Poll: What will you do?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
44
0%
0 0%
38
0%
0 0%
5
0%
0 0%
40
0%
0 0%
10
0%
0 0%
Total 0 vote(s) 0%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

The SSPX/Rome Official Poll
My command of the English language is impeccable, sir. Boogeyman is the American spelling. Bogeyman is the British variant.

However, I just want to boogie!
Reply
(05-20-2012, 11:04 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
John Lane Wrote:Davies didn't claim that the Archbishop was anti-sedevacantist, he simply omitted nearly all the data upon which the Archbishop's views on the matter could be assessed.  In that way, he created a false impression.  You're trying to do exactly the same thing, no doubt in all sincerity, because you, like Davies, find the possibility of sede vacante some kind of bogey-man which frightens you.

This. It is made into a boogeyman.

Exactly, and the results are twofold.  First, the frightened ones frighten others, by misrepresenting the historical record so as to father on the most prominent traditionalists their own fears and hatreds.  Second, the general effect upon Catholics of believing that Benedict XVI is certainly the pope is to cause them to desire to be truly subject to him.  This entails very grave dangers, such as the danger that they may permit him to teach them, something that traditional Catholics are usually and habitually immune to, and the danger that they may allow him to attempt to govern them, which is something that sounder traditional Catholics are usually and habitually immune to; but less sound thinkers amongst us have demonstrated that they are open to this possibility again and again, every time with disastrous results.

The discussion here reminds me of this one with Peter Hitchens:  http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2...opics.html

The fearful ones can't bear the thought that a legitimate opinion is regarded as legitimate.  They want to shut down the debate, silence those who fail to share their fears, and prevent anybody from knowing that Archbishop Lefebvre simply didn't agree with them. 

Of course TrentCath is so confused about his own ideas that on the question of explicit faith in Christ, he has chosen (by accident?) the liberal minority opinion against St. Thomas and the popes, and finds himself arguing that this opinion is lawful and respectable.  Which it is.  It just isn't true, and it isn't favoured by the Church, it is tolerated.  Hopefully this experience will teach him some diffidence, and enlighten him about the reality that some things, even though absolutely crucially important, can be subject to lawful dispute.  Now that would be good!
Reply
(05-21-2012, 01:34 AM)John Lane Wrote:
(05-20-2012, 11:04 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
John Lane Wrote:Davies didn't claim that the Archbishop was anti-sedevacantist, he simply omitted nearly all the data upon which the Archbishop's views on the matter could be assessed.  In that way, he created a false impression.  You're trying to do exactly the same thing, no doubt in all sincerity, because you, like Davies, find the possibility of sede vacante some kind of bogey-man which frightens you.

This. It is made into a boogeyman.

Exactly, and the results are twofold.  First, the frightened ones frighten others, by misrepresenting the historical record so as to father on the most prominent traditionalists their own fears and hatreds.  Second, the general effect upon Catholics of believing that Benedict XVI is certainly the pope is to cause them to desire to be truly subject to him.  This entails very grave dangers, such as the danger that they may permit him to teach them, something that traditional Catholics are usually and habitually immune to, and the danger that they may allow him to attempt to govern them, which is something that sounder traditional Catholics are usually and habitually immune to; but less sound thinkers amongst us have demonstrated that they are open to this possibility again and again, every time with disastrous results.

The discussion here reminds me of this one with Peter Hitchens:  http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2...opics.html

The fearful ones can't bear the thought that a legitimate opinion is regarded as legitimate.  They want to shut down the debate, silence those who fail to share their fears, and prevent anybody from knowing that Archbishop Lefebvre simply didn't agree with them. 

Of course TrentCath is so confused about his own ideas that on the question of explicit faith in Christ, he has chosen (by accident?) the liberal minority opinion against St. Thomas and the popes, and finds himself arguing that this opinion is lawful and respectable.  Which it is.  It just isn't true, and it isn't favoured by the Church, it is tolerated.  Hopefully this experience will teach him some diffidence, and enlighten him about the reality that some things, even though absolutely crucially important, can be subject to lawful dispute.  Now that would be good!

Sorry, I read this as 'Trent Cath is wrong because I say so....'
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)