Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Ask a Traditionalist / Re: Scrupulousity
« Last post by james03 on Today at 09:43:54 PM »
My initial reaction was shock.  nmoerbeek is usually someone I read thoughtfully.  Very uncharacteristic of him.
2
Ask a Traditionalist / Re: Scrupulousity
« Last post by christulsa on Today at 09:33:24 PM »
I can only hope that such advice arises out of ignorance, because on its face it appears to be diabolic.

You’re demanding your own interpretation of James’ statement you quoted, rather than first asking him for clarification.  Why don’t you ask him if in his “test” for scruples, that would exclude INFORMAL prayers of the heart, including asking for help during temptation.  You’re jumping to the rash judgment that is/was his meaning.  Which is unjust, against charity, and against fraternity.   The burden is on you to show that limiting daily FORMAL prayers to the TWO he listed, for 1 week, is “diabolical.”   That by necessity would demand more than those two FORMAL prayers, when the Church herself does not do that.

I was having a conversation with James till you unhelpfully butted in, treating James like a child that cannot speak for himself.  Why don't you butt out and let us talk this out?

No. You weren’t having a “conversation” buddy. And this isn’t a private discussion forum. 

The level of pride and in civility you are exhibiting in this thread IS diabolical.  You ask questions that get answered, but refuse to answer others’ questions or valid points.  Rashly accuse. Refuse correction. And now this post.

At this point I think James struck a nerve with you about this prayer test, because you yourself are probably proudly scrupulous, and his “test” proved that.  You’re a layman, not a religious or spiritual director.  So far we’re just giving our opinion about scruples, while you are rendering personal judgments at persons.  Nobody here deserves that.
3
Ask a Traditionalist / Re: Scrupulousity
« Last post by james03 on Today at 09:22:50 PM »
Quote
Define formal prayer.
  Too late.  Burden of proof is on you.

Why don't you tell the people with scruples what would constitute sinning with regards to "pray unceasingly".  And include a cite, otherwise it's just your opinion.  You are dealing with people who have scruples who are being dragged away from the sacraments and prayer, so make darn sure you are quoting something authoritative. 

To be a Catholic in good standing we have the 5 precepts.  Not a good idea to be at this minimum, but you'd still be a Catholic in good standing.  My source is the CCC.  So give me your cite.
4
Ask a Traditionalist / Re: Scrupulousity
« Last post by nmoerbeek on Today at 09:22:10 PM »
I can only hope that such advice arises out of ignorance, because on its face it appears to be diabolic.

You’re demanding your own interpretation of James’ statement you quoted, rather than first asking him for clarification.  Why don’t you ask him if in his “test” for scruples, that would exclude INFORMAL prayers of the heart, including asking for help during temptation.  You’re jumping to the rash judgment that is/was his meaning.  Which is unjust, against charity, and against fraternity.   The burden is on you to show that limiting daily FORMAL prayers to the TWO he listed, for 1 week, is “diabolical.”   That by necessity would demand more than those two FORMAL prayers, when the Church herself does not do that.

I was having a conversation with James till you unhelpfully butted in, treating James like a child that cannot speak for himself.  Why don't you butt out and let us talk this out?
5
Ask a Traditionalist / Re: Scrupulousity
« Last post by nmoerbeek on Today at 09:21:37 PM »
I can only hope that such advice arises out of ignorance, because on its face it appears to be diabolic.

You’re demanding your own interpretation of James’ statement you quoted, rather than first asking him for clarification.  Why don’t you ask him if in his “test” for scruples, that would exclude INFORMAL prayers of the heart, including asking for help during temptation.  You’re jumping to the rash judgment that is/was his meaning.  Which is unjust, against charity, and against fraternity.   The burden is on you to show that limiting daily FORMAL prayers to the TWO he listed, for 1 week, is “diabolical.”   That by necessity would demand more than those two FORMAL prayers, when the Church herself does not do that.

Please tell me about these formal prayers.  I have not heard such a distinction except with Liturgical prayers.  Do you mean vocal prayers? 
6
Ask a Traditionalist / Re: Scrupulousity
« Last post by christulsa on Today at 09:17:58 PM »
I can only hope that such advice arises out of ignorance, because on its face it appears to be diabolic.

You’re demanding your own interpretation of James’ statement you quoted, rather than first asking him for clarification.  Why don’t you ask him if in his “test” for scruples, that would exclude INFORMAL prayers of the heart, including asking for help during temptation.  You’re jumping to the rash judgment that is/was his meaning.  Which is unjust, against charity, and against fraternity.   The burden is on you to show that limiting daily FORMAL prayers to the TWO he listed, for 1 week, is “diabolical.”   That by necessity would demand more than those two FORMAL prayers, when the Church herself does not do that. 
7
I think he'll still be acting as President in God's eyes on that day no matter what Biden does.
8
Ask a Traditionalist / Re: Scrupulousity
« Last post by nmoerbeek on Today at 09:12:53 PM »
Let's observe the damage done by telling someone with scruples they have to pray unceasingly (an exhortation from St. Paul), WITHOUT the caveat you aren't talking about Formal Prayer.

So he tries it and fails.  And he knows it is impossible to do.  So now he wants to go to confession because he sinned by not formally praying continuously.  But there's a problem.  He knows it impossible to do.  Sacrilegious confession.  He knows if he confesses it, he doesn't have a firm purpose of amendment.  But if he withholds the sin, he's also screwed.  So he quits going to confession and communion.  The demons now have him.

That is the damage you are doing by saying this.

Define formal prayer.
9
Ask a Traditionalist / Re: Scrupulousity
« Last post by james03 on Today at 09:11:50 PM »
Let's observe the damage done by telling someone with scruples they have to pray unceasingly (an exhortation from St. Paul), WITHOUT the caveat you aren't talking about Formal Prayer.

So he tries it and fails.  And he knows it is impossible to do.  So now he wants to go to confession because he sinned by not formally praying continuously.  But there's a problem.  He knows it impossible to do.  Sacrilegious confession.  He knows if he confesses it, he doesn't have a firm purpose of amendment.  But if he withholds the sin, he's also screwed.  So he quits going to confession and communion.  The demons now have him.

That is the damage you are doing by saying this.
10
Ask a Traditionalist / Re: Scrupulousity
« Last post by nmoerbeek on Today at 09:05:49 PM »
No Nmoerbeek, I won’t have to prove anything.  You do.  Because you are the one making the a actual accusations.  Not me.  I’m just responding to it defending James.  You don’t honestly believe there’s any Catholic source that says one must do a certain amount of formal prayer a day under pain of sin, unless they are bound to a Rule like is common for 3rd order members of a religious order.  To think that WOULD itself be scrupulous!   If you are a gentleman, you would either show a source to back up your judgment, or confess your rash judgment.

My Friend, find me where I make such a demand and stop inventing a straw man.  My complaint was rooted against James because he does not want people to make recourse to prayer throughout the day.  The specific example I made was in temptation.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10