Author Topic: What I believe  (Read 844 times)

TKGS

Re: What I believe
« Reply #10 on: December 11, 2017, 04:25:13 PM »
How else would you describe the view that John Paul II and his successors have been valid popes with the essential powers of the papal office but have lacked any legitimate authority over the faithful?

I would describe this view as one made with eyes closed.
 

Troubled Teen

  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 47 times
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm the guy who sucks (plus I got depression)
Re: What I believe
« Reply #11 on: December 11, 2017, 05:13:07 PM »
Now you sound Anglican.

Well you sound like one of those American converts to Eastern Orthodoxy who wears a long beard and attends a ROCA church and rants about how Western rationalism started with that diabolical invention of the Devil himself, the Filioque.
"Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love, or hatred." - Ecclesiastes 9:1

"In the present time the directive is to stick to the essentials of Christianity: to flee the world, believe in Christ, do all the good that one can, strive for detachment from created things, avoid false prophets and remember death." - Fr. Leonardo Castellani
 

TKGS

Re: What I believe
« Reply #12 on: December 11, 2017, 05:23:43 PM »
Now you sound Anglican.

Well you sound like one of those American converts to Eastern Orthodoxy who wears a long beard and attends a ROCA church and rants about how Western rationalism started with that diabolical invention of the Devil himself, the Filioque.

Do I?  Now I really do think you're reading these posts with your eyes shut because I have never said anything that would make any sentient person think am Orthodox. 

What's a ROCA church?
 

Nick

  • In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas.
  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 121
  • Thanked: 83 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Memento Mori
Re: What I believe
« Reply #13 on: December 11, 2017, 05:45:27 PM »
Brother Nathanael ! Is that you ?  :o
"Now when [a pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as St. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric.".      St. Francis de Sales.
 
The following users thanked this post: Troubled Teen

Troubled Teen

  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 47 times
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm the guy who sucks (plus I got depression)
Re: What I believe
« Reply #14 on: December 11, 2017, 10:14:51 PM »
Do I?  Now I really do think you're reading these posts with your eyes shut because I have never said anything that would make any sentient person think am Orthodox. 

What's a ROCA church?

I've never said anything that would make any sentient person think I'm an Anglican!

ROCA (Russian Orthodox Church Abroad) is a part of the Russian Orthodox Church which separated from the Moscow Patriarchate following their compromise with communism; while this action was in itself worthy, in Western societies the ranks of their convert members include some of the most hardened sectarians you'll ever see. The late Hieromonk Seraphim Rose was a member of ROCA, though he deplored the sectarian spirit which he saw all around him.
"Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love, or hatred." - Ecclesiastes 9:1

"In the present time the directive is to stick to the essentials of Christianity: to flee the world, believe in Christ, do all the good that one can, strive for detachment from created things, avoid false prophets and remember death." - Fr. Leonardo Castellani
 

TKGS

Re: What I believe
« Reply #15 on: December 12, 2017, 05:35:24 AM »
Do I?  Now I really do think you're reading these posts with your eyes shut because I have never said anything that would make any sentient person think am Orthodox. 

What's a ROCA church?

I've never said anything that would make any sentient person think I'm an Anglican!

ROCA (Russian Orthodox Church Abroad) is a part of the Russian Orthodox Church which separated from the Moscow Patriarchate following their compromise with communism; while this action was in itself worthy, in Western societies the ranks of their convert members include some of the most hardened sectarians you'll ever see. The late Hieromonk Seraphim Rose was a member of ROCA, though he deplored the sectarian spirit which he saw all around him.

Your recent comments about Church membership really sound a lot like the "Branch Theory" of Anglicanism.  It's the way the Anglicans claim full membership in the Church while simultaneously rejecting the authority of the pope and Catholic doctrines.

ROCA... :lol:...I never knew that the Orthodox did that. 
 

Rubecorks

Re: What I believe
« Reply #16 on: December 12, 2017, 05:43:31 PM »
  • The conciliar popes have been valid popes, both material and formal. The material element of the papacy is a man claiming to be pope; the formal element of the papacy is the public acceptance of this claim by the clergy of the local church of Rome. Bp. Guérard was wrong that the matter of the papacy could exist without the form; this amounts to a denial of the Thomistic doctrine of hylomorphism.

I don't believe you are a teenager, and, it is QUITE clear that you don't understand Thomistic philosophy. Hylopmorphism was from Aristotle, and it was adopted by St. Thomas because it conformed to reason. However, Aristotle did not believe in unseen spiritual entities. Catholics do. When it comes to something purely material, such as an "apple", hylomorphism says that an apple has matter and form, but they cannot even be thought of as being separate.  Thomistic philosophy extended this by analogy to entities that have an essential spiritual element. For instance, we all know the matter and form of a Sacrament can be separated. We know that a sin of theft can be be only a material sin if the spiritual element is missing. We know that a cadaver is a "human materially" because the soul is temporarily gone. A human who is brain damaged reverts to only his animal powers.

We are not talking about the "papacy" but a "pope". The two are not the same. A pope can be seen and felt, and has temporal power besides his spiritual powers. The loss of his spiritual powers due to insanity or heresy do not necessarily removes his temporal powers. The man can remain for a time as a temporal ruler legitimately ordering things within his house and province, and can determine what people will be "citizens" of the Roman territory.[/list]
 

Troubled Teen

  • TTF Novice
  • Posts: 88
  • Thanked: 47 times
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm the guy who sucks (plus I got depression)
Re: What I believe
« Reply #17 on: December 13, 2017, 03:10:39 PM »
The matter of a sacrament can exist without the form, but in that case it's no sacrament at all; it's not a sacrament materialiter, non formaliter. A cadaver has some of the material aspects of a person, but it's not a person materialiter, non formaliter (furthermore, after death the form of the person does not cease to exist). The Thesis™ however claims that a being can subsist independently as matter without the corresponding form; that's absurd since creatures always subsist as form giving determination to matter.
"Man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love, or hatred." - Ecclesiastes 9:1

"In the present time the directive is to stick to the essentials of Christianity: to flee the world, believe in Christ, do all the good that one can, strive for detachment from created things, avoid false prophets and remember death." - Fr. Leonardo Castellani
 

Rubecorks

Re: What I believe
« Reply #18 on: December 13, 2017, 06:06:08 PM »
The matter of a sacrament can exist without the form, but in that case it's no sacrament at all; it's not a sacrament materialiter, non formaliter. A cadaver has some of the material aspects of a person, but it's not a person materialiter, non formaliter (furthermore, after death the form of the person does not cease to exist). The Thesis™ however claims that a being can subsist independently as matter without the corresponding form; that's absurd since creatures always subsist as form giving determination to matter.

The thesis says that a man who is pope materially is "NOT the pope". A theft materially exists alone without the form, and is NOT a sin of theft, yet it deprived someone of his possession just like the sin does.

No, you don't understand the philosophy.

 

Callixtus

Re: What I believe
« Reply #19 on: December 14, 2017, 09:27:04 AM »
Regarding orders, does not "univocal" mean "with one voice?"  Pope Pius XII didn't say it had to be "unambiguous", he said it had to be "univocal."  Governing spirit is univocal, is it not?