martyr and you will look like a religious crazy. It doesn't seem "wise as serpents" to do such a thing. Maybe that's just my womanly caution.
Quote from: Josephine87 on February 06, 2019, 10:00:45 PM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on February 05, 2019, 03:47:25 PM
But why aren't we also obliged to drive the blasphemers out of the church, or even to just stand up for once and say something?
How do you mean? Grab them by the arm and drag them out of the church so you receive a battery charge? You will be denounced by every priest and bishop in sight. And you'll have a misdemeanor on your record, probably won't see jail time though...unless you do it again because it didn't work the first time. The person you dragged out will have become a martyr and you will look like a religious crazy. It doesn't seem "wise as serpents" to do such a thing. Maybe that's just my womanly caution.
It wasn't meant to be taken literally. It was meant to be a challenge to certain state of mind.
Having said that, direct action works, especially if it's carried out by the kind of people who don't worry about having misdemeanours on their record and instead consider them to be badges of pride.
Meanwhile, the Church Militant huddles.
Quote from: Miriam_M on February 05, 2019, 01:26:21 PMThe most nefarious effect of Francis' statements is not the intellectual confusion he creates among laity, nor even his abominable leadership of the clergy. It is his effect on private prayer of the laity. (JMO) I have lost dozens upon dozens of opportunities for indulgences directly because of him. Since I know that God reads my heart and will not be mocked, I cannot sincerely "pray for the Pope's intentions" because I cannot trust what those intentions are. And yes, I mean his intentions for the Church because I don't know what those are, and it sometimes frightens me what those intentions are. It saddens me enormously and discourages me greatly that I have been robbed of these opportunities for indulgences. Surely I am not alone.
You might want to consult a priest about this Miriam, but I'm quite certain that you shouldn't worry about this and should not be depriving yourself of indulgences; because I might be mistaken, but I think that "praying for the pope's intentions" has a specific legal designation, such that you are praying for a certain set of 3 or 4
default things which the pope intends by virtue of his office (e.g. praying for the success of the missions is I think one of them), intentions which are all fully good and orthodox; and even if the pope has his own private intentions which are contrary to the will of God, you don't have to worry because God will not grant them and He knows that you don't intend to co-operate with such ill intentions whenever you "pray for the pope's intentions."
Quote from: Kreuzritter on February 05, 2019, 05:47:56 PM
Quote from: St. Columba on February 05, 2019, 08:13:46 AM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on February 05, 2019, 03:59:02 AM
Knowledge as a criterion of mortal sin means knowledge of the act, knowledge of what one is doing. It's why someone who has lost his reason won't sin in what he subsequently does: he doesn't know what he is doing. It is not, as it's now generally spun by the Novus Ordo, a reference to a theory of subjective conscience that subjectivises sin, an "Oh, sorry God! I didn't know that was evil!".
Catechism of St Pius X:
"31 Q. When is there full advertence in sinning?
A. Full advertence in sinning is had when we know perfectly well that we are doing a serious evil."
If there is less than full advertence, then there is no mortal sin. If the person does not know it is serious sin, there is also no mortal sin, unless he were truly culpably ignorant (hard to guage in practice precisely when full culpability kicks in...).
If that means what you contend it means, then it's moral subjectivism. And you can spin it any which way, it will remain moral subjectivism: an act is only truly morally evil if the actor believes it to be evil. The nature of the act and the motives of the heart be damned.
And this is where intellectualising morality in the pagan tradition of the Greeks, contrary to the morality of the heart of Hebrew scripture, leads us. Where the latter's knowledge is one of the heart and love, and the act is known to be evil by conscious experience of its essential nature as contrary to that of divine charity, in the former this knowledge is changed into knowledge of whether or not it is "wrong" in the sense of being "forbidden", where the usual schtick is to invoke the natural law of reason. And here, too, the moral relativist can step in.
On the one end of this we have hard legalism without love and mercy, and the legal loopholes of Pharisaism; on the other end, we have people knowing what the act is and willing it from their hearts but being guilty of no mortal sin because they didn't "know" it's "evil". This view is incompatible with a belief in the existence of intrinsically evil acts and with every kind of belief in real essences.
However, note the wording of the Catechism: "full advertence in sinning is had when we know perfectly well that we are doing a serious evil"; it does not say "when we know what we are doing is a serious evil". The distinction is significant but easy to miss. In the first the object of our knowledge is our act which is evil; in the second, the object of our knowledge is the moral status of our act as evil. The one excuse is "I didn't know I was committing an evil act", the other "I didn't know I was committing an evil act." One of these fits into the morality taught by Christ; the other potentially excuses women intentionally killing their own babies in the womb.
Kreuz, I think there is a certain degree of subjectivism in morality because it deals necessarily with moral subjects, with minds. What about an ignorant pagan who shows up at Mass and receives Holy Communion with the intentions of "doing as the Christians do & honouring their traditions"? Objectively, he has committed a grave evil (sacrilege) – but subjectively, is he guilty of a mortal sin? In fact, he may subjectively be doing a good thing, assuming he isn't being gravely negligent in neglecting to look up the Church's law.
As I understand it, subjectivism properly speaking is an error or heresy when it goes so far as to say that it's left to the moral subjects themselves to
determine what is the moral law; I do not deem it heretical subjectivism to say that our guilt is proportionate to the degree of our knowledge of the laws which we have trespassed. Some might say this leads to absurd consequences like fornication or abortion being guiltless for those who apparently aren't aware of their culpability, but the truth is that most able human beings have an intuitive awareness of the sinfulness of such acts because of the natural law written on their hearts, and they are guilty to the extent that they wilfully suppress this knowledge.
Quote from: John Lamb on February 07, 2019, 10:14:09 AM
Quote from: Miriam_M on February 05, 2019, 01:26:21 PMThe most nefarious effect of Francis' statements is not the intellectual confusion he creates among laity, nor even his abominable leadership of the clergy. It is his effect on private prayer of the laity. (JMO) I have lost dozens upon dozens of opportunities for indulgences directly because of him. Since I know that God reads my heart and will not be mocked, I cannot sincerely "pray for the Pope's intentions" because I cannot trust what those intentions are. And yes, I mean his intentions for the Church because I don't know what those are, and it sometimes frightens me what those intentions are. It saddens me enormously and discourages me greatly that I have been robbed of these opportunities for indulgences. Surely I am not alone.
You might want to consult a priest about this Miriam, but I'm quite certain that you shouldn't worry about this and should not be depriving yourself of indulgences; because I might be mistaken, but I think that "praying for the pope's intentions" has a specific legal designation, such that you are praying for a certain set of 3 or 4 default things which the pope intends by virtue of his office (e.g. praying for the success of the missions is I think one of them), intentions which are all fully good and orthodox; and even if the pope has his own private intentions which are contrary to the will of God, you don't have to worry because God will not grant them and He knows that you don't intend to co-operate with such ill intentions whenever you "pray for the pope's intentions."
I pray for the pope and his holy intentions.
Quote from: John Lamb on February 07, 2019, 10:14:09 AM
Quote from: Miriam_M on February 05, 2019, 01:26:21 PMThe most nefarious effect of Francis' statements is not the intellectual confusion he creates among laity, nor even his abominable leadership of the clergy. It is his effect on private prayer of the laity. (JMO) I have lost dozens upon dozens of opportunities for indulgences directly because of him. Since I know that God reads my heart and will not be mocked, I cannot sincerely "pray for the Pope's intentions" because I cannot trust what those intentions are. And yes, I mean his intentions for the Church because I don't know what those are, and it sometimes frightens me what those intentions are. It saddens me enormously and discourages me greatly that I have been robbed of these opportunities for indulgences. Surely I am not alone.
You might want to consult a priest about this Miriam, but I'm quite certain that you shouldn't worry about this and should not be depriving yourself of indulgences; because I might be mistaken, but I think that "praying for the pope's intentions" has a specific legal designation, such that you are praying for a certain set of 3 or 4 default things which the pope intends by virtue of his office (e.g. praying for the success of the missions is I think one of them), intentions which are all fully good and orthodox; and even if the pope has his own private intentions which are contrary to the will of God, you don't have to worry because God will not grant them and He knows that you don't intend to co-operate with such ill intentions whenever you "pray for the pope's intentions."
Sometimes I pray for his intentions - that they may improve ;)! But I suppose that doesn't really count.. so I pray for his
Catholic intentions (even a stopped clock is right twice a day).
Quote from: MundaCorMeum on February 07, 2019, 03:34:17 PM
Quote from: John Lamb on February 07, 2019, 10:14:09 AM
Quote from: Miriam_M on February 05, 2019, 01:26:21 PMThe most nefarious effect of Francis' statements is not the intellectual confusion he creates among laity, nor even his abominable leadership of the clergy. It is his effect on private prayer of the laity. (JMO) I have lost dozens upon dozens of opportunities for indulgences directly because of him. Since I know that God reads my heart and will not be mocked, I cannot sincerely "pray for the Pope's intentions" because I cannot trust what those intentions are. And yes, I mean his intentions for the Church because I don't know what those are, and it sometimes frightens me what those intentions are. It saddens me enormously and discourages me greatly that I have been robbed of these opportunities for indulgences. Surely I am not alone.
You might want to consult a priest about this Miriam, but I'm quite certain that you shouldn't worry about this and should not be depriving yourself of indulgences; because I might be mistaken, but I think that "praying for the pope's intentions" has a specific legal designation, such that you are praying for a certain set of 3 or 4 default things which the pope intends by virtue of his office (e.g. praying for the success of the missions is I think one of them), intentions which are all fully good and orthodox; and even if the pope has his own private intentions which are contrary to the will of God, you don't have to worry because God will not grant them and He knows that you don't intend to co-operate with such ill intentions whenever you "pray for the pope's intentions."
I pray for the pope and his holy intentions.
Father Z covered this once. You can pray for the
objective intentions of the Pope. There's a list of 6 intentions, I believe, that are orthodox.
I respect the replies of others. I guess, for me, I demand more wholeheartedness of myself when it comes to his intentions. It would be the same as if I entered the confessional and were not fully repentant of a mortal sin. (That's never happened to me regarding mortal sins, but it's a possibility for any of us.) For venial sins, all that is necessary is to be fully repentant of one of the confessed sins, for the others to be forgiven as well.
Someone mentioned the missions; maybe it was John Lamb. The question would still be for me, Which missions? When trad apostolates do missionary work, my understanding is that they say and preach the Traditional Latin Mass; too bad if the locals don't know Latin. (Possibly they don't know English either.) When particular religious congregations, such as modern women's congregations, do missionary work, they often compromise the faith a great deal to "accommodate" to the local culture. In fact, sometimes, religion is not mentioned at all! (It's just "glorified" social work, if "glory" even applies in that context.) The latter is directly from people who do such work. These are essentially just secular NGO's with a religious name attached to them.
Then there are congregations of men who encourage an "enculturated" Novus Ordo Mass -- pagan prayers, dancing, what have you. I'm sure those are sanctioned by the Vatican. And all of the above would fall into the category of "success of the missions." Why would I want to pray for the multiplication of false religions?
Quote from: John Lamb on February 07, 2019, 10:30:07 AM
Kreuz, I think there is a certain degree of subjectivism in morality because it deals necessarily with moral subjects, with minds. What about an ignorant pagan who shows up at Mass and receives Holy Communion with the intentions of "doing as the Christians do & honouring their traditions"? Objectively, he has committed a grave evil (sacrilege) – but subjectively, is he guilty of a mortal sin? In fact, he may subjectively be doing a good thing, assuming he isn't being gravely negligent in neglecting to look up the Church's law.
Allow me to elucidate by example: if I knowingly and wilfully take the life of another human being without just cause, it is totally irrelvant to this being an act of evil and a mortal sin that I "know" that is "forbidden"; the very knowing of what I am doing and my willing to do it, being the thing is in its very essence evil, is what holds me morally culpable, for whether or not I know that it is "forbidden", I know what I am doing and I know what murder is, and I want what is evil. On the other hand, a person who is out of his wits or a young child may not know
what he is doing, even if he wills to do it, and is therefore not culpable of any mortal sin.
Note I've made no "objective" and "subjective" distinction here.
In your example, I see no sacrilege. Sacrilege
in essence involves an intention to profane what is sacred, and the person is not doing that. He may be guilty of deception or imprudence in culpable ignorance, but he is not, objectively or subjectively, committing sacrilege; what happens is as intrinsically evil as the priest accidentally dropping the consecrated host on the floor.
Does this make sense, to help you understand my position?
In the case of heresy, its merely material if I have faith in Christ and Church and would believe rightly but am mistaken for some innocent reason, because there's no evil in me (here the absence of knowledge regards the doctrine on which I am mistaken, not the moral status of my act, an act which is not the sin of heresy!); if I am a heretic, the evil is in my obstinate defiance of God, Scripture or Church, for whatever motive, even if the motive be "well-intentioned" so some good may result, for that defiance is evil and I know
what it is.
QuoteAs I understand it, subjectivism properly speaking is an error or heresy when it goes so far as to say that it's left to the moral subjects themselves to determine what is the moral law; I do not deem it heretical subjectivism to say that our guilt is proportionate to the degree of our knowledge of the laws which we have trespassed. Some might say this leads to absurd consequences like fornication or abortion being guiltless for those who apparently aren't aware of their culpability, but the truth is that most able human beings have an intuitive awareness of the sinfulness of such acts because of the natural law written on their hearts, and they are guilty to the extent that they wilfully suppress this knowledge.
Human beings have an intuitive and immediate experiential awareness of
what those acts are, and wanting them, never mind knowingly doing them, is opposed to God, the good, and love, the true sense of the
work of the law written on the heart. There is no such thing, anywhere, of someone being incupable of mortal sin for something like murder because by some vague notion of natural law and "forbiddenness" he didn't have intellectual knowledge of that, or because his malformed conscience didn't trouble him.
In this sense, I reject subjectivism
completely, one might say with respect to
intrinsic evils. However, if it's something like positive law of the Church, even something like the prescription to attend mass on Sunday,
of course there is no mortal sin, indeed no sin at all, if I am ignorant of that law. Indeed, if there is some intention for a greater good, like maybe saving a life, it can even be justly "disobeyed" (He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out?).
I hope this clarifies somewhat the direction from which I'm coming at this; it fundamentally has nothing to do with the Greek conception of
ethics that begins with Socrates and forms the basis of academic philosophical debates for 2500 years of Western history.
Just came to this thread for the first time today, and saw this:
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on February 01, 2019, 12:39:57 PM
It's a timely topic, but I'm going to have to disagree with Fr. on a few points.
:rofl: Oh, the irony!
Quote from: Padraig on February 15, 2019, 01:50:43 PM
Just came to this thread for the first time today, and saw this:
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on February 01, 2019, 12:39:57 PM
It's a timely topic, but I'm going to have to disagree with Fr. on a few points.
:rofl: Oh, the irony!
If you enjoy sticking your finger in a pencil sharpener, then go ahead and argue with Quare; if not, then I don't recommend it.
Oh, I don't intent to argue. My capacity for futility is in short supply today.
Besides, the irony of having an argument on intellectual pride (while apparently lost on others) is something I can't get past.
Quote from: Padraig on February 15, 2019, 02:07:41 PM
Oh, I don't intent to argue. My capacity for futility is in short supply today.
Besides, the irony of having an argument on intellectual pride (while apparently lost on others) is something I can't get past.
Sorry, I missed the humor; you're right.
Just returned to review this thread after finishing listening to Fr. Ripperger's talk.
Overall, I am impressed by the quality of discourse occurring here. Most of the participants are making a display of the virtues of Traditional Catholics rather than our vices.
Many excellent points were made. I ended up thanking a good many posts in addition to the few I had "Thanked" the first time around.
My recollection of this discussion was that it represented a humiliating confirmation of Fr. Ripperger's criticisms of traditionalists. But now upon re-reading the thread, I see that I was unduly influenced by just a small number of posts. The great majority were intelligent and well-informed and apropos to the topic, as well as reflecting a certain degree of intellectual humility about one's own positions.
Quote from: Miriam_M on February 02, 2019, 09:56:42 PM
For the record, I wish to say that I also very much disagree with Fr. R's constant trad bashing, and mostly because he's basing his criticism on a narrow slice of the population that has little in common with the trads I know. He is simply not accurate in that regard, and it is just as much a form of stereotyping as any other form.
Sometimes I can't help wondering if this is just a sardonic sense of humor of his.
Quote from: Elizabeth on March 20, 2019, 07:47:20 PM
Quote from: Miriam_M on February 02, 2019, 09:56:42 PM
For the record, I wish to say that I also very much disagree with Fr. R's constant trad bashing, and mostly because he's basing his criticism on a narrow slice of the population that has little in common with the trads I know. He is simply not accurate in that regard, and it is just as much a form of stereotyping as any other form.
Sometimes I can't help wondering if this is just a sardonic sense of humor of his.
Well, it's really quite annoying (and not very pastoral). ::)