Contradictions of the modern popes
(08-16-2012, 04:42 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 04:33 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 04:27 PM)TrentCath Wrote: I checked over my posts and you were, as I suspected, wrong.

Maybe you answered them to your satisfaction, but all I saw was you dismissing their arguments, and they seemed to feel the same way.

And that you don't see anything wrong with the way you handled the grammar situation, again, disturbs me greatly.  Down to the fact that when INP agrees that you were behaving sub-optimally, you accuse him of "piling on."

*sigh*

No they simply weren't done in the way you claimed and I said that INP taking party in the pile on didn't help, the lengths you'll go to not to address the real issue is truly sad.

Okay, glad to hear you have done nothing you regret.  I bow before your righteousness.

Your real issue has been addressed, you refused to discourse about it, so people have given up on you.  Good job.  You win at life.
Reply
(08-16-2012, 05:23 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 04:42 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 04:33 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 04:27 PM)TrentCath Wrote: I checked over my posts and you were, as I suspected, wrong.

Maybe you answered them to your satisfaction, but all I saw was you dismissing their arguments, and they seemed to feel the same way.

And that you don't see anything wrong with the way you handled the grammar situation, again, disturbs me greatly.  Down to the fact that when INP agrees that you were behaving sub-optimally, you accuse him of "piling on."

*sigh*

No they simply weren't done in the way you claimed and I said that INP taking party in the pile on didn't help, the lengths you'll go to not to address the real issue is truly sad.

Okay, glad to hear you have done nothing you regret.  I bow before your righteousness.

Your real issue has been addressed, you refused to discourse about it, so people have given up on you.  Good job.  You win at life.

And you lie again.
Reply
(08-16-2012, 05:41 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Okay, glad to hear you have done nothing you regret.  I bow before your righteousness.

Your real issue has been addressed, you refused to discourse about it, so people have given up on you.  Good job.  You win at life.

And you lie again.
[/quote]

Sure, I disagree with you, therefore I am wrong and a liar.  Got it.
Reply
(08-16-2012, 05:45 PM)Parmandur Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 05:41 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Okay, glad to hear you have done nothing you regret.  I bow before your righteousness.

Your real issue has been addressed, you refused to discourse about it, so people have given up on you.  Good job.  You win at life.

And you lie again.

Sure, I disagree with you, therefore I am wrong and a liar.  Got it.
[/quote]

Nope because you claim things that arent true, such as the real issue being addressed and me refusing to discourse about it, you're a liar.
Reply
(08-16-2012, 10:58 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-15-2012, 10:20 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I'm not defending any of the post-VII popes here, but I think one should remember that this trad method of stacking short, isolated quotations against one another has its limits. Many on this forum simply assume that the most "hardline" statements made by a pope or theologian on any given matter must be taken as definitive and more moderate statements made by the same pope or theologian must be ignored, which seems problematic to me. For example, one can go back to the Fathers and find many positive statements about pagan culture mixed in with the more negative ones. Of course, I suppose most here would simply say that the Fathers were nothing more than superstitious fools unfortunate enough to be born before the glorious birth of real Catholicism in the post-Tridentine era, but there you go.


Don't even try it, many of these quotations contain most or all of the relevant documents, it is patently absurd to pretend that context will change:

a) praising other religions
b) asking St John the baptist to defend Islam
c) praising the leaders of false religions and calling them 'your holiness'
d) praising jews for converting others to judaism and lasting so long
e) claiming there might be no one in hell
f) claiming that all men are redeemed and forever united to Christ
g) endorsing and lengthily praising the declarations of the rights of man
h) implying the One Church of Christ doesnt exist
i) explicitly stating that schismatics and heretics both as communities and individuals are all somehow related to the church of christ
j) ditto the above but instead stating that they never lost some sort of communion with the church of christ
k) the same as above but claiming they are members of the church of christ
l) Claiming the old convenant was never revoked
j) claiming jews are our 'older brothers'

And so on and so forth. These quotes are not out of context often I have pasted the entire statement, if you believe otherwise go and look it up!

Those people who believe the popes haven't contradicted anything always come up with the same argument 'in context... in context' well by all means prove your claims or hold your peace!  >:(

I think you missed my point. I wasn't really addressing your claims about the popes. I was only saying that I'm not sure the Fathers would support the secularism you appear to advocate.
Reply
(08-16-2012, 04:08 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Perhaps but you certainly do not help me by taking part in this ridiculous 'pile on trentcath' nonsense orchestrated only by those who disagree with me and who have from the very beginning of this thread [...].

I think this is called playing the victim. You started this thread and instigated the response you received; now, you see it as "pile on trentcath."

I think you are making the opposition less likely to accept the evidence by approaching it in such a confrontational way. It makes it appear as though you are looking for a fight and think everyone who disagrees is simply ridiculous. That is why I think it is best for you to approach it in a less condescending and "if you don't accept this you're ridiculous" attitude. That may very well be true, but accusing your opponent of that from the get-go is only going to accomplish the exact opposite of what you intend. Humbly remind yourself that when your opponent disagrees it may be a fault of your own--that you weren't clear, that you didn't present enough context, or that you didn't lay out your argument well enough--rather than blindness, dishonesty, or ill-will on their part.

I have had my fair share of run-arounds with JayneK, Parmandur, and others here. They have been pressed in this manner before and it only makes them less likely to change their minds. As wrong as I think this is for them to do, most people react this way to being approached in the way you are approaching them here. Present the evidence and let God do the rest. That is all you are obligated to do. You cannot force them to accept the evidence if they are unwilling to do so.
Reply
(08-16-2012, 04:16 PM)Parmandur Wrote: Jayne will, based on past behavior, really regret having goaded you, and publicly apologize. 

Busted.  I was goading him, wasn't I?  Thanks for calling me on this. This behaviour is really seriously wrong.  Basically, it is being an accessory to sin.  I have to publicly apologize and go to Confession.

I am very sorry, TrentCath.  Please forgive me.
Reply
(08-16-2012, 08:40 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 10:58 AM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-15-2012, 10:20 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I'm not defending any of the post-VII popes here, but I think one should remember that this trad method of stacking short, isolated quotations against one another has its limits. Many on this forum simply assume that the most "hardline" statements made by a pope or theologian on any given matter must be taken as definitive and more moderate statements made by the same pope or theologian must be ignored, which seems problematic to me. For example, one can go back to the Fathers and find many positive statements about pagan culture mixed in with the more negative ones. Of course, I suppose most here would simply say that the Fathers were nothing more than superstitious fools unfortunate enough to be born before the glorious birth of real Catholicism in the post-Tridentine era, but there you go.


Don't even try it, many of these quotations contain most or all of the relevant documents, it is patently absurd to pretend that context will change:

a) praising other religions
b) asking St John the baptist to defend Islam
c) praising the leaders of false religions and calling them 'your holiness'
d) praising jews for converting others to judaism and lasting so long
e) claiming there might be no one in hell
f) claiming that all men are redeemed and forever united to Christ
g) endorsing and lengthily praising the declarations of the rights of man
h) implying the One Church of Christ doesnt exist
i) explicitly stating that schismatics and heretics both as communities and individuals are all somehow related to the church of christ
j) ditto the above but instead stating that they never lost some sort of communion with the church of christ
k) the same as above but claiming they are members of the church of christ
l) Claiming the old convenant was never revoked
j) claiming jews are our 'older brothers'

And so on and so forth. These quotes are not out of context often I have pasted the entire statement, if you believe otherwise go and look it up!

Those people who believe the popes haven't contradicted anything always come up with the same argument 'in context... in context' well by all means prove your claims or hold your peace!  >:(

I think you missed my point. I wasn't really addressing your claims about the popes. I was only saying that I'm not sure the Fathers would support the secularism you appear to advocate.

Who's advocating secularism?  ???
Reply
(08-16-2012, 08:53 PM)INPEFESS Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 04:08 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Perhaps but you certainly do not help me by taking part in this ridiculous 'pile on trentcath' nonsense orchestrated only by those who disagree with me and who have from the very beginning of this thread [...].

I think this is called playing the victim. You started this thread and instigated the response you received; now, you see it as "pile on trentcath."

I think you are making the opposition less likely to accept the evidence by approaching it in such a confrontational way. It makes it appear as though you are looking for a fight and think everyone who disagrees is simply ridiculous. That is why I think it is best for you to approach it in a less condescending and "if you don't accept this you're ridiculous" attitude. That may very well be true, but accusing your opponent of that from the get-go is only going to accomplish the exact opposite of what you intend. Humbly remind yourself that when your opponent disagrees it may be a fault of your own--that you weren't clear, that you didn't present enough context, or that you didn't lay out your argument well enough--rather than blindness, dishonesty, or ill-will on their part.

I have had my fair share of run-arounds with JayneK, Parmandur, and others here. They have been pressed in this manner before and it only makes them less likely to change their minds. As wrong as I think this is for them to do, most people react this way to being approached in the way you are approaching them here. Present the evidence and let God do the rest. That is all you are obligated to do. You cannot force them to accept the evidence if they are unwilling to do so.

I'm sorry but none of this applies to the case here, the faults were not mine, the faults were their own obstinancy amongst other things. But whatever, I'm not particularly fussed about the whole thing.
Reply
(08-16-2012, 10:36 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-16-2012, 08:40 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: I think you missed my point. I wasn't really addressing your claims about the popes. I was only saying that I'm not sure the Fathers would support the secularism you appear to advocate.

Who's advocating secularism?  ???

You appear to be doing so, no?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)