It is currently Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:03 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
 Fr. Cekada and Bishop Sanborn: A request for reconsideration 
Author Message
New post Fr. Cekada and Bishop Sanborn: A request for reconsideration
John, I have been seeking to gather information regarding a number of issues based on some input Fr. Cekada placed in this forum, but at least in a couple of cases I found the links blocked or broken.

I realize I said not long ago that forum moderators have a right to block persons or issues, but I have reconsidered since it is precisely the opinions of these important men I need to see fleshed out towards a clarification of my own views. I need to see input, theirs and others and this is the best forum for this, because the quality of the input is so helpful. To censor seminal thinkers might not be the best thing if we are seeking objective clarification of thought. And believe me, I have concerns about some of their views---which I why I hope to see the input.

So would you please reconsider allowing their polite input here, either directly, or via their links or friends, so that when issues are raised we can get it from the horse's mouth and then observe the discourse that follows?

Thanks for considering this.


Mon Mar 10, 2008 8:58 pm
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Fr. Cekada and Bishop Sanborn: A request for reconsideration
paxus wrote:
John, I have been seeking to gather information regarding a number of issues based on some input Fr. Cekada placed in this forum, but at least in a couple of cases I found the links blocked or broken.

Please just point these out. We've done nothing like this.

But, I do have a policy of not permitting links to be posted generally. That is why there are few here.

paxus wrote:
So would you please reconsider allowing their polite input here, either directly, or via their links or friends, so that when issues are raised we can get it from the horse's mouth and then observe the discourse that follows?

They are always welcome to post. Fr. Cekada actually has an account, as you can see from the Member List page. He posts occasionally.

I think your problem is that they don't wish to enter into discussions with us here, which is entirely their right and it is no problem at all.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:23 pm
Profile E-mail
New post Re: Fr. Cekada and Bishop Sanborn: A request for reconsideration
Oh, Ok. Thanks very much. I will try to locate the links which seemed broken to me.

a.) I guess my first question is whether Fr. Cekada and Bishop Sanborn would grant the distinction between moral certainty and absolute certainty with respect to rejecting the "popes" who occupy the papal seat in Rome.

b.) Would they accept that moral certainty about their invalidity is certainty, as I hope? And would that be sufficient? I am thinking of the latter's essay on "Opinionism" where the bishop could be interpreted (understood or misunderstood) to mean an "absolute" certainty, though I admit I read his essay rather quickly. It's a point I would like to see cleared up in my mind.

There are some others too, but later.


Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:43 am

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Fr. Cekada and Bishop Sanborn: A request for reconsideration
John Lane wrote:
I think your problem is that they don't wish to enter into discussions with us here, which is entirely their right and it is no problem at all.


Discussions here DO take an AWFUL lot of time! :lol: It is so much fun to be able to talk with REAL Catholics. We, here, live in a vast spiritual wasteland.

I find I must force myself to stay away at times in order to get my daily duty done properly.

I think it would be awfully nice if Bp. Sanborn and/or Fr. Cekada could block out perhaps an hour a week, or even an hour a month, to engage in some useful discussion here.

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Tue Mar 11, 2008 5:34 pm
Profile E-mail
New post Re: Fr. Cekada and Bishop Sanborn: A request for reconsideration
Quote:
I think it would be awfully nice if Bp. Sanborn and/or Fr. Cekada could block out perhaps an hour a week, or even an hour a month, to engage in some useful discussion here.


Yes, for sure, Ken. It would be helpful for those of us trying to work out the implications and distinctions involved. What is your opinion on this matter of the relation of moral and absolute certainty? I'm not looking for definitions, but rather the implications for holding to the Sedevacantist position. In the aforementioned Opinionism piece Bishop Sanborn (I think it was) says one must conclude to the Sedevacantist position, but is it with a moral or absolute certainty?


Wed Mar 12, 2008 2:25 am

Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:42 am
Posts: 740
Location: Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.
New post Re: Fr. Cekada and Bishop Sanborn: A request for reconsideration
paxus wrote:
Yes, for sure, Ken. It would be helpful for those of us trying to work out the implications and distinctions involved. What is your opinion on this matter of the relation of moral and absolute certainty?


Well, to begin with, I have been frantically busy the last few days, and am very short on sleep, so anything I might venture at this point would probably be wrong. Secondly, I will have to re-read what Bp. Sanborn says on the subject. As I remember it, I was somewhat disquieted by his arguments and conclusions, but cannot, at this point, remember why.

Quote:
I'm not looking for definitions, but rather the implications for holding to the Sedevacantist position. In the aforementioned Opinionism piece Bishop Sanborn (I think it was) says one must conclude to the Sedevacantist position,


Well, if that is what he stated, then I MUST re-read that article again. I find that statement to be almost dogmatic, and as I have repeatedly stated here, there is no one that I know of who has either the authority or the competence to propose a dogma. If he means one must logically reach his conclusions, that is one thing, but to say that anyone must morally conclude to that position is, in my opinion, quite another matter.

Quote:
but is it with a moral or absolute certainty?


Based on what little I understand about it, I would hope he meant "moral certainty", in this case. I don't think there is really enough evidence to prove "absolute certainty". However, let me make it clear that as far as I am concerned, given the available incontrovertible, but still incomplete, evidence, it is entirely reasonable to "conclude to the Sedevacantist position."

I will repeat: one thing I firmly believe is that those logicians who have arrived at the Sedevacantist position have based their conclusion on incomplete evidence, and have chosen to not accept evidence that may prove to be equally strong and valid, given enough investigation.

As soon as I am past my present family crisis (it seems we have these regularly) I will continue to present other evidence in support of the Siri Thesis. I am trying to do so in a logical progression, but unfortunately, there have had to be big gaps between my various presentations.

BTW, I have not forgotten that I promised to present the other evidence I mentioned concerning Roncalli's membership in the Masonic order, and I will do so as soon as I can.

I don't think I have been much help with your question...

_________________
Kenneth G. Gordon CinC
Moscow, Idaho
U.S.A.


Wed Mar 12, 2008 3:34 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4334
New post Re: Fr. Cekada and Bishop Sanborn: A request for reconsideration
paxus wrote:
In the aforementioned Opinionism piece Bishop Sanborn (I think it was) says one must conclude to the Sedevacantist position, but is it with a moral or absolute certainty?


Dear Paxus,

I agree with Ken.

May I suggest that we insist upon proper traditional concepts and terminology? Here is a philosophy manual on the kinds and degrees of certitude: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/certainty.html

The kind of certitude available to a diligent and intelligent person with respect to the vacancy of the Holy See is moral certitude.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Mar 12, 2008 4:26 am
Profile E-mail
New post Re: Fr. Cekada and Bishop Sanborn: A request for reconsideration
Ken, thanks for replying, especially being so tired. And John, thanks for the reference.


Wed Mar 12, 2008 7:01 am
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.