Woman, behold they son, and the Co-Redemptrix

[Jayne]

You had me at "I reject papal authority...." You are a heretic Philip G.

To be more precise, he takes a heretical position.  As others have pointed out, the level of incoherence in his posts is suggestive of mental illness.  If that is, in fact, the case, then it may significantly reduce his culpability for holding heretical views.  This is a situation in which the distinction between formal and material heresy is helpful.

Personally, I do not think it prudent to engage him in debate.  There is, however, a case to be made for identifying any clearly heretical statements.  We don't want to leave the impression that these are acceptable.

[dellery]

You had me at "I reject papal authority...." You are a heretic Philip G.

To be more precise, he takes a heretical position.  As others have pointed out, the level of incoherence in his posts is suggestive of mental illness.  If that is, in fact, the case, then it may significantly reduce his culpability for holding heretical views.  This is a situation in which the distinction between formal and material heresy is helpful.

Personally, I do not think it prudent to engage him in debate.  There is, however, a case to be made for identifying any clearly heretical statements.  We don't want to leave the impression that these are acceptable.

It appears more as if Phillip is a very imaginative thinker, and SD is a place for him to actively think things out.

It also appears as if weird, cliquey group-thinkers, on this forum, like to bully him with accusations of mental illness, condescending from a position of popular superiority with feigned sincerity.

Says a lot more about these people than it does Phillip.

[Jayne]

It appears more as if Phillip is a very imaginative thinker, and SD is a place for him to actively think things out.

His posts regularly do not make sense.  One idea does not follow from another.  This sort of incoherence is not caused by imagination. 

There is no reason at all to suppose that those who have mentioned this are feigning sincerity.  Nothing is more natural than to be concerned about Philip's behaviour.

[dellery]

It appears more as if Phillip is a very imaginative thinker, and SD is a place for him to actively think things out.

His posts regularly do not make sense.  One idea does not follow from another.  This sort of incoherence is not caused by imagination. 

There is no reason at all to suppose that those who have mentioned this are feigning sincerity.  Nothing is more natural than to be concerned about Philip's behaviour.

The fact that the accusations against Philip's mental health are made publicly is reason enough to suppose those who do so are feigning sincerity.

I'd like to see how much sense you'd make if you ventured outside of the group-think and came up with your own thoughts. It's not easy to do, and without a firm grounding, nearly impossible. So Philip displays the normal incoherencies of one who struggles to think for himself in a world full of confusion and lies. His bravery is commendable.

Edit: It bears mentioning that I don't agree with Philip in this thread, but that is beside the point. Calling him "mentally ill" is not a productive way of correcting him, and, in fact, normally would have the opposite effect, thus confirming him in error.

[Jayne]

I have not accused Philip of being mentally ill.  I am no more qualified to do so than I am to judge the sincerity of those who have mentioned this as an explanation for his incoherence.  What I did was to point out that we should be cautious in accusing people of being heretics when there is a possibility that mental illness is involved.  In general, it is better for lay people to describe statements as heretical rather than the people making them as heretics.

It is not reasonable to dismiss the normal traditional Catholic desire for orthodoxy as "group think".  Of course, traditional Catholics, as a group, react negatively to heterodox statements.  Something would be very wrong if we did not.  The willingness to submit one's thinking to the teaching of the Church certainly does not show that one is not good at thinking or lacks bravery.

[dellery]

I have not accused Philip of being mentally ill.  I am no more qualified to do so than I am to judge the sincerity of those who have mentioned this as an explanation for his incoherence.  What I did was to point out that we should be cautious in accusing people of being heretics when there is a possibility that mental illness is involved.  In general, it is better for lay people to describe statements as heretical rather than the people making them as heretics.

It is not reasonable to dismiss the normal traditional Catholic desire for orthodoxy as "group think".  Of course, traditional Catholics, as a group, react negatively to heterodox statements.  Something would be very wrong if we did not.  The willingness to submit one's thinking to the teaching of the Church certainly does not show that one is not good at thinking or lacks bravery.

Most Trads don't desire orthodoxy, if they did, they'd have to focus on their state in life instead of hiding under a bushel while pretending to be already Canonized.

Trad group-think comes from the internet and "professional Catholics" (To use a "Gardener" phrase), not the Church.

You can not fault people like Philip for incoherently wandering about, spiritually lost. Nor can you call their misguided search for Truth, living in a post-Truth world in which the Church has been thoroughly compromised, a mental illness.

Again, if people wanted to actually help Philip they wouldn't be confirming him in his beliefs by attacking him as being mentally ill. If you cared enough to convert somebody, you'd care enough to learn how to.

[Melkor]

@dellery yes you are right about attacking Mr Phillips' mental health, although I have not done so. And how do you help someone who doesn't seem to want to accept Catholic truth and keeps clinging to his personal interpretations.

[Melkor]

You had me at "I reject papal authority...." You are a heretic Philip G.

To be more precise, he takes a heretical position.  As others have pointed out, the level of incoherence in his posts is suggestive of mental illness.  If that is, in fact, the case, then it may significantly reduce his culpability for holding heretical views.  This is a situation in which the distinction between formal and material heresy is helpful.

Personally, I do not think it prudent to engage him in debate.  There is, however, a case to be made for identifying any clearly heretical statements.  We don't want to leave the impression that these are acceptable.

It appears more as if Phillip is a very imaginative thinker, and SD is a place for him to actively think things out.

It also appears as if weird, cliquey group-thinkers, on this forum, like to bully him with accusations of mental illness, condescending from a position of popular superiority with feigned sincerity.

Says a lot more about these people than it does Phillip.

@dellery I have not noticed you trying to help the man out, yet you call us out for having 'feigned sincerity?' How in the hell do you know our intentions?

[Melkor]

I have not accused Philip of being mentally ill.  I am no more qualified to do so than I am to judge the sincerity of those who have mentioned this as an explanation for his incoherence.  What I did was to point out that we should be cautious in accusing people of being heretics when there is a possibility that mental illness is involved.  In general, it is better for lay people to describe statements as heretical rather than the people making them as heretics.

It is not reasonable to dismiss the normal traditional Catholic desire for orthodoxy as "group think".  Of course, traditional Catholics, as a group, react negatively to heterodox statements.  Something would be very wrong if we did not.  The willingness to submit one's thinking to the teaching of the Church certainly does not show that one is not good at thinking or lacks bravery.

Yes Jayne you are right.

[Jayne]

I have not accused Philip of being mentally ill.  I am no more qualified to do so than I am to judge the sincerity of those who have mentioned this as an explanation for his incoherence.  What I did was to point out that we should be cautious in accusing people of being heretics when there is a possibility that mental illness is involved.  In general, it is better for lay people to describe statements as heretical rather than the people making them as heretics.

It is not reasonable to dismiss the normal traditional Catholic desire for orthodoxy as "group think".  Of course, traditional Catholics, as a group, react negatively to heterodox statements.  Something would be very wrong if we did not.  The willingness to submit one's thinking to the teaching of the Church certainly does not show that one is not good at thinking or lacks bravery.

Most Trads don't desire orthodoxy, if they did, they'd have to focus on their state in life instead of hiding under a bushel while pretending to be already Canonized.

Trad group-think comes from the internet and "professional Catholics" (To use a "Gardener" phrase), not the Church.

You can not fault people like Philip for incoherently wandering about, spiritually lost. Nor can you call their misguided search for Truth, living in a post-Truth world in which the Church has been thoroughly compromised, a mental illness.

Again, if people wanted to actually help Philip they wouldn't be confirming him in his beliefs by attacking him as being mentally ill. If you cared enough to convert somebody, you'd care enough to learn how to.

It is quite reasonable for a person who thinks Philip is mentally ill to conclude that he needs professional help and to encourage him to seek it out (which is what happened).   I too do not see what, other than pray, his fellow forum members can do for Philip if that is, in fact, his problem.  Even if you are correct that his problem is being spiritually lost due to the Crisis in the Church, I do not see what can be done to help him other than pray.  It is unfair to claim that is merely a matter of caring enough to learn how to convert people.  People have free will.  We can not make others convert, no matter how much we care about them.

I care about Philip, but I also care about Catholic teaching and I do not like seeing people deny Church teaching while claiming to be Catholic.  I do not know what to do for Philip, but I can identify errors against  Church teaching.  I am doing what I know how to do.  Rather than criticize me, show me how to do something better.  Otherwise, you are merely ranting and venting.

[dellery]

@dellery yes you are right about attacking Mr Phillips' mental health, although I have not done so. And how do you help someone who doesn't seem to want to accept Catholic truth and keeps clinging to his personal interpretations.

@dellery I have not noticed you trying to help the man out, yet you call us out for having 'feigned sincerity?' How in the hell do you know our intentions?

I'm not going to explain in detail how to change people's minds, but it starts with an earnest attempt at understanding where a person is coming from and then also showing that you understand them n the way they mean to be understood, after that you need to establish who you are and who you are not. These are the building blocks for changing people's minds on anything and it hinges on bypassing mental defenses instead of triggering them.

Perhaps I'm helping Philip by trying to genuinely and non-judgmentally understand him, and the reasons why he thinks the way he does.

Surely, publicly labeling somebody as "mentally ill" and being "in need of help" under the guise of concern is quite easy for most people to see through.
Strange to see such a technocratic Left-wing tactic being used against confused Catholics on a Catholic forum.

[Jayne]

I'm not going to explain in detail how to change people's minds, but it starts with an earnest attempt at understanding where a person is coming from and then also showing that you understand them n the way they mean to be understood, after that you need to establish who you are and who you are not. These are the building blocks for changing people's minds on anything and it hinges on bypassing mental defenses instead of triggering them.

Perhaps I'm helping Philip by trying to genuinely and non-judgmentally understand him, and the reasons why he thinks the way he does.

Surely, publicly labeling somebody as "mentally ill" and being "in need of help" under the guise of concern is quite easy for most people to see through.
Strange to see such a technocratic Left-wing tactic being used against confused Catholics on a Catholic forum.

I will be very surprised if Philip responds any better to you labeling him as spiritually lost than he has to those who identified him as mentally ill.  Either way, he would need to admit to having a problem.

[dellery]

I have not accused Philip of being mentally ill.  I am no more qualified to do so than I am to judge the sincerity of those who have mentioned this as an explanation for his incoherence.  What I did was to point out that we should be cautious in accusing people of being heretics when there is a possibility that mental illness is involved.  In general, it is better for lay people to describe statements as heretical rather than the people making them as heretics.

It is not reasonable to dismiss the normal traditional Catholic desire for orthodoxy as "group think".  Of course, traditional Catholics, as a group, react negatively to heterodox statements.  Something would be very wrong if we did not.  The willingness to submit one's thinking to the teaching of the Church certainly does not show that one is not good at thinking or lacks bravery.

Most Trads don't desire orthodoxy, if they did, they'd have to focus on their state in life instead of hiding under a bushel while pretending to be already Canonized.

Trad group-think comes from the internet and "professional Catholics" (To use a "Gardener" phrase), not the Church.

You can not fault people like Philip for incoherently wandering about, spiritually lost. Nor can you call their misguided search for Truth, living in a post-Truth world in which the Church has been thoroughly compromised, a mental illness.

Again, if people wanted to actually help Philip they wouldn't be confirming him in his beliefs by attacking him as being mentally ill. If you cared enough to convert somebody, you'd care enough to learn how to.

It is quite reasonable for a person who thinks Philip is mentally ill to conclude that he needs professional help and to encourage him to seek it out (which is what happened).   I too do not see what, other than pray, his fellow forum members can do for Philip if that is, in fact, his problem.  Even if you are correct that his problem is being spiritually lost due to the Crisis in the Church, I do not see what can be done to help him other than pray.  It is unfair to claim that is merely a matter of caring enough to learn how to convert people.  People have free will.  We can not make others convert, no matter how much we care about them.

I care about Philip, but I also care about Catholic teaching and I do not like seeing people deny Church teaching while claiming to be Catholic.  I do not know what to do for Philip, but I can identify errors against  Church teaching.  I am doing what I know how to do.  Rather than criticize me, show me how to do something better.  Otherwise, you are merely ranting and venting.

My impression was that you were passively aggressively repeating an attack others have made on Philip's mental capacities. My apologies for being incorrect about this. Nobody has genuinely encouraged Philip to seek help, because such encouragement is never offered in public because of the embarrassment it would bring. Doing so publicly is meant to damage a person's mental credibility, usually in addition to the damage already being done by themselves. 

[Jayne]

My impression was that you were passively aggressively repeating an attack others have made on Philip's mental capacities. My apologies for being incorrect about this. Nobody has genuinely encouraged Philip to seek help, because such encouragement is never offered in public because of the embarrassment it would bring. Doing so publicly is meant to damage a person's mental credibility, usually in addition to the damage already being done by themselves.

I agree with you that it was problematic to publicly encourage Philip to seek professional help.  I wrote a PM at the time asking the person who did this to remove his post.

I am not, however, assuming that it was done with bad motives.  Perhaps it was meant to encourage others to be more gentle in their treatment of Philip.

[Philip G.]

You are rejecting a dogma decreed at the Council of Trent.  Accepting the Magisterium of the Church is the guiding principle in the interpretation of Scripture and you clearly reject this principle.  It has nothing to with your personal qualifications to interpret Scripture; nobody is qualified to adopt interpretations contrary to the Magisterium.  This was decreed with anathema sit.  in other words, you are embracing a heresy that separates one from the Church.  I am not insulting you; I'm telling you that you are imperilling your soul.

Correction, you do not have 300 years of papal teaching on your side against me, that Mary is the mother of all men/mankind.  You don't even have 150 years of papal teaching on your side.  If you read your first two references carefully, you cannot argue there is any contradiction between my position, and that of those statements.  My position can and is to be interpreted faithfully.

You are changing your position.  You said earlier: "200-300 years of recent papal teaching I argue doesn't constitute what the church "held and holds""  You denied the authority of the last 300 years of popes to interpret Scripture. Now you are back-tracking and saying that your rash speculation is compatible with that teaching.  You are probably wrong about this but I am not interested in discussing it with you.  (Your ideas do not make enough sense to discuss.) I'm fine as long as you stop denying basic Catholic dogmas about interpretation of Scripture.

Jayne, I am not changing that position.  I reject papal teaching that is a lot older than 300 years.  That aspect of my comment hasn't changed.  What has changed is the amount of credit I give you and your argument.  That has changed, for the worse in your regard.  You can't just copy and paste from some 5th marian dogma website and expect to carry weight.  Words on a paper cannot argue them self.  They must be argued by a competent agent, which, you are not.

You had me at "I reject papal authority...." You are taking a heretical stance, Philip G.

You are a gift that keeps on giving.  Firstly, let me inform you of something.  The pope does not have "authority" to "teach" error.  Secondly, would you kindly please point out where I posted/typed that "I reject papal authority".  Because, I think you are imagining things again.  In the immediately previous post I said "I reject papal teaching ... that is a lot older than 300 years".  And, this is correct.  I reject the death penalty for heresy, just as St. Martin of Tours did with the agreement of St. Ambrose of Milan and Pope Siricius, long before the church-state began to use such a merciless measure against its political rivals.  And, I have not kept that belief hidden.