FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Sedevacantism Debate at this Forum
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
(01-23-2013, 08:59 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]Nobody claims that the Pope is "infinitely beyond" others intellectually, but he is a very subtle academic and needs to be read carefully.  That is not saying that he is beyond our capacity to understand, but merely a call to prudence and careful reading.  Frankly though, I haven't seen anything from "other men who are of his intellectual capacity" rebutting him, and certainly nothing from anybody of that description in the Sede camp.

That's unfair I think.  The Sedes are intellectual giants.  If you doubt it, just ask them.  They'll tell you.  Q.E.D.  Tip o' the hat
(01-23-2013, 08:54 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-23-2013, 08:49 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Amusingly, it sounds quite similar indeed, you and others that deny this are often the very same people who make such absurd arguments. I dislike sedevecantism as much as anyone else, but there are many on here who do engage in the kind of behaviour southpaw refers to, I've heard such arguments from the 'liberal' crowd on here and often when pushed they complain about how people are insulting them, invent things to complain about or simply run away with their tail behind their legs and pretend the thread never existed, they also act stupid when all else fails.

Actually not; SouthPaw failed to recreate the arguments of those who disagreed with him and posited a cartoon caricature.

Then why do I recognise it? Sorry, but I've come across similar arguments on here. I'm not saying the exact same arguments, but pretty similar, if not worse 'oh actually pope leo xiii taught the exact same as vatican 2 because actually a state blah blah blah' when the works are quoted and its blatantly obvious that no one but a protestant could mangle words so badly they just keep repeating things ad nauseam till someone gives up.
(01-23-2013, 08:59 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]To be specific as to how he was incorrect:

(01-23-2013, 11:53 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]One immediate rebuttal will be, "But the Holy Father is infinitely more intelligent than we are.  You are not qualified to criticize him."  What then when I refer to other men who are of his intellectual capacity and who vehemently disagree with him?  How shall their arguments be treated?

Nobody claims that the Pope is "infinitely beyond" others intellectually, but he is a very subtle academic and needs to be read carefully.  That is not saying that he is beyond our capacity to understand, but merely a call to prudence and careful reading.  Frankly though, I haven't seen anything from "other men who are of his intellectual capacity" rebutting him, and certainly nothing from anybody of that description in the Sede camp.

Quote:I likewise envision a second rebuttal to be, "But doctrine has developed, and we need to give the Magisterium time to work out the kinks in the admittedly novel points of doctrine which have appeared since 1964."  It's the Magisterium's task to teach clearly the truths revealed by God, and yet it has utterly failed in this regard for the last 50 years.  Besides that, there's nothing wrong with applying logic and known doctrines to the novelties to see if they are truly in continuity with what was taught in the past.  I think we're obliged to do this in order preserve our faith, for which we are personally responsible.

When has anybody on this forum ever called on "doctrinal development" to defend VII: Electric Bugaloo?  Aside from random trolls.

Jayne, in more than a few posts, has posted this. 'Oh every council needs time, maybe in a hundred years it'll be sorted' to paraphrase her words.
(01-23-2013, 09:04 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-23-2013, 08:54 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-23-2013, 08:49 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Amusingly, it sounds quite similar indeed, you and others that deny this are often the very same people who make such absurd arguments. I dislike sedevecantism as much as anyone else, but there are many on here who do engage in the kind of behaviour southpaw refers to, I've heard such arguments from the 'liberal' crowd on here and often when pushed they complain about how people are insulting them, invent things to complain about or simply run away with their tail behind their legs and pretend the thread never existed, they also act stupid when all else fails.

Actually not; SouthPaw failed to recreate the arguments of those who disagreed with him and posited a cartoon caricature.

Then why do I recognise it? Sorry, but I've come across similar arguments on here. I'm not saying the exact same arguments, but pretty similar, if not worse 'oh actually pope leo xiii taught the exact same as vatican 2 because actually a state blah blah blah' when the works are quoted and its blatantly obvious that no one but a protestant could mangle words so badly they just keep repeating things ad nauseam till someone gives up.

Uh-huh.  You, too, seem to have an eminent grasp on what others are saying in your ability to recreate their arguments.  Is "blah blah blah" a direct quote?  Bubbles
(01-23-2013, 09:05 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-23-2013, 08:59 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]To be specific as to how he was incorrect:

(01-23-2013, 11:53 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]One immediate rebuttal will be, "But the Holy Father is infinitely more intelligent than we are.  You are not qualified to criticize him."  What then when I refer to other men who are of his intellectual capacity and who vehemently disagree with him?  How shall their arguments be treated?

Nobody claims that the Pope is "infinitely beyond" others intellectually, but he is a very subtle academic and needs to be read carefully.  That is not saying that he is beyond our capacity to understand, but merely a call to prudence and careful reading.  Frankly though, I haven't seen anything from "other men who are of his intellectual capacity" rebutting him, and certainly nothing from anybody of that description in the Sede camp.

Quote:I likewise envision a second rebuttal to be, "But doctrine has developed, and we need to give the Magisterium time to work out the kinks in the admittedly novel points of doctrine which have appeared since 1964."  It's the Magisterium's task to teach clearly the truths revealed by God, and yet it has utterly failed in this regard for the last 50 years.  Besides that, there's nothing wrong with applying logic and known doctrines to the novelties to see if they are truly in continuity with what was taught in the past.  I think we're obliged to do this in order preserve our faith, for which we are personally responsible.

When has anybody on this forum ever called on "doctrinal development" to defend VII: Electric Bugaloo?  Aside from random trolls.

Jayne, in more than a few posts, has posted this. 'Oh every council needs time, maybe in a hundred years it'll be sorted' to paraphrase her words.

Paraphrase is a dangerous tool.  What were her exact words, and where?
(01-23-2013, 09:07 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-23-2013, 09:05 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-23-2013, 08:59 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]To be specific as to how he was incorrect:

(01-23-2013, 11:53 AM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]One immediate rebuttal will be, "But the Holy Father is infinitely more intelligent than we are.  You are not qualified to criticize him."  What then when I refer to other men who are of his intellectual capacity and who vehemently disagree with him?  How shall their arguments be treated?

Nobody claims that the Pope is "infinitely beyond" others intellectually, but he is a very subtle academic and needs to be read carefully.  That is not saying that he is beyond our capacity to understand, but merely a call to prudence and careful reading.  Frankly though, I haven't seen anything from "other men who are of his intellectual capacity" rebutting him, and certainly nothing from anybody of that description in the Sede camp.

Quote:I likewise envision a second rebuttal to be, "But doctrine has developed, and we need to give the Magisterium time to work out the kinks in the admittedly novel points of doctrine which have appeared since 1964."  It's the Magisterium's task to teach clearly the truths revealed by God, and yet it has utterly failed in this regard for the last 50 years.  Besides that, there's nothing wrong with applying logic and known doctrines to the novelties to see if they are truly in continuity with what was taught in the past.  I think we're obliged to do this in order preserve our faith, for which we are personally responsible.

When has anybody on this forum ever called on "doctrinal development" to defend VII: Electric Bugaloo?  Aside from random trolls.

Jayne, in more than a few posts, has posted this. 'Oh every council needs time, maybe in a hundred years it'll be sorted' to paraphrase her words.

Paraphrase is a dangerous tool.  What were her exact words, and where?

Go ask her.
(01-23-2013, 09:11 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Go ask her.

You are the one asserting that she "basically" said something, which I haven't seen her say.  I have seen paint a scenario where the Vatican qualifies Vatican II to death over time, which is a likely scenario.  The Vatican will certainly never renounce an ecumenical council; that's a pipedream.
(01-23-2013, 09:13 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-23-2013, 09:11 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Go ask her.

You are the one asserting that she "basically" said something, which I haven't seen her say.  I have seen paint a scenario where the Vatican qualifies Vatican II to death over time, which is a likely scenario.  The Vatican will certainly never renounce an ecumenical council; that's a pipedream.

As I said, go ask her.
(01-23-2013, 10:04 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-23-2013, 09:13 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-23-2013, 09:11 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]Go ask her.

You are the one asserting that she "basically" said something, which I haven't seen her say.  I have seen paint a scenario where the Vatican qualifies Vatican II to death over time, which is a likely scenario.  The Vatican will certainly never renounce an ecumenical council; that's a pipedream.

As I said, go ask her.

Eye-roll
I say stuff a bit like that, but when I say it, it makes sense.  Smile
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35