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
(01-24-2013, 01:49 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 11:37 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 10:43 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 09:57 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Indifferentism is a serious problem.  I agree with you about Assisi and so did Cardinal Ratzinger.  After becoming pope, his own version of Assisi was an attempt to get rid of the elements that led to indifferentism while still countering atheism.  Unfortunately, it seems to have been too tainted by the previous ones to have much success.

Anyhow we could debate back and forth on how to best respond to atheism and each have our own opinion.  I do not understand why some people are so sure that their opinions on this question are correct that they are prepared to say the Magisterium is wrong (or even heretical) for disagreeing with them.  There are those in authority in the Church whose job it is to make this kind of decision.  There really is a possibility that they know what they are doing.

a) Devil worshippers, inter alia, prayed at Assisi 3, I would not call it 'purified'
b) No one says that the magisterium is wrong or heretical for disagreeing with their opinion, this is a straw man and a rather typical attempt by you to misrepresent other peoples positions, what they do say is that the 'magisterium' is wrong or heretical for disagreeing with the pre conciliar Magisterium or that what people today believe is the magisterium is not in fact the magisterium at all
c) No one disputes that they know what they are doing, twisting and mangling church teaching to their own unorthodox ends

From my perspective, some people have a lot of difficulty distinguishing between their opinion of what the pre-conciliar Magisterium taught and the pre-conciliar teaching.  In effect, this means they place their opinion above the current Magisterium.

If you are accusing the current Magisterium of twisting and mangling Church teaching to their own unorthodox ends, then I certainly do dispute it. They, unlike you, actually have the authority to interpret pre-conciliar teaching.  If your opinion about it disagrees with them, then you are probably wrong.

As for misrepresenting people's positions, I think I have come closer than "blah, blah blah."

That is because you are tainted with Modernism, and think respecting the arguments of others and trying understand them is good.  Also, that context matters, and other such nonsense.

a) tainted with modernism yes
b) trying to understand the arguments of others, unlikely from Jayne, unless of course its some statement the hierarchy has made, in which case God forbid that anyone points out the obvious, namely that its unorthodox
c) context, not the tired old 'well in context saying st john bless Islam actually means...' or 'in context saying we can hope no one is in hell means...' or 'in context saying the jews are still the chosen people means....' Context can clarify, it  doesn't change A into B, as some people here claim it does.
(01-24-2013, 01:52 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 11:52 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]No Jayne, you do misrepresent others positions, on almost every occasion you mention someone else's position. You have admitted the quote I alleged was yours, was in fact yours and in fact it's been shown to be true, we on the other hand are still waiting for you to show that people here believe that going against their opinion is equivalent to heresy.

SouthPaw found a quote, but it was not was alleged.  Still not sure you are reading it correctly.   Eye-roll

It was exactly as I alleged, really I do worry that you can't read.
(01-24-2013, 01:55 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 01:52 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 11:52 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]No Jayne, you do misrepresent others positions, on almost every occasion you mention someone else's position. You have admitted the quote I alleged was yours, was in fact yours and in fact it's been shown to be true, we on the other hand are still waiting for you to show that people here believe that going against their opinion is equivalent to heresy.

SouthPaw found a quote, but it was not was alleged.  Still not sure you are reading it correctly.   Eye-roll

It was exactly as I alleged, really I do worry that you can't read.

He paraphrased it to mean something quite different from what Jayne actually said.
(01-24-2013, 01:54 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 01:49 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 11:37 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 10:43 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 09:57 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Indifferentism is a serious problem.  I agree with you about Assisi and so did Cardinal Ratzinger.  After becoming pope, his own version of Assisi was an attempt to get rid of the elements that led to indifferentism while still countering atheism.  Unfortunately, it seems to have been too tainted by the previous ones to have much success.

Anyhow we could debate back and forth on how to best respond to atheism and each have our own opinion.  I do not understand why some people are so sure that their opinions on this question are correct that they are prepared to say the Magisterium is wrong (or even heretical) for disagreeing with them.  There are those in authority in the Church whose job it is to make this kind of decision.  There really is a possibility that they know what they are doing.

a) Devil worshippers, inter alia, prayed at Assisi 3, I would not call it 'purified'
b) No one says that the magisterium is wrong or heretical for disagreeing with their opinion, this is a straw man and a rather typical attempt by you to misrepresent other peoples positions, what they do say is that the 'magisterium' is wrong or heretical for disagreeing with the pre conciliar Magisterium or that what people today believe is the magisterium is not in fact the magisterium at all
c) No one disputes that they know what they are doing, twisting and mangling church teaching to their own unorthodox ends

From my perspective, some people have a lot of difficulty distinguishing between their opinion of what the pre-conciliar Magisterium taught and the pre-conciliar teaching.  In effect, this means they place their opinion above the current Magisterium.

If you are accusing the current Magisterium of twisting and mangling Church teaching to their own unorthodox ends, then I certainly do dispute it. They, unlike you, actually have the authority to interpret pre-conciliar teaching.  If your opinion about it disagrees with them, then you are probably wrong.

As for misrepresenting people's positions, I think I have come closer than "blah, blah blah."

That is because you are tainted with Modernism, and think respecting the arguments of others and trying understand them is good.  Also, that context matters, and other such nonsense.

a) tainted with modernism yes
b) trying to understand the arguments of others, unlikely from Jayne, unless of course its some statement the hierarchy has made, in which case God forbid that anyone points out the obvious, namely that its unorthodox
c) context, not the tired old 'well in context saying st john bless Islam actually means...' or 'in context saying we can hope no one is in hell means...' or 'in context saying the jews are still the chosen people means....' Context can clarify, it  doesn't change A into B, as some people here claim it does.

LOL

Usually when context is brought up in these, it is because people have lifted quote from separate parts of a work to destroy what they actually meant, or edited out a beginning or following part that showed that somebody was talking a hypothetical.  For example, it was common for 19th century German philosophers to quote Aquinas' Obejections in the Summa as the Saint's actual opinions, the opposite of what he really thought.  Similar misrepresentations are common in certain circles here.
(01-24-2013, 01:57 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 01:55 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 01:52 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 11:52 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]No Jayne, you do misrepresent others positions, on almost every occasion you mention someone else's position. You have admitted the quote I alleged was yours, was in fact yours and in fact it's been shown to be true, we on the other hand are still waiting for you to show that people here believe that going against their opinion is equivalent to heresy.

SouthPaw found a quote, but it was not was alleged.  Still not sure you are reading it correctly.   Eye-roll

It was exactly as I alleged, really I do worry that you can't read.

He paraphrased it to mean something quite different from what Jayne actually said.

Shrug

It did happen to be exactly what I said though, and he went about looking for the quote based on what I had alleged Jayne had said, so it's unfair to claim that thats evidence that his paraphrasing was wrong.
(01-24-2013, 02:00 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 01:54 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 01:49 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 11:37 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 10:43 AM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 09:57 AM)JayneK Wrote: [ -> ]Indifferentism is a serious problem.  I agree with you about Assisi and so did Cardinal Ratzinger.  After becoming pope, his own version of Assisi was an attempt to get rid of the elements that led to indifferentism while still countering atheism.  Unfortunately, it seems to have been too tainted by the previous ones to have much success.

Anyhow we could debate back and forth on how to best respond to atheism and each have our own opinion.  I do not understand why some people are so sure that their opinions on this question are correct that they are prepared to say the Magisterium is wrong (or even heretical) for disagreeing with them.  There are those in authority in the Church whose job it is to make this kind of decision.  There really is a possibility that they know what they are doing.

a) Devil worshippers, inter alia, prayed at Assisi 3, I would not call it 'purified'
b) No one says that the magisterium is wrong or heretical for disagreeing with their opinion, this is a straw man and a rather typical attempt by you to misrepresent other peoples positions, what they do say is that the 'magisterium' is wrong or heretical for disagreeing with the pre conciliar Magisterium or that what people today believe is the magisterium is not in fact the magisterium at all
c) No one disputes that they know what they are doing, twisting and mangling church teaching to their own unorthodox ends

From my perspective, some people have a lot of difficulty distinguishing between their opinion of what the pre-conciliar Magisterium taught and the pre-conciliar teaching.  In effect, this means they place their opinion above the current Magisterium.

If you are accusing the current Magisterium of twisting and mangling Church teaching to their own unorthodox ends, then I certainly do dispute it. They, unlike you, actually have the authority to interpret pre-conciliar teaching.  If your opinion about it disagrees with them, then you are probably wrong.

As for misrepresenting people's positions, I think I have come closer than "blah, blah blah."

That is because you are tainted with Modernism, and think respecting the arguments of others and trying understand them is good.  Also, that context matters, and other such nonsense.

a) tainted with modernism yes
b) trying to understand the arguments of others, unlikely from Jayne, unless of course its some statement the hierarchy has made, in which case God forbid that anyone points out the obvious, namely that its unorthodox
c) context, not the tired old 'well in context saying st john bless Islam actually means...' or 'in context saying we can hope no one is in hell means...' or 'in context saying the jews are still the chosen people means....' Context can clarify, it  doesn't change A into B, as some people here claim it does.

LOL

Usually when context is brought up in these, it is because people have lifted quote from separate parts of a work to destroy what they actually meant, or edited out a beginning or following part that showed that somebody was talking a hypothetical.  For example, it was common for 19th century German philosophers to quote Aquinas' Obejections in the Summa as the Saint's actual opinions, the opposite of what he really thought.  Similar misrepresentations are common in certain circles here.

I disagree. Context is often used in the way I claim, I have rarely seen it used in the way you claim.
(01-24-2013, 02:15 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree. Context is often used in the way I claim, I have rarely seen it used in the way you claim.

Maybe you were missing the context.  Grandpa
(01-24-2013, 02:14 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]It did happen to be exactly what I said though, and he went about looking for the quote based on what I had alleged Jayne had said, so it's unfair to claim that thats evidence that his paraphrasing was wrong.

Ah, excuse me, I was dealing with what SouthPaw said, which was  indeed a cartoon version.
(01-24-2013, 02:21 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 02:15 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree. Context is often used in the way I claim, I have rarely seen it used in the way you claim.

Maybe you were missing the context.  Grandpa

Possibly, or maybe someone was missing their logic.
(01-24-2013, 02:23 PM)Parmandur Wrote: [ -> ]
(01-24-2013, 02:14 PM)TrentCath Wrote: [ -> ]It did happen to be exactly what I said though, and he went about looking for the quote based on what I had alleged Jayne had said, so it's unfair to claim that thats evidence that his paraphrasing was wrong.

Ah, excuse me, I was dealing with what SouthPaw said, which was  indeed a cartoon version.

Maybe, Maybe not, I haven't found it to be far from the truth.
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