mercredi 5 mai 2010

question to catholic and orthodox friends

Monday, April 7, 2008 at 9:40am

is the catholic church treating me as a public sinner?
alternatively madman?
is the orthodox church doing so?
are evangelicals/pentecostals doing so?
if so, why?

ChAC: I don't know what you are up to, so I can't say!
April 7, 2008 at 10:58am

me: ok
btw, are you spreading the news about my music and essays on antimodernism (if you enjoy it, that is?)
April 7, 2008 at 11:42am

because, you see, IF someone were to treat my site as the ravings of a madman or the pride of an unrepentent public sinner, that would explain the lack of financial success of
April 7, 2008 at 2:35pm

Ch.: you asked me what I am up to ... or pretended not to know

it is now years since you knew of me first, and pretty soon afterwards (at the latest) you were able to read my site

not all of it may be to your liking

the Popes from 1938 onwards have not been to mine

one explanation I tried to live by was that Pius XII was an anti-pope, just as sedisvacantists view John Paul II

since my bad memory of reading Fr Bryan Houghton's Prêtre rejeté made me confuse colinists with palmarians, I soon found out that Palmar de Troya accepted Pius XII as well as Paul VI as true popes, even martyrs, prisoners in the Vatican

regarding the Novus Ordo along with certain documents of Pius XII (which I read in Latin in the AAS for 1943, 1947 and 1950) as forged documents only purportedly by those popes was historically very uncertain, but theologically a possibility to save papacy

I tried that for 14 months
April 7, 2008 at 3:05pm

when I turned my back on Palmar de Troya, I was a little too much burnt child to accept immediately the claims of what's his name, yeah, Bawden, a k a Pope Michael I

his attitude towards the host recepy and flour used over most of Latin Church reminded me of Caerularius

be it noted that Michael Caerularius is not a canonised Saint, nor does he count as one of the pillars of Orthodoxy

I even tried to get back to both the lefebvrian and the ordinary vatican obedient line, because the choice of Ratzinger gave me hopes. I confessed to a ICRSP- priest at Christmas 2005.

Since then I felt deceived. 2006 the Latin rite Easter coincided with the Jewish one - with only one day of décalage. The council of Nicea did not chose its astronomical precis[i]ons for easter for symbolism only, but so as to avoid eastering with the synagogue. A few months later I was ready to believe an orthodox site which qualified papism as the first protestantism. I decided to convert.
April 7, 2008 at 3:14pm

Is there ANYTHING else you have any doubts about, as regardds me? Or is it my continued miscomfort with the RC/Vatican pastoral and dogmatism of 20th C post 38?
April 7, 2008 at 3:14pm

CP: lol - There is no such thing as private sin - so yes you are a public sinner...but for various reasons that must go unjudged from my perspective...error has no rights, but persons do...:)
April 7, 2008 at 3:22pm

JU: Sorry, I actually didn't look at the site. If this is about "Modernism: the Synthesis of all Heresies", I'm against that already and don't have to look at it. But now, since it must be important, I will look at it.

The only reason I personally haven't contacted you recently is because our last discussion left me in ignorance of the fossil record, and I seldom buy books, so it may be some time before I buy the one you recommended. ...Although that was not the point of discussing whether there could, non-heretically, be Christian belief in a theistic evolution -- for which I only posed some quotes to exemplify Catholic Chruch thinking.

Finally, choosing not to believe in certain Popes' legitimacy simply because you don't like what they say has always seemed a bit wrong-headed to me.
April 7, 2008 at 8:31pm

me: "lol - There is no such thing as private sin - so yes you are a public sinner"
a little on terminology: public sin means publicly known sin
April 8, 2008 at 8:47am


We had two differences, one about Church Fathers, other about "fossile record" - if you cannot get From Nothing to Nature on a library for lending, why not look at my resumé on last year's facebook note on a fossile giant sea scorpion?
April 8, 2008 at 9:21am

CP: My point;

You cannot foster a disjunction between public sin versus private sin...
now clearly thats not what you are addressing...
having a belief that is filled with error is only a sin if there is something improper in your intention. In other words you have to know that it is bad, and believe it anyways for it to be a sin.

I'd saw we hold you in "error" not necessarily in sin (since "God alone is Judge")
April 8, 2008 at 2:39pm

ah, that is another matter - the orthodox Church might either not agree with you or agree for different reasons

i hold you in error about canon law

there are public sins for which a man should be shunned, whereas an equally grave sin which is private would not involve public avoidance, since it is not known same applies of course to a public sinner whose merited bad reputation i simply do not know about, therefore not being able to shun him as he should be shunned, like a declared freemason or gay who does not tell me he is that

one of my misgivings (for which i came up with this question) is about intrigues like that to make me appear like fraternizing with public sinners - and thereby appear as sharing his guilt
April 8, 2008 at 3:48pm

by the way, C.: do you agree with J. on Church Fathers, fossile record or both? did you read our correspondence about it?
April 8, 2008 at 3:50pm

J., I believe that modernism in the sense of liberal theology or denial of say Biblical inerrancy involves or allows the synthesis of errors

I also belive that modern thought in general as distinct from and opposed to more traditional thought, may involve lots of errors even without exlicit reference to modernism, and even outside the sphere of defined dogma
April 8, 2008 at 3:53pm

exlicit=explicit, of course
April 8, 2008 at 3:53pm
April 8, 2008 at 3:55pm

oh, pruss is a great arguer:
April 8, 2008 at 4:00pm

except that he basically contradicts himself:
April 8, 2008 at 4:19pm

JU: "one of my misgivings(for which i came up with this question) is about intrigues like that to make me appear like fraternizing with public sinners - and thereby appear as sharing his guilt"

Human judges nudge by the company you keep. However, if we are to imitate Christ, are we not permitted to dine with sinners if we will give them a good example? The only problem is a practical one if people think you are one of the sinners. (in my opinion)

How did this problem come up?
April 8, 2008 at 4:42pm


You here R Catholics may think I am in error because i refuse to acknowledge present day official vatican papacy as the adequate succession of St Peter

Would the Orthodox agree with you?

Both may find me in error because I am a young earth creationist and deny that animals or plants died before Adam sinned - but has anyone of either side infallible authority for it?furthermore: I expect this may have shocked some merely musical readers of my merely musical compositions on same site - but surely not all? unless some of them are very ecclesiastical about the religions they do not believe in and some of my own coreligionists are disavowing me as, like, in pernicious error, or mad, or a public sinner whose words have no authority whatsoever in Church and should not be read

the Orthodox Parish here is not fond of talking about this, and the philosophy teacher is deliberately dodging the real url and the real reading by asking if it is ""
April 8, 2008 at 4:44pm

which is why i am asking you guys
no, i am at present not practising as an orthodox should
April 8, 2008 at 4:45pm

CP: There is no such thing as a private sin, since sin has three core dimensions according to Church Teaching:

The self (sinner), the neighbour, and God. Since private implies a lack of relationship, and all sin is with respect to breaking of covenantal relationship natural and supernatural, there is no act, good or bad that is private. However their are communal acts and personal acts.

And like Aquinas said, error shouldn't be tolerated, but people should be. To Catholics its not matter of "either/or" its a matter of "both and" - and that is often re-expressed as the "middle-position." It sounds like you may be falling into reductionalism...but I'm not sure.

I read the document on Church Teaching on Scripture - Have you? Dei Verbum explains that scripture is without error, insofar as the meaning, message and purpose of the text is designated, directed and revealing of who God and his Creation are all about.
April 8, 2008 at 5:25pm

(still CP): I'm curious, about the hope is that you are not attempting to justify yourself in your non-practicing state by hoping that we will reinforce anger from judgementalism or whatever...likely not...but it would be nice to know the context of your question
April 8, 2008 at 5:27pm

the context of my question is my social position, which makes practising harder for me

like a pastoral that tries to reorient me socially and professionnally rather than dealing with sins generally accepted as such

concern with neighbour has nothing to do with not being private

the betrayal of Judas was certainly against neighbour and against God - Christ was both - but it was still private when Judas participated in the Last Supper, it did not become public (before the Church) until he kissed our Lord in front of the guard who then took Him
April 9, 2008 at 9:12am

Lo, M. ... you've been here in Aix
I ask what you know about this
April 9, 2008 at 10:41am [no answer gotten]

CP: I still disagree, and I think so would the Orthodox Church in this category. But I think what is essentially different is the language we are using. All sin has public or social "effects" - In this way, a sin can be owned by an individual (cause), but affect his/her relationship with God and the world (effects).

Either way, if it is an act of indifference towards God and the World, it is still an act of sin against God and the World, and self... Thats all I mean. Its really a mute point right now.
April 9, 2008 at 10:31pm

(still CP): Eitherway, if you are following your conscience you cannot be held with blame for doing X, or doing Y. And no man can tell you what is in your Conscience but yourself...

so the question you are asking shouldn't be given to us.

If you think that we hold you in error, you are quite correct...

but that does not mean we believe you are full of sin and dissention in the "will."
April 9, 2008 at 10:33pm

me: huhh?

"of indifference towards God and the World, it is still an act of sin against God and the World, and self"

- indifference against God is a sin against God: he's our creator
- indifference against father and mother is usually a sin against them: they are our procreators
- indifference against children or against husband or wife are usually sins against them: we procreate the ones with the other (if we're married and have kids)
- when we are small and live with brothers and sisters, indifference to them is clearly nearly always sinful too
- indifference against creditors or debtors, against patrons or employees may well be sinful too, but comes clearly after God and family ..but indifference against the world being a sin against the world, my arse!

if that's what they teach at your seminar, you are among heretics
April 10, 2008 at 12:54pm

to clear up confusions before they arise: I have no duty at all to watch news about "the world", or to worry about "wars and rumours of war" - I do have duties (which I take seriously) against the strangers I meet on the street or on the web, even if they are not my family, God somehow providentially put them in my way, that includes you

"And no man can tell you what is in your Conscience but the question you are asking shouldn't be given to us."

I am not asking you for moral council, I am asking what my reputation is with you

"I still disagree, and I think so would the Orthodox Church in this category."

You should not need guess. I have tagged an Orthodox seminarian on this note, he can answer for his jurisdiction.

I have also tagged at least one Catholic girl I know of where I live, the other being possibly Protestant (I have not asked).
April 10, 2008 at 1:01pm

just in case you scroll down to these last responses, I copy original questions:

is the catholic church treating me as a public sinner?
alternatively madman?
is the orthodox church doing so?
are evangelicals/pentecostals doing so?
if so, why?

April 10, 2008 at 1:05pm

oh, J., I forgot to read all you wrote, I missed the last part

at a coffee-house about a week ago or two, an old but very rarely occasional aquaintance came in when I was enjoying my coffee

he was very concerned to be familiar with me, and this time I am not sure he was not trying to give the impression we had a homosexual relation or a familiar relation as between patient and therapist or some similar nonsense

I was annoyed, but did not punch him in the face, though on hindsight I suspect my reputation might have been better if I had: but I was tired, it was the morning, the coffee had not yet fully restored my waking self (he was going off to work, see why I should not try to get an employment with fixed hours)

April 10, 2008 at 1:18pm

I did not requit his overly familiar gesture, and I asked him about a common aquaintance from two years ago, who had my first violin sonata (in Scarlatti's definition of sonata structure, or at least musicologists' definitions of the very general structure in his sonatas) who - he confirmed it that morning these last fifteen days - did work in the opera, but who had never bothered to either send it back, make it played by a violinist, order another composition or scan it and publish it on Antimodernism after joining the MSN Group to do so.

He offered to give me her e-mail. But, hang it all, it was he who knew her in the first place! It was he who had me believe I might do well to show her my work, or at least that he might do well to introduce us.
April 10, 2008 at 1:22pm

I have no idea what he told the coffee bar owner after we had all left, but next morning there was another guy who did not know me in the bar, there had the been a man asking me to take up a coin from his pocket (he had a burden on the shoulder) which I did with a somewhat queezy feeling, there had been a prolongation of my annual subscription to NetGames, i wanted to get things straight, but I could not. Nor did this old acquaintance show up.
April 10, 2008 at 1:22pm

It may be added, that the same person earlier on on two occasions had expressed concern about my leaving Aix ...
April 10, 2008 at 1:37pm

It may be furthermore added that a Catholic priest - not the curate, but the aumonier des jeunes - had been loth to talk to me in Salon, except for the first time we talked; but eager to shake my hand when he saw me, while visiting his bishop in Aix
April 10, 2008 at 1:40pm

CP: LOL - indifference to the world - what I meant by that, and I think its completly obvious, is indifference to creation - I'm not discussing the flesh.

If we hate creation, we consequently hate the creator...if we hate the creator, we consequently hate creation...that is the rather simplistic logical non-heretical argument that I'm saying...and if you disagree with that...I shall laugh
April 10, 2008 at 3:56pm

between creation and flesh, there is society

I totally agree hatred of creation is bad: that is one reason why I have never liked manicheans. However, world has another connotation than creation, and creation can be better worded as earth "he who destroyeth earth, him shall the Lord destroy" or universe, kosmos, aka heavens and earth "in the beginning God created Heavens and the earth".

World as you might be aware has meanings pertaining to life in society or peer pressure. And I would not call the peer pressure to listen to half bawdy videoed music is the worst - nor is that something I do out of peer pressure alone. I like Alicia Keys, though the dancing in her last video is not quite on the decent side. Which would be bad if I tried to be a monk or hoped to be a priest, but for a layman ... the peer pressure I dread is the one of getting myself into undeservedly well reputed situations, where I've had the misfortune to be in the past.
April 10, 2008 at 4:53pm

Like getting a job again before marriage. Like getting paid for being on time and clean or being early on time and fast - or for teaching where there are young people who are more or less miserable because of the school.
April 10, 2008 at 4:54pm

Or like getting involved with an old maid, not likely to have many children, likely to have rejected suitors because they were what I am but she thinks I'm not, likely to recompensate lack of own children by mothering them when they are to old to be mothered or by mothering me for still liking Tintin, or for being a bad worker.
April 10, 2008 at 4:57pm

CP: Actually society is a part of the natural law and design of the human person. the flesh in scriptural language refers not so much to the body or skin, but rather a disposition that puts earthly goods higher than eternal goods.
April 10, 2008 at 5:18pm

JU: Mr. Lundahl,Perhaps if you go to that cafe again, you should take a date.
April 10, 2008 at 11:50pm

me: My dear, C.:

a) you reduce the enimies of the soul to devil and flesh, which is heretical; they are devil, world and flesh

b) society is part of natural law in so far as it fulfils it, but part of the fall in so far as the ones having power in society go against natural law in wielding either direct power or influence against an innocent person's either (relative)innocence or if he refuses to give it up, worldly interests...

My dear J.:

The reason I brought this up is precisely the difficulties I have in getting a date. In getting a reasonably young gal (not an old maid, though I do not insist on a secondary high school student either, one attending what is here known as faculté and where you are known as college will other things being equal do fine, as is also the case with a bright, single girl about that age who is d[o]ing the route like a vagabond) who dares see me without a chaperon.
April 11, 2008 at 10:09am

Also the difficulties in getting anyone to play my musical compositions for money and sending me part of it.
April 11, 2008 at 10:10am

Oh, C.: "the flesh in scriptural language refers not so much to the body or skin, but rather a disposition that puts earthly goods higher than eternal goods."

Were you accusing me of being a manichee or are you counselling me to practise in a parish which to appearances so far is joining hands with my worldly enemies? In the first case, the lecture was unnecessary, in the second ... well there have been lots of Catholic parishes where I did just that, and it has maybe helped me spiritually, but it is part of the reasons why I am not living the life I think I should live.
April 11, 2008 at 10:13am

I asked a common acquaintance, the man in the café was not homosexual, he said.

Any other takes on what's getting at my reputation?
April 18, 2008 at 4:28pm

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire