I just fired Winchester

[dUSt]

Some thoughts I had while reading this thread:

Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the llamas of drama!

It's nice to know that I am still mentioned, even despite my gaping absence. 

It is not so nice to read past threads (which are too close to the present for comfort) wherein I was very aggressive and acted like a hat fitted upon a backside. But oh well. Personal growth and maturity and all that jazz.

Anyway, I must put my mighty fetus foot down on this. Everyone, be nice. You're not allowed to have drama without me. I thought that was implied when I left for the internship. If you can't contain yourself, at the very least message me so I may view the drama as it's happening, rather than looking at its aftermath like a traveler walking through a bombed out city.

 

Phatmass works great on phones.

[franciscanheart]

Phatmass works great on phones.

Lie.

[dUSt]

Lie.

Hater.

[PhuturePriest]

@veritasluxmea Yes, I think the last thread link was the one that caused this.  It was over a year ago but you'll see on page 6 though, of the last link you gave, FP apologised to me regarding that conversation, or at least part of it. I also said plenty of times that my personal position was with the church. It maybe got lost in the flow of posts.  I do think though that compassion and respecting people is important and that applied specifically to the first or second link when I felt it better to take the apporach I did. Horses for courses. The area I think probably wasn't addressed well, if it was addressed at all, was natural law. Since then I've found Fr. John Hollowell very useful. Check him out.

Anyway, I don't think I supported any specific theorist or priest, as far as I can see, although various people were mentioned as part of the scope of those threads. Sometimes you can't dodge certain people if they appear alot in academic fields, whether you agree with them or not. A couple of the academics, at least two mentioned, are covered in units in a fair few Catholic seminaries.

But by looking at the threads I can see how dealing with secular analysis alongside theological questions probably gives the wrong impression. Not everyone sees the intentions of posts and people the same way. Fair enough. I like taking different views and using them to expand a debate as it's how I work out thoughts and build a stronger faith in what I believe. Others, so it seems, don't like doing that.  That's fine. I've largely given up doing that through online public forums now anyway, partly as I have been asked to do so by superiors but also because I'm practically more occupied with my novitiate placements and stuff now.

@dUSt I didn't get a warning message but I would have accepted an objective ticking off if it was thought necessary at the time

 

 

In response to your earlier post, I do not recall asking for you to have a phishy tag, but if I did, I apologize for the rash judgment. 

As for this post, while I did apologize for my confusion, I did not apologize for my less-than-stellar behavior, which I now apologize for.

[Norseman82]

I just fired Winchester.

1. Too controversial.
2. Cusses too much.

I hope you people are happy.

Anybody else you want fired? Banned?

Open, honest and direct. Let's be it.

Thank you.  I have no use for Mediators of Meh who abuse their power, such as editing a post that does not violate fourm rules, (see the "overcompensating statement" edit): 

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/136329-here-is-a-thread-noone-who-isn39t-a-mediator-of-meh-can-comment-on/

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Anybody second giving @Tab'le De'Bah-Rye a Phishy tag?

Tab is back after 1 month of praying for his sin to be decreased and his virtue be increased. Was going to wait till my bday on the 22nd of sep to return but seem to have come back exactly on time, praise be to his sweet and holy name, phishy of men, sounds good to me, since thats what i do, how bout a 'gone fishing' tag, coz not all yaw know whats going on, im just trying to help the flock stay as sheep and not become goats or wolves in sheeps clothing, to the best of my knowledge and understanding of what is truth and truth is love. Hate me if you want, i've recommended phatmass music and the phatmass website to many people in my city, but some of you are so far on yourself its not funny, and i wont say most just some, if that grants me a phishy tag so be it. I may be different but i am no troll and i dont even know what phishy is, but i do know i am a threat to your sin, that should shake you up so i expect the fear and hatred. But i am fully catholic christian and always phishing, whether its lost sheep decieved by pagan and heathen philosophy and or heathens and pagans.

But i am fully catholic christian and always phishing(fishing for souls), whether its lost sheep decieved by pagan and heathen philosophy and or heathens and pagans.

I humbly submit to the majorities decision as holy scripture tells us to do when it comes to christian communities and the final decision which is dUSt's.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

By the way i have never judged anyone to be a lost sheep, my point is im always fishing which includes body building(building the body of christ), thats just what i do, im a christian/catholic.

knowledge of holy scripture or sacred tradition can not save you though both are ok and help, only love can save you, yall need to be more charitable,

Edited September 9, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[MarysLittleFlower]

Tab, the phishy tag refers to those posters who claim to be Catholic but consistently / wilfully  disagree with a Church teaching. I think some people have difficulty understanding you and they aren't sure if you believe all the Church teachings or not. If you do believe all the Church teachings, it would help a lot if you let everyone know here  God bless!

Edited September 9, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

but yes of course somethings can not be tollerated on such a family friendly website like foul language.

Tab, the phishy tag refers to those posters who claim to be Catholic but consistently / wilfully  disagree with a Church teaching. I think some people have difficulty understanding you and they aren't sure if you believe all the Church teachings or not. If you do believe all the Church teachings, it would help a lot if you let everyone know here  God bless!

I have stated multiple times sister mary that i agree 100% with all infallible statements holy mother church makes, just not all are infallible, though even the ones that aren't i have the utmost respect for.

Also i would like to add, yes i take a sympathetic stance with the plight of the protestants as i also think Jesus and the Holy mother do also as holy mother church calls us to be more ecumenical, that being there desire for salvation not only for themselves but the whole world. That does not make me protestant, nore does it make Josh a protestant.

 

[MarysLittleFlower]

Tab thanks for the response, can you clarify which statements you believe to be  infallible? I'm only asking because of the discussion that happened about that. This could help a lot too. 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Again anything from the universal magesterium is infallible and ex cathedra. And not all documents fall under the category of universal magesterium.

And i think there are but 6 ex cathedra statements.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[MarysLittleFlower]

Now its up to dUSt.

Keep in mind that Bishops teaching together with the Pope also act infallibly - someone correct me if I'm wrong. They are not infallible on their own but in a Council / together with the Pope - their statements act infallibly.

As for Protestants, we can care for them but avoid 'indifferentism', where people believe its not important to be in the Church. Church tradition and documents also speak against "communicatio in sacris" - things like sharing in common rites - so sharing Communion with Protestants is forbidden.

Also I was told by a reliable priest to avoid worship with Protestants because worship is like a statement of believing the same - but there are differences. Common worship will be once full unity of doctrine would be reached - Protestants being in the Catholic Church too. 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Now its up to dUSt.

Keep in mind that Bishops teaching together with the Pope also act infallibly - someone correct me if I'm wrong. They are not infallible on their own but in a Council / together with the Pope - their statements act infallibly.

As for Protestants, we can care for them but avoid 'indifferentism', where people believe its not important to be in the Church. Church tradition and documents also speak against "communicatio in sacris" - things like sharing in common rites - so sharing Communion with Protestants is forbidden.

Also I was told by a reliable priest to avoid worship with Protestants because worship is like a statement of believing the same - but there are differences. Common worship will be once full unity of doctrine would be reached - Protestants being in the Catholic Church too. 

As far as i'm aware of the only thing holy mother church forbids us from doing when it comes to protestantism is to yes partake of there communion, and when the cardinals,bishops and pope gather together that is the universal magesterium, it is called a synod of bishops i think.

 Your local priests is in all charity trying to protect you from error which is good, and some can and some cant be close with protestants without it effecting there catholicism, i have stated this multiple times, some are liberal and some are conservative and neither are in competition or against the other, some can go to a pub and have two beers and walk away and some cant because they get caught up in the atmosphere and get drunk.

[MarysLittleFlower]

I'm speaking of Church tradition. There's an article that explains it more - http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/thomas-crean/praying-with-non-catholics.htm

"The traditional teaching of Catholic theology on whether Catholics may participate in non-Catholic religious services is summed up by St Alphonsus Liguori in his Theologia Moralis. This doctor of the church writes, ‘It is not permitted to be present at the sacred rites of infidels and heretics in such a way that you would be judged to be in communion with them’.¹ The reason for this teaching is clear: religious commitments are naturally manifested by outward acts; and to perform an outward act expressive of a false religious commitment is a sin against the true faith. This is true even if the man in question retains the true faith in his heart. So to take the classic example, Christians in the Roman Empire realised that they must not throw incense before a statue of the Emperor, even if they had no belief at all in his divinity – for the act was of itself, in their context, expressive of such a belief, and hence sinful.

This teaching does not imply that the simple presence of a Catholic at a non-Catholic religious service is a sin. Thus moral theologians prior to Vatican II, following the lead of St Alphonsus, acknowledge that there may be a good reason for a Catholic to attend such a service, as when friendship leads one to attend a non-Catholic wedding. This is called by some theologians ‘passivecommunicatio in sacris’. It is activeparticipation in a non-Catholic religious service which is forbidden by the traditional teaching on communicatio in sacris, for example joining in with psalms and hymns in the course of a Lutheran Eucharist."

The traditional understanding is for all Catholics not just 'trads' and the word communicatio in sacris is found in today's canon law. 

The article then compares the traditional understanding to a V2 document and another document that came after that was more 'pastoral ' than doctrinal. Its a complex situation but the author argues that V2 text doesn't substantially contradict the traditional teaching, and also argues that the traditional teaching is important for theological reasons. 

"These considerations seem to show that the text of Unitatis Redintegratio contains nothing which contradicts the traditional teaching of theologians on communicatio in sacris. Whenever this practice is commended by the conciliar document, it is never explicitly said that it is activeparticipation by a Catholic in non-Catholicservices which is in question. Such may have been the ‘mood’ of the Council – but it is not the letter of the text.⁸

Edited September 9, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

Anyway - its a really complex situation and this is one article by a Dominican priest. My priest is very orthodox and also counselled against any active participation. I was also counselled to only attend (passively) any non Catholic services only if I have to. The article shows that this is most in keeping with Church understanding over the millennia. V2 didnt get rid of tradition right we are meant to put it together with tradition, in continuity, as Pope Benedict said. Not in rupture - ignoring all else. Interpretations of V2 texts are not all equal - some are more linked to the other Church teachings than others. 

Edited September 9, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower