Contradictions of the modern popes
(08-16-2012, 10:06 AM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 04:31 AM)kingofspades Wrote: I want to warn everyone here for the modernist rationalism in our human mind. We can all think we know better than the Pope what Jesus Christ wants with us and the Church, but it's the same old story of human pride in a new disguise! The devil also knows tradition! He can play with all texts, copies and pastes better than you can imagine and plays with our mind day by day. He cannot blind us with liberal rationalism, and so he does the other way around: with traditional rationalism.

However: it's the same old sin: "I KNOW BETTER THAN THE POPE WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG."

That there are all kind of small groups telling you that you are right, is just a sign of how the old divider works. In all Church history we see the same pattern. Every time a new cloack, but underneath the same monster. Always leading to justified disobedience, later to heresy and schism, and here we are! It's so with trad groups, in Medjugorje, in left-wing groups. The same pattern, different chasuble.

No no no! Stop the tricks, bow your proud head and stop criticizing and demonising Popes with your rationlism, it's a grave sin against catholic faith and if it becomes persistent, it will place you outside the Catholic Church. It happened before when Abp Lefebvre acted schismatic, and it will happen again if you don't want to listen. It's not too late, but if you don't listen, you will experience your own belief: extra Ecclesiam, nulla salus. No salvation for excommunicated. And when the Holy Spirit will leave you by then, there will be fletus et stridor dentium when you will wake up in a small sect, governed by him who owns all sects outside the One and Holy Catholic Church.

Amen.  Thank you for this, Father.

And yet earlier you claimed you accepted that popes could justifiably disobey popes in certain circumstances? Change your mind again? Or were you simply in error the whole time?  ???
Reply
(08-16-2012, 10:52 AM)TrentCath Wrote: By all means don't have a conversation with me, by all means have a conversation with other people and explain to them why all the evidence I've dug up, which I expect and hope others will use, is wrong.

Yes, I think this is what I will have to do.  You made some pretty serious accusations against me because I questioned your claims about grammar.  Those claims been have been conclusively shown to be wrong.  An intellectually honest person would admit his claims were mistaken and withdraw the accusations.  He would probably apologize.  You did none of these things.  Grammar is not important in itself, but "he who is faithful in little things will be faithful in great things".  The reverse is also true. 

I just do not respect or trust you enough to engage in a serious discussion with you.  I will have to discuss these alleged contradictions with others.  (Although I do not expect to have much time over the next little while.  I plan to busy helping out with my new grandson.  :grandma: :baby: )
Reply
(08-16-2012, 10:52 AM)TrentCath Wrote: 'Waaaaaaa I don't understand why you don't like Humanae Vitae...'

'Waaaa I don't like the way your organised the thread...'

'Waaaa your arguments about english grammar are wrong'

'Waa you're not intellectually honest'

Newsflash all you have done is whine, whinge, insult people, make absurd deductions, make absurd demands and then repeat all that over and over and over again. Frankly its clear to me that what you are doing can't be free from some sort of sin, not because you disagree with me, not because you don't like the way I do things but because of the way you do so consisting of endless absurd requests, demands, insults, attempts to laugh things away and constant bad faith. And you wonder why Stubborn, me and others can't take you seriously when you argue the modern popes and the new mass are fine and great?  :eyeroll:

TrentCath, you might get a little better response if you treated others with a little more respect. I don't think whether her conduct is sinful or not is any of your business. Whether your particular arguments here are correct or not I do not know (I haven't read them), but the tone of your post here is very condescending.  Despite whether JayneK approaches from the false premise that the pope is always right, "Waaa" is clearly a mockery of her tone. This will not convince her of your argument or make her more disposed to receive it. If I were in her shoes, your approach wouldn't convince me either (though, the pre- and post-conciliar positions you posted would severely trouble me). You should consider letting your virtue--humility, charity, and meekness--shine out through your posts instead of mockery.
Reply
(08-16-2012, 11:35 AM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 10:52 AM)TrentCath Wrote: By all means don't have a conversation with me, by all means have a conversation with other people and explain to them why all the evidence I've dug up, which I expect and hope others will use, is wrong.

Yes, I think this is what I will have to do.  You made some pretty serious accusations against me because I questioned your claims about grammar.  Those claims been have been conclusively shown to be wrong.  An intellectually honest person would admit his claims were mistaken and withdraw the accusations.  He would probably apologize.  You did none of these things.  Grammar is not important in itself, but "he who is faithful in little things will be faithful in great things".  The reverse is also true. 

I just do not respect or trust you enough to engage in a serious discussion with you.  I will have to discuss these alleged contradictions with others.  (Although I do not expect to have much time over the next little while.  I plan to busy helping out with my new grandson.   :grandma: :baby: )

:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah: :deadhorse:

'Waaa you're not intellectually honest because you won't think the same thing as I do about grammer'

You wouldn't know the meaning of intellectual honesty if the word was carved out on ten ton boulders and dropped on your head  :eyeroll:

Frankly though as long as you discuss the evidence rather than whinge and make ad hominems all the time, I don't care who of my ilk you discuss it with, though I will interject.

The one benefit of this convo is that I will be able to call you deluded, disconnected from reality, in bad faith, a serpent etc.. without feeling bad about it.
Reply
(08-16-2012, 11:39 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 10:52 AM)TrentCath Wrote: 'Waaaaaaa I don't understand why you don't like Humanae Vitae...'

'Waaaa I don't like the way your organised the thread...'

'Waaaa your arguments about english grammar are wrong'

'Waa you're not intellectually honest'

Newsflash all you have done is whine, whinge, insult people, make absurd deductions, make absurd demands and then repeat all that over and over and over again. Frankly its clear to me that what you are doing can't be free from some sort of sin, not because you disagree with me, not because you don't like the way I do things but because of the way you do so consisting of endless absurd requests, demands, insults, attempts to laugh things away and constant bad faith. And you wonder why Stubborn, me and others can't take you seriously when you argue the modern popes and the new mass are fine and great?  :eyeroll:

TrentCath, you might get a little better response if you treated others with a little more respect. I don't think whether her conduct is sinful or not is any of your business. Whether your particular arguments here are correct or not I do not know (I haven't read them), but the tone of your post here is very condescending.  Despite whether JayneK approaches from the false premise that the pope is always right, "Waaa" is clearly a mockery of her tone. This will not convince her of your argument or make her more disposed to receive it. If I were in her shoes, your approach wouldn't convince me either (though, the pre- and post-conciliar positions you posted would severely trouble me). You should consider letting your virtue--humility, charity, and meekness--shine out through your posts instead of mockery.

Perhaps, but frankly she exhausted my little store of virtues several pages ago.
Reply
(08-16-2012, 08:13 AM)TrentCath Wrote: I think we should be more respectful of Father but Stubborn is righ, Father hasn't explained any of the problems raised or answered any of our legimate questions he has simply repeated ad absurdum the argument about obeying the pope no matter what. That argument is not and never has been Catholic.

You are right, I am wrong to not have more respect for Fr. I will try harder from now on - thank you for telling me that.

Reply
(08-16-2012, 11:43 AM)TrentCath Wrote: Frankly though as long as you discuss the evidence rather than whinge and make ad hominems all the time, I don't care who of my ilk you discuss it with, though I will interject.

I have made a lot of posts in this thread addressing your allegation that Humane Vitae contradicts traditional teaching.  You just pretend they never happened and complain about ad hominems.  I suppose you don't want to acknowledge them because you have no counter-argument.  
Reply
(08-16-2012, 11:39 AM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 10:52 AM)TrentCath Wrote: 'Waaaaaaa I don't understand why you don't like Humanae Vitae...'

'Waaaa I don't like the way your organised the thread...'

'Waaaa your arguments about english grammar are wrong'

'Waa you're not intellectually honest'

Newsflash all you have done is whine, whinge, insult people, make absurd deductions, make absurd demands and then repeat all that over and over and over again. Frankly its clear to me that what you are doing can't be free from some sort of sin, not because you disagree with me, not because you don't like the way I do things but because of the way you do so consisting of endless absurd requests, demands, insults, attempts to laugh things away and constant bad faith. And you wonder why Stubborn, me and others can't take you seriously when you argue the modern popes and the new mass are fine and great?  :eyeroll:

TrentCath, you might get a little better response if you treated others with a little more respect. I don't think whether her conduct is sinful or not is any of your business. Whether your particular arguments here are correct or not I do not know (I haven't read them), but the tone of your post here is very condescending.  Despite whether JayneK approaches from the false premise that the pope is always right, "Waaa" is clearly a mockery of her tone. This will not convince her of your argument or make her more disposed to receive it. If I were in her shoes, your approach wouldn't convince me either (though, the pre- and post-conciliar positions you posted would severely trouble me). You should consider letting your virtue--humility, charity, and meekness--shine out through your posts instead of mockery.

That said, and following Stubborns example, you are right I should try and be more virtuous when dealing with others, especially those that vex and irritate me, so thank you for the correction  :)
Reply
(08-16-2012, 11:44 AM)TrentCath Wrote: Perhaps, but frankly she exhausted my little store of virtues several pages ago.

Then, if your virtue is all spent, in the name of avoiding all occasions of sin, wouldn't the most prudent thing to do be to stop posting until your stores have replenished?
Reply
(08-16-2012, 11:52 AM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 11:43 AM)TrentCath Wrote: Frankly though as long as you discuss the evidence rather than whinge and make ad hominems all the time, I don't care who of my ilk you discuss it with, though I will interject.

I have made a lot of posts in this thread addressing your allegation that Humane Vitae contradicts traditional teaching.  You just pretend they never happened and complain about ad hominems.  I suppose you don't want to acknowledge them because you have no counter-argument.  

No, all you've done is assert actually talking about things in reverse idea is perfectly normal, I don't pretend they haven't happened, I just treat them as worthless arguments.

You on the other hand pretend that all 10 pages or so of blatant papal contradictions, which are now even on several different threads, don't exist or you make up some other excuse for not addressing them. Using your logic I too can presume that you have no counter argument to them, you see Jayne, two can play at this game  :grin:
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)