Posted on 05/02/2005 12:03:36 PM PDT by murphE
Well stop professing that which you cannot substantiate. You challenged me. I posted his defense of attendance at CPA Masses. Now you don't have time to back up your lies.
Allowing the Chinese to make suggestions is harmless,
I thought you would have been quite familiar with the preconciliar Catholic Church's views about the evils of Communism.
You have proved me wrong.
Are Indian seminaries still Catholic?
Posted by Unam Sanctam to Land of the Irish
On Religion 09/01/2004 11:21:57 AM PDT · 8 of 16
The CCPA is not "mine", and I have told you I believe them to be schismat[ic]
By the Numbers and by God's Book: Cardinal Ratzinger is Just Dead Wrong
Posted by Unam Sanctam to Land of the Irish
On Religion 08/14/2004 10:37:37 AM PDT · 11 of 47
If the SSPX liturgy were the only one available of a Sunday I might assist there to, but not take communion, as I would not with the CCPA.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies
I couldn't find the one I was commenting on, but here are two. Note the second: is this promotion of the SSPX?
Not to be flip--but sex, drugs, rock'n'roll and plenty of free cash have had deleterious effects...
A lie? Well, if you accuse me of such, prove that I said that while thinking that it was untrue. Otherwise, you might want to consider the practice of traditional Catholicism...Charity thinketh no evil.
Suggestions can be ignored quite easily. I see no downside to allowing some sort of formal process to appease the Chinese, so long as nothing is actually given to them. There is precedent. For instance, the Concordat with Nazi Germany:
The Bull nominating Archbishops, Coadjutors "cum jure successionis", or appointing a "Praelatus nullius", will not be issued until the name of the appointee has been submitted to the representative of the National Government in the territory concerned, and until it has been ascertained that no objections of a general political nature exist.
Not MacNamara's delusions? Not LBJ's idiocy, setting himself up as a field/tactical CinC?
Really?
Maybe pre-eminently, but not 'first.'
Up here, we have the experience of making the choices. Rembert/Rome? Rembert/Rome? Rembert/Rome?
Not hard to figure out what to do.
I don't know about 'sacrilege' at Papal Masses--but I can tell you, regards Marini, that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
B-16 is a far different "report" than was JPII. You can expect Marini to conform--he's not stupid.
There seems to be some glitch in the website because #162 is missing and when you click on "View Replies" for #161 you go back to #161.
However, the links before #161 seem to be okay. And following those, it seems to me that murphE's response to the question from Romulus ("If a conciliar Catholic presented himself for Holy Communion at a trad chapel, would he be allowed to receive? If yes, WHY?") was an honest attempt to answer the question.
The matter of interior disposition is the key, and is not "equivocation." A priest might accidentally give a host to someone who does not meet the qualifications to recieve based on Church law. I heard of one case where a child went up, as usual, to kneel with his parents at the railing and his parents expected him to get a blessing, as usual. They forgot to put one hand on his head to remind the priest he had not yet recieved his First Holy Communion. The little boy had been watching how everyone behaved at the rail, and this time he immitated them without drawing any attention from his parents or the priest. What did everyone say about that: that something terrible had happened? Well, no, what they said was that the boy got his First Holy Communion a little early.
It was a mistake and nobody was apparently attempting to deceive. The priest could not have known the interior disposition of the boy. He was evidently doing a good job of looking ready, and perhaps he was ready.
A conciliar Catholic, presenting himself this way and having the proper interior disposition would be given Communion by a traditional priest, in answer to your question. Someone who frequents the Novus Ordo Missae should not be refused Communion at a "trad chapel." It is not his fault that there are apparently two sets of rubrics, etc., going on these days. If more intercommunion like that took place, it might do a lot of good.
One thing's for sure: it would give the "trads" an opportunity to exercise charity by keeping their comments less abrasive. Very few of us understand things as well as St. Athanasius or St. Catherine did. We should be very careful in what we say and consider how it will be received.
Correction: there was "no #162" because I was viewing Replies. Sorry.
....I never pretended to know US' reasoning (unless you are referring to what I said he said back when this came up about the CCPA - just informing Grey Ghost that he was saying something untrue).
gbcdoj
215 posted on 05/03/2005 2:18:58 PM MDT by gbcdoj (And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend it. ~ John 1:5) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Practice what you preach, hypocrite.
There are a LOT of strawman-argument folks on these threads.
You realize the difference between saying something untrue, and lying, right? I suggest you consult the distinction Thomas makes between the formal and material lie.
I am not saying that a healthy Chuch requires the 1962 missal, but it does require liturgy that's a lot more sound in practice (and ina few respects, perhaps theory as well) than what we have now.
Well-said.
Yes. Really.
It was Paul VI's "day of peace" idiocy that got LBJ to call the cease fire after He'd virtually bombed the VC into oblivion. Paul VI was convinced that the VC was ready to talk surrender and he exerted as much influence as he could on LBJ to stop the bombings. That allowed the
VC to rearm and the subsequent Tet offensive was the beginning of the end for the U.S.
Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of idiocy to go around LBJ, MacNamara, the hippies, Kennedy etc. But a Pope being among them and contributing to the detriment at a critical juncture is tragic.
Whether lying is always opposed to truth?Objection 1. It seems that lying is not always opposed to truth. For opposites are incompatible with one another. But lying is compatible with truth, since that speaks the truth, thinking it to be false, lies, according to Augustine (Lib. De Mendac. iii). Therefore lying is not opposed to truth.
Objection 2. Further, the virtue of truth applies not only to words but also to deeds, since according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 7) by this virtue one tells the truth both in one's speech and in one's life. But lying applies only to words, for Augustine says (Contra Mend. xii) that "a lie is a false signification by words." Accordingly, it seems that lying is not directly opposed to the virtue of truth.
Objection 3. Further, Augustine says (Lib. De Mendac. iii) that the "liar's sin is the desire to deceive." But this is not opposed to truth, but rather to benevolence or justice. Therefore lying is not opposed to truth.
On the contrary, Augustine says (Contra Mend. x): "Let no one doubt that it is a lie to tell a falsehood in order to deceive. Wherefore a false statement uttered with intent to deceive is a manifest lie." But this is opposed to truth. Therefore lying is opposed to truth.
I answer that, A moral act takes its species from two things, its object, and its end: for the end is the object of the will, which is the first mover in moral acts. And the power moved by the will has its own object, which is the proximate object of the voluntary act, and stands in relation to the will's act towards the end, as material to formal, as stated above (I-II, 18, 6,7).
Now it has been said above (109, 1, ad 3) that the virtue of truth--and consequently the opposite vices--regards a manifestation made by certain signs: and this manifestation or statement is an act of reason comparing sign with the thing signified; because every representation consists in comparison, which is the proper act of the reason. Wherefore though dumb animals manifest something, yet they do not intend to manifest anything: but they do something by natural instinct, and a manifestation is the result. But when this manifestation or statement is a moral act, it must needs be voluntary, and dependent on the intention of the will. Now the proper object of a manifestation or statement is the true or the false. And the intention of a bad will may bear on two things: one of which is that a falsehood may be told; while the other is the proper effect of a false statement, namely, that someone may be deceived.
Accordingly if these three things concur, namely, falsehood of what is said, the will to tell a falsehood, and finally the intention to deceive, then there is falsehood--materially, since what is said is false, formally, on account of the will to tell an untruth, and effectively, on account of the will to impart a falsehood.
However, the essential notion of a lie is taken from formal falsehood, from the fact namely, that a person intends to say what is false; wherefore also the word "mendacium" [lie] is derived from its being in opposition to the "mind." Consequently if one says what is false, thinking it to be true, it is false materially, but not formally, because the falseness is beside the intention of the speaker so that it is not a perfect lie, since what is beside the speaker's intention is accidental for which reason it cannot be a specific difference. If, on the other hand, one utters' falsehood formally, through having the will to deceive, even if what one says be true, yet inasmuch as this is a voluntary and moral act, it contains falseness essentially and truth accidentally, and attains the specific nature of a lie.
That a person intends to cause another to have a false opinion, by deceiving him, does not belong to the species of lying, but to perfection thereof, even as in the physical order, a thing acquires its species if it has its form, even though the form's effect be lacking; for instance a heavy body which is held up aloft by force, lest it come down in accordance with the exigency of its form. Therefore it is evident that lying is directly an formally opposed to the virtue of truth.
Reply to Objection 1. We judge of a thing according to what is in it formally and essentially rather than according to what is in it materially and accidentally. Hence it is more in opposition to truth, considered as a moral virtue, to tell the truth with the intention of telling a falsehood than to tell a falsehood with the intention of telling the truth.
Reply to Objection 2. As Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. ii), words hold the chief place among other signs. And so when it is said that "a lie is a false signification by words," the term "words" denotes every kind of sign. Wherefore if a person intended to signify something false by means of signs, he would not be excused from lying.
Reply to Objection 3. The desire to deceive belongs to the perfection of lying, but not to its species, as neither does any effect belong to the species of its cause.
Look at your post #215. You were the first to accuse me of not speaking the truth. I offered evidence that I was. You have countered with none.
And only now, you whine about "charity".
Ecumenism is a 20th century invention. It's communication between Christians. You are confusing it with evangelization of the Jews by the Jewish Christians of the Apostolic Age.
You've missed the point. Please re-read, you'll see that I was right.
And, I remember quite clearly US replying to LOTI saying that he had reconsidered the prudence of attending the CCPA Masses. You can go through all his posts and find it yourself, unless if it was in a deleted thread which I suppose is possible.
That's your problem, you have no problem with recklessly doing the former and then saying, "Well, at least I wasn't deliberatlely lying."
But you can never say you were wrong. There's a word for that: pride.
This is wrong. The Pope is not the Magisterium.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.