God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo
The Sanguine Temperament---Part II
DARK SIDE OF THE SANGUINE TEMPERAMENT
1. Vanity and self-complacency. The pride of the sanguine person does not manifest itself as inordinate ambition or obstinacy, as it does in the choleric, nor as fear of humiliation, as in the melancholic, but as a strong inclination to vanity and self-complacency. The sanguine person finds a well-nigh childish joy and satisfaction in his outward appearance, in his clothes and work. He loves to behold himself in the mirror. He feels happy when praised and is therefore very susceptible to flattery. By praise and flattery a sanguine person can easily be seduced to perform the most imprudent acts and even shameful sins.
2. Inclination to flirtation, jealousy and envy. The sanguine person is inclined to inordinate intimacy and flirtation, because he lacks deep spirituality and leans to the external and is willing to accept flatteries. However, his love is not deep and changes easily. An otherwise well-trained sanguine would be content with superficial familiarities as tokens of affection, but in consequence of his levity and readiness to yield, as well as on account of his optimistic belief that sin may have no evil consequences, he can be easily led to the most grievous aberrations. A bad woman with a sanguine temperament yields herself to sin without restraint and stifles the voice of conscience easily.
Vanity and tendency to love-affairs lead the sanguine person to jealousy, envy, and to all the petty, mean, and detestable faults against charity, which are usually the consequence of envy. Because he is easily influenced by exterior impressions or feelings of sympathy or antipathy, it is hard for the sanguine person to be impartial and just. Superiors of this temperament often have favorites whom they prefer to others. The sanguine is greatly inclined to flatter those whom he loves.
3. Cheerfulness and inordinate love of pleasure. The sanguine person does not like to be alone; he loves company and amusement; he wants to enjoy life. In his amusements such a person can be very frivolous.
4. Dread of virtues which require strenuous efforts. Everything which requires the denial of the gratification of the senses is very hard on the sanguine; for instance, to guard the eyes, the ears, the tongue, to keep silence. He does not like to mortify himself by denying himself some favorite food. He is afraid of corporal acts of penance; only the exceptionally virtuous sanguine succeeds in performing works of penance for many years for sins committed in earlier youth. The ordinary sanguine person is inclined to think that with absolution in the sacrament of penance all sins are blotted out and that continued sorrow for them is unnecessary and even injurious.
5. Other disadvantages of the sanguine temperament:
a) The decisions of the sanguine person are likely to be wrong, because his inquiry into things is only superficial and partial; also because he does not see difficulties; and finally because, through feelings of sympathy or antipathy he is inclined to partiality.
b) The undertakings of the sanguine fail easily because he always takes success for granted, as a matter of course, and therefore does not give sufficient attention to possible obstacles, because he lacks perseverance, and his interest in things fades quickly.
c) The sanguine is unstable in the pursuit of the good. He permits others to lead him and is therefore easily led astray, if he falls into the hands of unscrupulous persons. His enthusiasm is quickly aroused for the good, but it also vanishes quickly. With Peter he readily jumps out of the boat in order to walk on the water, but immediately he is afraid that he may drown. He hastily draws the sword with Peter to defend Jesus, but takes to flight a few minutes later. With Peter he defies the enemies of Jesus, only to deny Him in a short time.
d) Self-knowledge of the sanguine person is deficient because he always caters to the external and is loath to enter into himself, and to give deeper thought to his own actions.
e) The life of prayer of the sanguine suffers from three obstacles: He finds great difficulty in the so called interior prayer for which a quiet, prolonged reflection is necessary; likewise in meditation, spiritual reading, and examination of conscience. He is easily distracted on account of his ever active senses and his uncontrolled imagination and is thereby prevented from attaining a deep and lasting recollection in God. At prayer a sanguine lays too much stress upon emotion and sensible consolation, and in consequence becomes easily disgusted during spiritual aridity.
Thank you for this wonderful post Intriobo.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
DeleteGlad you found it useful, my friend!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo, is this post copied from Rev Conrad Hock?
ReplyDeleteI am a sanguine/choleric so this is very useful but it is a hard combination because when I start physically mortifying myself it leads me into pride or anger.
I ate some corn chips today, I really enjoyed them. I know eating only for taste is gluttony. Did I probably commit it? Was it mortal? When I say I enjoyed it I mean I was tasting each different taste in my mouth very deeply.
Sounds like you are scrupulous. Maybe see a priest about that.
Delete@anon12:46
DeleteAs I make very clear, ALL CONTENT IN THIS SERIES COMES FROM THEOLOGIANS HOCK AND SCHAGEMANN. I take no credit for the content.
As to gluttony, there's nothing wrong with eating things we enjoy as long as it is not excessive, unhealthy, or goes against Church Law on fasting, etc.
God Bless,
---Introibo
The SSPV used to have a Mass location in Colorado. Do you know what happened to it?
ReplyDelete@anon5:59
DeleteNo, I don't. If any reader knows about this, please comment here.
God Bless,
---Introibo
the thesis of cassiciacum seems to have many problematic accidents.
ReplyDeleteThe substance of the thesis, while it forces a strange interpretation of cum ex apostolatus officio is not in itself that problematic sure. But the unnecessary accidents very much are.
1. The denial of formal apostolic succession - this is extremely problematic. One can hold the thesis without holding this. The sedevacantist bishops have ordinary delegated jurisdiction. It is not possible to deny that the church has apostolic succession. Totalism may have a mystery but this accident to the thesis makes a contradiction, the thesis does not solve this as according to them the novus ordo does not have formal apostolic succession either. Pope Pius XI gave Abp. Thuc special powers -
Translation of the Latin Original
"By virtue of the Plenitude of the powers of the Holy Apostolic See, we appoint as our Legate Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc, titular bishop of Saigon, whom we invest with all the necessary powers, for purposes known to us."
Given at Rome at Saint Peter's, on 15 March 1938, the seventeenth year of our pontificate. Pope Pius XI,
Explanation of these powers
What does this document mean ? Let us examine a parallel case in which Pius XI conceded identical powers to another prelate. On 10 March 1920, the same pope Pius XI dictated the same motu proprio for Mgr d'Herbigny (S.J.). The account is recorded in the book of Father Paul Lesourd, published by Lethielleux Editions under the title "Le Jesuite clandestine"
Here is the translation
Motu Proprio By virtue of the plenitude of the Apostolic power, we appoint as our Delegate Michel d'Herbigngy (S.J.), titular bishop of Troie, whom we invest with all the appropriate and necessary powers, for purposes known to us.
Given at Rome at Saint Peter's, on 10 March 1926, the fifth year of our pontificate. Pius XI, Pope
The two cases are analogous. With this Act of the Holy See, the two bishops received pontifical powers, similar to those of Patriarchs. The details of these powers are explained by Pius XI himself, as reported by Father Lesourd in the following terms:
"Orally, the Holy Father first enumerated in detail all the powers which he conferred, including the selection of priests to be ordained and to confer on them the episcopate without the need for them to have pontifical bulls, nor therefore to give their signatures inviting them to act accordingly on the strength of the oath."
"Then, after having at length set out in detail by word of mouth all the powers which were really extraordinary, the Pope resumed them most solemnly as follows"
"In one word, we grant to you all the pontifical powers of the Pope himself, which are not incommunicable by divine right."
In summary:
+Motu Proprio of Pope Pius XI of March 15th, 1938 grants extraordinary authority to the Archbishop.
+December 8th, 1939 Pope Pius XII renews the extraordinary authority granted to the Archbishop. His authority to act with these special powers was never rescinded. (because Pius XII was the last pope)
according to the 1917 CIC Canon 199
§ 1. Whoever has ordinary power of jurisdiction can delegate it to another in whole or in part,
unless it is expressly provided otherwise by law.
§ 2. Even the power of jurisdiction delegated by the Apostolic See can be subdelegated either
for an act or even habitually, unless [the one with the power] was chosen because of personal
characteristics or subdelegation is prohibited.
§ 3. Power delegated for a universe of causes by one below the Roman Pontiff who has ordinary
power can be subdelegated for individual cases.
§ 4. In other cases, delegated power of jurisidiction can only be subdelegated by a concession
expressly made, although delegated judges can delegate the non-jurisdictional elements [of their
work] without express commission.
§ 5. No subdelegated power can be subdelegated again, unless this was expressly granted.
This seems to apply to the case of Abp. Thuc
problems with accidents of the thesis part 2
ReplyDelete2. That cum ex apostolatus and the fifth opinion don't apply anymore
I have previously debunked the claims against bellarmines fifth opinion (that it is merely Jesuit, that the fourth is thomistic) and proven that since the General Council of the Vatican and 1917 CIC it has become the teaching even of the Dominicans, and that Billuart as well as John of St Thomas held, not the theory of Cajetan but a modified version of the theory of St Robert Bellarmine/St Antoninous of Florence that a manifestly heretical pope loses office ipso facto but is given supplied jurisdiction.
But that is irrelevant anyway none of us believe that Roncali through Bergoglio ever were popes. The main topic is about Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio no longer applies because it was abrogated by the 1917 CIC. Which is false. Firstly the 1917 CIC did not abrogate anything contained in divine law, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio is contained in divine law and uses Dogmatic language the 1917 CIC abrogated Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio no more than it abrogated Unam Sanctam. Secondly Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio was contained in the footnotes for canon 188.4 (which itself is contained in divine law according to all the canonists and applies therefore even to the pope).
Can. 6§6 of the 1917 Canon law states: All other disciplinary laws of the old law, which were in force until now and which are neither implicitly or explicitly contained in the Code have lost all force of law with the exception of the laws contained in the approved liturgical books and laws derived from the natural and the positive divine law.
Yes that is correct, it is enough that Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio be IMPLICITLY contained in the 1917 CIC. It is EXPLICITLY contained in the footnotes. It more than fits the criteria.
I don't see why one cannot hold the thesis of cassiciacum while at the same time holding to church teaching on the fifth opinion (which is irrelevant anyway), and on cum ex apostolatus officio, which they could just strangely interpret.
continued below
problems with accidents of the thesis part 3
ReplyDelete3. Trusting in Bergoglio -
this one isn't as bad as the last as it doesn't contradict church teaching, but it does flow from the first.
If these truly are the end times. We should not hope that bergoglio will convert. One can hold the thesis that at least roncali and montini were material (potential) popes without denying the possibility of an imperfect general council. This denial seems to flow from problem one. But if our bishops have Ordinary jurisdiction (which they do) then they can very well depose Bergoglio of the material aspect. And they can very well form an imperfect general council. Or we can hope in divine intervention. But not in bergoglio.
continued
problems with accidents of the thesis part 4
ReplyDeleteError 4. - Material Cardinals electing material popes
the modern thesis now holds that a material pope can designate cardinal electors!, and that these material electors can elect a material pope! This is not true, because the power of appointment IS the power to govern (jurisdiction). Since heretics do not have the power to govern (jurisdiction), they do not have the power to elect a pope.
Rev. Father Peter A. Baart explains that in the creation of Cardinals, the whole substance of the Cardinalate consists in the power of jurisdiction and its consequent prerogatives:
“46. All that is required for the creation of a cardinal is the sufficiently expressed will of the Sovereign Pontiff. Nor is a certain form or any special ceremony essential, because the whole substance of the cardinalate consists in the power of jurisdiction and its consequent prerogatives, which depend simply on the will of the superior. The cardinalate is not, like the priesthood, a sacrament which imprints character and which requires divinely instituted sacramental matter and form; and hence the unanimous teaching is that the manner of promotion to the cardinalate depends entirely on the will and word of the Sovereign Pontiff” (The Roman Court, OR A Treatise on the Cardinals, Roman Congregations and Tribunals, Legates, Apostolic Vicars, Protonotaries, and Other Prelates of the Holy Roman Church, BY THE Reverend Peter A. Baart, STL, Author of "Orphans and Orphan Asylums," and "Episcopal Claims Disproved", FR. PUSTET, Printer to the Holy See and the S. Congregation of Rites, FR. PUSTET & CO., NEW YORK AND CINCINATI: Carolus O'Reilly, STD, Censor Deputatus, Marshall, Mich.
Error 5 - the claim that bergoglio and the novus ordo are juridically catholic
This is false, he is also separated from the Church in a legal way, according to the 1917 Code of Canon Law (human law), Can. 2314, Paragraph 1, 1: “All apostates from the Christian faith and all heretics and schismatics: incur excommunication ipso facto .”
“The censure applied is excommunication incurred ipso facto , which per se does not even require a declaratory sentence. The bonum publicum certainly demands it in the case of clerics” (A COMMENTARY ON THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW By THE REV. P. CHAS. AUGUSTINE, OSB, DD Professor of Canon Law, VOLUME VIII, BOOK V, p. 278).
Since Bergoglio is not a cleric, no declaratory sentence is required, and therefore he is separated from the Church both by Divine Law, in the eyes of God in a spiritual way, and ipso facto, in a legal way, by Ecclesiastical/human Law.
don't get me wrong the thesis has its own SUBSTANTIAL problems.
1. Why do they remain material popes, if they have not accepted the papacy. (the case of one pope mentioned by Fr. Desposito was already refuted, i cant remember by whom though)
2. Why exactly is the election valid? Paul IV is pretty clear that the election of a heretic would be invalid and would not be possible to be made valid. It would be quite a stretch to interpret that in the way of the thesis, which is maybe why they (unfoundedly) claim it was abrogated
But these arent contrary to church teaching or anything per se
The first accidental problems seems very much to be so, the second accidental problem is just their useless rhetoric and the third accidental problem just seems improper. The fourth and fifth also seem to contradict church teaching.
Apostolados sao lucas youtube channel (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrk36vmCl0utgzMnZNzUws9n9Pn3-6IJS) has pretty conclusively proven that bishop Des Lauriers retracted his thesis, and refuted the counter arguments of the IMBC. Yes, even one of the most erudite modern theologians of modern times, intellectual successor and friend of Garrigou Lagrange and author of the ottaviani intervention, confessor of Pius XII who helped write the dogma of the asuumption, The one who theorised the thesis, recognised that it had massive theological errors
the end.
God bless
@anon Beginning @2:08 and continued
DeleteI hold sedeprivationism as a possibility, and not a strong one. You bring up some good points. Please understand that the comments to the posts on this blog should be germane to the topic. I certainly don't mind an off topic sincere query about the faith or an off topic comment.
However, a "mini-post" about another subject is misplaced. I cannot give such a screed the answer it deserves due to time restraints and I'm sure my guest posters feel the same about comments on their posts.
Thank you for understanding.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I know i said the end but i want to make another note
ReplyDeletein summary the thesis of cassiciacum adherents should stop holding all 5 of those accidental errors, which are absolutely not neccessary for the thesis to exist. They also should stop the strange R&R-esque rhetoric and begin to appeal to the heretical pope argument. So that they can have another argument in their arsenal for sedevacantism
1. Heresy
2. Infallibility
3. Indefectibility
5. The Four Marks
6. Invalid Sacraments
7. Membership in Secret Societies
there are many more arguments that we have. But the adherents of the thesis unnecessarily refuse to use the first argument (heresy), even though in reality it is extremely helpful and does not substantially contradict the thesis.
God bless
@anon3:10
DeleteSee my response to you above.
---Introibo
And why the IMBC only accept adherents to the thesis in their seminary. They claim to be the intellectual successors of Msgr. Umberto Benigni yet according to his definition of sedevacante they are not sedevacantists (for more on this see the article by Fr. Vil Lehoranta Totalism vs The Thesis)
ReplyDeleteWhat of all the good, God fearing, European Catholics with vocations who are rejected from the IMBC seminary because they refuse to accept this theological error called the Thesis of Cassiciacum which +Bishop Dolan (Requiescat In Pace) said had the "taste of heresy" and +Bishop Des Lauriers (Requiescat In Pace) said had "enormous theological errors"
I can see why RCI force their priests to adhere to the thesis since "Totalists" can just go to the CMRI or SGG but the IMBC are basically the only presence in Europe.
@anon3:35
DeletePlease see my response to you above.
---Introibo
I wouldn't get to wrapped up in something that's just a thesis. Follow what the church teaches. I like you and many others want this crisis to end.
DeleteAnonymous, just so you know I have been following your posts very closely and with great interest. One thing I learned when studying this topic is that the mandate giving formal and ordinary jurisdiction to bishops and their priests from the Holy See can be tacit when the expressed mandate is impossible, such as during an extended interregnum.
DeleteGriff Ruby wrote a two-volume book [SEDEVACANTE!] which I had the privilege of writing the forward to on jurisdiction during our times. At the time he was putting it together it seemed the Siri theory was more popular than theory you speak of. Which is unfortunate, as otherwise he would have focused more on the Cassiciam theory. But he does address the Cassiciacum theory at some length.
I believe the bishops who kept the faith through V2 (Thuc, Lefebvre, Mayer and possibly Mendez and their successors are the hierarchy. I believe the hierarchy is right where it appears to be, with our [traditional] Catholic bishops.
I don't communicate much with anyone via phone or email, but I would like to get in contact with you if that is possible via email. I fully understand if you do not. But it is good to see someone trying to get to the bottom of it. Our priests are so busy, it seems the lay people have to take the time to get a firm grasp of these subjects. Much like Mario did with the Thuc issue in his great work. What you are discussing is a most important topic.
It would be great if you can get in touch with Griff and have a back and forth. I would love to be included in that if you connect with him.
In his book [SEDEVACANTE!] you get a lot on the topic of jurisdiction straight from sound theologians, so it is worth the read in opinion.
I respect that
DeleteJust as a note to anyone who has read my comment however
The pope mentioned by Fr Desposito was pope victor iii, who’s case was debunked by Fr Valerii Kudryavtsev here
http://www.catholicmessage.org/blog/victor-iii-and-the-thesis-a-tale-by-fr-desposito/2022-12-06-417
Sorry for the spiel. You can delete it if you want.
God bless
@anon12:02
DeleteI don't delete what I publish. You made some excellent points, just too long for a response and not at all germane here on this post. I might revisit sedeprivationism v. sedevacantism.
God Bless,
---Introibo
The person who has been trying for years to get traditional sacraments is just going to stop trying for now. The priest has their contact information. The person is just going to pray and hope that their NO baptism is valid or that baptism of desire applies to them. The person also says the Act of Contrition daily.
ReplyDeleteanyone can baptize this person, you dont need a priest for baptism
DeleteThe person can't think of anybody to do the baptism.
Delete@Anon6:44 What about you? Can you baptize that person?
DeleteThere is nobody available to baptize the person.
Delete@anon2:27
DeleteI ask the same as Michael Hellmann above--Can you do it? How about someone you know who lives near this person? As no priest is necessary, it's hard to believe no one at all can make a one time trip.
God Bless,
---Introibo