When you start up with your sophistries again, I will be sure to point them out as they occur. Yesterday with Cecilia you picked up with your favorite, that she was not making proper distinctions. Your distinctions have a way of exonerating anti-Christs, or attempting to. I will admit there are times when I will see a heresy where there isn't one, and I do appreciate correction. But you bend over backwards to defend EVERYTHING your pet anti-Popes do and say. I knew there was something wrong from the beginning when you downplayed, if not pooh-poohed, the entire idea of Freemasons in the Church, as if it were irrelevant.
She
wasn't making proper distinctions or rather she was making a false inference and then building an entire theory on it. That is a serious mistake and it is intellectually dishonest to cover up that fact because the conclusion reached just happens to coincide with our opinions. If an SSPX priest were to make a false statement, they would be subject to correction as well.
This applies to all Catholics of all time. I cannot understand why you would allow this to happen simply because someone agrees with you on something else.
This pretended dogmatic certitude regarding official vacancy has gotten you all twisted up. It's not real certitude, rather it is akin to an emotional attachment to an idea, like that someone convincing themselves that a particular sporting team is the best in the game and that no one will convince them otherwise.
So when someone comes along and reminds you of all of the demands in making such a judgment, you cast them off as merely abetting heretics. The whole procedure just begs the question. This in turn informs your judgment regarding my observations.
I don't recall "downplaying" Masons in the Church. Who would ever do such a thing? It is a serious problem that has evident consequences. But when the question devolves into the concrete, where a particular determination is made regarding who may or may not be a Mason, you seem to think that anyone who reserves judgment is thereby "downplaying" the presence of Masons in the Church. Thus you confuse the universal with the particular and simply beg the question. The matter could be resolved by realizing this distinction is necessary, that real evidence is the sole criterion of judgment, that simply because two men disagree on a concrete question, that doesn't imply they disagree regarding principles or premises. It comes down to a particular determination of the principles.
One feature of sophistry is its convoluted and tortured logic. You try to make yourself sound like Garrigou-Lagrange, but the science is not there, it's all an act. You are self-learned and have an imperfect grasp of theological concepts. That's okay, so do I -- the difference is that I admit it. You never say simply what can be said in a mind-clouding and convoluted way, that is long on rhetoric but often bereft of substance.
Here you continue with vague and imprecise commentary on my supposed "convoluted logic." You even offer a false motive of merely trying to sound like a great theologian without offering anything of substance. Where is the evidence for this other than your mere saying so? Can you demonstrate my inferior, as opposed to your superior, grasp of theological science? I am the one who constantly calls you to inform yourself with real substance, not relying on assumptions or sensationalism. I think the fact that you can't see any substance in what I say is because you have an erroneous notion of what precisely entails substance to begin with. You have very little tolerance for the intricate reasoning that accompanies theological science, which is why you hold Pius XII as suspect. Thus, the problem is reduced, rather, to your own taste. Composing pious or devotional writings, or those dealing with the interior life, are of a different nature than that which constitutes theological science.
And who do you study? Or are you one of those "creative" Catholics who thinks they can assimilate theological knowledge through their own unaided efforts?
Someone more innocent than myself might mistakenly believe you know what you're talking about. Well, this habit of speaking in inflated and twisted language to intimidate sheep who are afraid to go against someone they think knows better than they do is a habit of... Guess who? That's right, it is the exact same bullying, pseudo-intellectual routine of the man you love to defend, Joseph Ratzinger. That, on top of the fact that you clearly bear a loathing for sedevacantists, one that you think justifies you hissing at them like a serpent, makes you a particularly unpleasant character.
This comes from someone who shoots off at the mouth anything which pops into mind; from one who never produces any theological evidence, any positive authority, while formulating opinions. You are long on generalized accusations, but short on evidence. Your entire commentary betrays rather your fideistic disdain for Thomistic theology and philosophy, even for being reminded of basic moral duties.
And you make the false claim yet again, that I defend Benedict simply because I find the grounds for criticism to be utterly lacking and deficient. There's a case to be made for sedevacantism, the problem is that you, others here and guys like the Dimonds don't do it. So don't confuse criticism of your bad arguments with somehow defending Benedict. This is yet another example of your many fallacies which infuse your messages.
Why do you think you have this many ignores? Lots of people on this board are SSPX, but even they won't defend you.
This is yet another fallacy, a very poor construct indeed, full of your own assumptions. Can I help it if people do not tolerate controversy well? That adults can act like children when disagreements arise? You again seem to put alot of stock in this ignore function. Has it become for you a mark of truth? A democratic consensus? You assume that the ignorer is righteous while the ignoree must be horribly mistaken? I have little tolerance for this ridiculous fabrication.
You had your chance to expose my alleged sophistry. Not only did you fail in demonstrating any, you offered up several of your own. How ironic is that?
Topic: Sophistry (Read 6705 times)