Author Topic: Implicit Faith - Defying the Law of Non-contradiction at Every Turn (Read 37474 times)

Man of the West · « **Reply #20 on:** January 10, 2012, 03:47:57 PM »

Quote from: Augstine Baker

Quote from: Man of the West
I may perhaps weigh in with a longer post later. For now I just wish to say that Telesphorus is right here.

Nadieimportante has a very studious mind, and I applaud the care he takes in lining up his sources and disposing his arguments. However, all that effort is wasted by his inability to see that his sources are not actually making the case he claims for them. This is an ignoratio elenchi[/i] fallacy.

IE fallacy introduces irrelevant material into the discussion, which ironically, is what you're doing here.

That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. Do you even know what the terms in question mean?

There was nothing "irrelevant" about what I wrote. I was classifying Nadie's argumentative style as fallacious, and it is. It is entirely within the proper funtion of discussion to point out flaws in your opponent's argument.

Now what you just said, on the other hand, is not only irrelevant but misleading and false. I do not permit people to distort my written word like that. If you want to argue in bad faith, I will expose whatever you say to the humiliation it deserves.

Augstine Baker · « **Reply #21 on:** January 10, 2012, 03:50:37 PM »

Quote from: Man of the West

Quote from: Augstine Baker
Quote from: Man of the West
I may perhaps weigh in with a longer post later. For now I just wish to say that Telesphorus is right here.

Nadieimportante has a very studious mind, and I applaud the care he takes in lining up his sources and disposing his arguments. However, all that effort is wasted by his inability to see that his sources are not actually making the case he claims for them. This is an ignoratio elenchi[/i] fallacy.

IE fallacy introduces irrelevant material into the discussion, which ironically, is what you're doing here.

That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. Do you even know what the terms in question mean?

There was nothing "irrelevant" about what I wrote. I was classifying Nadie's argumentative style as fallacious, and it is. It is entirely within the proper funtion of discussion to point out flaws in your opponent's argument.

Now what you just said, on the other hand, is not only irrelevant but misleading and false. I do not permit people to distort my written word like that. If you want to argue in bad faith, I will expose whatever you say to the humiliation it deserves.

It was irrelevant because your attribution of IE to what Nadie is saying shows you either don't understand what he's saying, don't understand what IE is or are interested solely in derailing the discussion.

Augustinian · « **Reply #22 on:** January 10, 2012, 03:51:20 PM »

Quote from: Augstine Baker

Quote from: Jim

The Church wouldn't tolerate "contradictory opinions" for hundreds of years, especially when they concern a dogma of the Faith.

It's indisputable that it has, for hundreds of years, tolerated contradictory differences of opinion on subjects like the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, Universalism, Jansenism and so forth. Not just for hundreds of years, but in some cases, notably the Assumption, for almost two millenia.

Most American prelates of any note have been flagrant exponents of the Americanist heresy, for example, starting with +Carrol and on and on.

It's also indisputable that many popes scandalously tolerated the laxist doctrines being promoted by the Jesuits in the 16th and 17th century - doctrines which (I think) most people on this board would be appalled at.

Also how could a man like John XXIII (who was even known to be a Modernist long before his 'election') or Paul VI be 'elected' by the majority of the 'cardinals' unless the popes prior to the council were tolerating filthy modernist heretics in the ranks? How could the Vatican II apostasy be embraced by approximately 2,600 bishops (nearly all of them) unless the popes prior to the Council were tolerating them in the ranks? Not all of them were crypto-heretics. Many of them had published writings before the council. Hardly a thing was done about those men.

There's no determined or defined limit on how long popes can tolerate evil, heresy, and heretics. If the popes can tolerate heretics for a few decades (Modernists), and they can tolerate heretics for over a century (Americanists), and they can tolerate heretics for a century and a half (laxists), then they can tolerate heresy for four centuries (EENS-Denial), and they can tolerate Baptism of Desire for even longer.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #23 on:** January 10, 2012, 03:52:16 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: Augustinian
People who worship Aquinas

While I admit that St. Thomas Aquinas' stance on the Immaculate Conception wasn't exactly spot-on, who here "worships" him? Do you have some sort of problem with every single Saint in Church history? I saw you cut down Pope St. Pius X earlier today...

Augustinian · « **Reply #24 on:** January 10, 2012, 03:56:24 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: Augustinian
People who worship Aquinas

While I admit that St. Thomas Aquinas' stance on the Immaculate Conception wasn't exactly spot-on, who here "worships" him? Do you have some sort of problem with every single Saint in Church history? I saw you cut down Pope St. Pius X earlier today...

The man who wrote that article (as far as I know) is Griff Ruby. He worships Aquinas, implicitly, because he refuses to admit that Thomas made a mistake on this issue. He treats him as an infallible rule, when it's well known that he made many errors. But as I said, Griff refuses to admit Aquinas made any errors. I can admit that St. Augustine made big errors; he himself admitted that.

As an aside, Griff Ruby doesn't think Martin Luther was necessarily a heretic.