Hardrock-Mass
#91
(07-19-2012, 11:53 AM)Stubborn Wrote: Surely you jest - - - you just did it again.......fyi, that makes you a rationalist - believe it.

Rationalism:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism
Reply
#92
(07-19-2012, 11:47 AM)JayneK Wrote: Mr. Lane does not appear to have understood the significance of the smiley that accompanied the "pre-emptive strike" comment.  It was not an admission but a joke.  I went on to give my serious opinion.  I had thought this so obvious, that I had not bothered to reply to the post you quote above.

There are a lot of people on FE whom I consider holier than me and some whom I consider smarter than me.   Mr. Lane, at this point, only seems a contender for the first list.

Jayne, what's really interesting for an old hand like me, and no doubt others have had the same thought, is how similar your approach is to many others we've seen over the years.  It's like there's a school somewhere that pumps you people out.  My question is, do they explicitly teach these implausible arguments in the school, or do they merely teach you the vital principle that most people don't follow arguments, so that all you need do is present what appears to be an argument and you can make any issue seem to complicated for the average Joe to comprehend?

I may or may not be up to your intellectual level, but I'm certainly no contender for a holiness ranking.  I admire your intention to do something which is, in itself, good and praiseworthy, which is to defend the Holy Father and the Church.  It's a pity you are so impervious to argument, or you'd be able to love the Church as it really is, and be safe from heretics like Muller.
Reply
#93
(07-19-2012, 07:26 PM)John Lane Wrote:
(07-19-2012, 11:47 AM)JayneK Wrote: Mr. Lane does not appear to have understood the significance of the smiley that accompanied the "pre-emptive strike" comment.  It was not an admission but a joke.  I went on to give my serious opinion.  I had thought this so obvious, that I had not bothered to reply to the post you quote above.

There are a lot of people on FE whom I consider holier than me and some whom I consider smarter than me.   Mr. Lane, at this point, only seems a contender for the first list.

Jayne, what's really interesting for an old hand like me, and no doubt others have had the same thought, is how similar your approach is to many others we've seen over the years.  It's like there's a school somewhere that pumps you people out.  My question is, do they explicitly teach these implausible arguments in the school, or do they merely teach you the vital principle that most people don't follow arguments, so that all you need do is present what appears to be an argument and you can make any issue seem to complicated for the average Joe to comprehend?

I have studied logic.  That may be the characteristic of my arguments that you find unusual, since most people don't use it.  However, it has a well-established place in Catholic tradition, so I think it is appropriate here.

(07-19-2012, 07:26 PM)John Lane Wrote: I may or may not be up to your intellectual level, but I'm certainly no contender for a holiness ranking. 

But consider how low I have set the bar.  I was talking about being holier than me.

(07-19-2012, 07:26 PM)John Lane Wrote: I admire your intention to do something which is, in itself, good and praiseworthy, which is to defend the Holy Father and the Church.  It's a pity you are so impervious to argument, or you'd be able to love the Church as it really is, and be safe from heretics like Muller.

It does not look like we will reach any sort of agreement any time soon.  I appreciate that you acknowledge my good intentions and, likewise, I acknowledge yours.  Perhaps you will pray for me.  I would be grateful for your prayers.
Reply
#94
(07-19-2012, 08:18 PM)JayneK Wrote: I have studied logic.  That may be the characteristic of my arguments that you find unusual, since most people don't use it.  However, it has a well-established place in Catholic tradition, so I think it is appropriate here.

It isn't your logic that's at fault, primarily, but your premises.

(07-19-2012, 08:18 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-19-2012, 07:26 PM)John Lane Wrote: I may or may not be up to your intellectual level, but I'm certainly no contender for a holiness ranking. 

But consider how low I have set the bar.  I was talking about being holier than me.

Touche!

(07-19-2012, 08:18 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-19-2012, 07:26 PM)John Lane Wrote: I admire your intention to do something which is, in itself, good and praiseworthy, which is to defend the Holy Father and the Church.  It's a pity you are so impervious to argument, or you'd be able to love the Church as it really is, and be safe from heretics like Muller.

It does not look like we will reach any sort of agreement any time soon.  I appreciate that you acknowledge my good intentions and, likewise, I acknowledge yours.  Perhaps you will pray for me.  I would be grateful for your prayers.

Certainly, and thank you.
Reply
#95
(07-18-2012, 10:05 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: No, but I respect the opinions of orthodox priests who've criticized his work.  Besides, isolated quotes -- treating of Catholic doctrine -- shouldn't by their nature be ambiguous or offensive to pious ears.  How is it that isolated statements taken from Pope Gregory XVI, Pope Pius IX, et al. do not give scandal as easily, if even at all?

To be fair, there's a reason why St. Gregory the Great is the go-to Pope for anti-Catholic apologists and polemicists--you can make isolated quotes from him appear to oppose Catholic dogma quite easily. If he can be the Great, then I don't see how someone else can be condemned merely for isolated quotes.  You can also make isolated Magisterial quotes appear to contradict other isolated Magisterial quotes (like those referring to EENS and those referring to baptism of desire or those condemning Pelagianism and those condemning Jansenism and similar errors, and those discussing the relationship between the temporal and spiritual powers in the medieval period vs. those in the 19th and 20th centuries, etc.) and you can make isolated Scripture verses appear to contradict Magisterial texts, but also other Scripture texts.  That's why I don't think using isolated quotes is the best approach (it's also why when isolated quotes of authors are universally and definitively condemned in past Magisterial texts, one must be sure of the actual meaning and context of the original quote).
Reply
#96
Saint Sebastian,

We do not only have isolated quotes, but the actions of these men as well.
Reply
#97
(07-20-2012, 06:07 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Saint Sebastian,

We do not only have isolated quotes, but the actions of these men as well.

Our knowledge of these actions is rarely first-hand.  It is filtered through the perceptions of others. 
Reply
#98
(07-20-2012, 08:09 AM)JayneK Wrote:
(07-20-2012, 06:07 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: Saint Sebastian,

We do not only have isolated quotes, but the actions of these men as well.

Our knowledge of these actions is rarely first-hand.  It is filtered through the perceptions of others. 

Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed.
Reply
#99
(07-19-2012, 10:34 AM)JayneK Wrote: I got this idea from Fr. Z (who, unlike me, is a Vatican insider.)

OK.  Did he have any justification for it, or was it just crede mihi, Romae habito?

As I've never read anything of his, I have little reason to believe or disbelieve him.
Reply
(07-20-2012, 08:50 AM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote:
(07-19-2012, 10:34 AM)JayneK Wrote: I got this idea from Fr. Z (who, unlike me, is a Vatican insider.)

OK.  Did he have any justification for it, or was it just crede mihi, Romae habito?

As I've never read anything of his, I have little reason to believe or disbelieve him.

Yes, he made a case for it.  Do you want me to find the post? I should be able to fairly easily.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)