Author Topic: Sophistry (Read 6703 times)

Belloc · « **Reply #30 on:** July 13, 2010, 12:46:43 PM »

if I make it to Rome, will piss on his grave for you, since you do not make mistakes and never make poor judgments in things and people..with you as a Pope, the war would ahve been over quick...

Caminus · « **Reply #31 on:** July 13, 2010, 01:03:30 PM »

Quote from: Raoul76

Caminus said:
Quote
Dawn said to Caminus:

Quote:
You are a mean viscous arrogant heretic. You are the most unchivalrous man I have ever had the chance to know.

You stoke others up by calling them liars and filthy and vicious, and then when they reach boiling point and turn it back on you, you bat your big eyes. You're Mr. Innocent.

You know, when I was going over-the-top and was a home-aloner and people corrected me, I actually worked to change, to become more charitable and to look at every side. I began to realize not everyone in the Novus Ordo or SSPX was damned, heh heh.

Maybe you are doing that; this is the first time I've heard you admit that sedevacantism might have some merit. But every time I see hope for you, and try to be more friendly, I always end up getting burned. It's becoming like the boy who cried wolf.

What's with all this emotional, personal commentary? Why can't you just stick with what is objectively good and/or true? If I make a criticism of some attitude, opinion or behavior of a person, I have serious grounds to do so. But you fill the matter with imputed motives and relational dynamisms.

You are so used to throwing the word 'heretic' around, it doesn't seem to bother you so much when someone else does. Do you not detect the enormity of the sin involved in such false accusations? Not to mention the unfounded accusation.

Belloc · « **Reply #32 on:** July 13, 2010, 01:21:11 PM »

Caminus-you and I are now tied for ignores......... :dancing-banana: :sign-party-time: :ready-to-eat: :jumping2:

Jamie · « **Reply #33 on:** July 13, 2010, 02:42:42 PM »

This thread illustrates a common problem amongst traditional Catholics - people who want to be or claim to be theologians but who have no ground at all in the science of logic.

If you haven't studied formal and material logic you are not capable of studying theology, physics, metaphysics, etc. All of those sciences are based on logic as the root.

That is why we get people like the Dimonds who interpret (frequently wrongly) theological statements without understanding the logical grounds behind them.

Speculation from those without logical formation is as unwanted amongst trads as it is amongst new Catholics.

I strongly suggest that those who do want to be theologians - or to study any of the Church's sciences first take a course in formal logic. There are at least two such courses available on the internet which are not expensive and are firmly grounded in the Aristotlean/Thomistic tradition.

Trinity · « **Reply #34 on:** July 13, 2010, 02:49:48 PM »

No the problem lies in conviction by intimation, and those who will elect themselves judge, jury and executioner.

Caminus · « **Reply #35 on:** July 13, 2010, 02:54:39 PM »

Quote from: Jamie

This thread illustrates a common problem amongst traditional Catholics - people who want to be or claim to be theologians but who have no ground at all in the science of logic.

If you haven't studied formal and material logic you are not capable of studying theology, physics, metaphysics, etc. All of those sciences are based on logic as the root.

That is why we get people like the Dimonds who interpret (frequently wrongly) theological statements without understanding the logical grounds behind them.

Speculation from those without logical formation is as unwanted amongst trads as it is amongst new Catholics.

I strongly suggest that those who do want to be theologians - or to study any of the Church's sciences first take a course in formal logic. There are at least two such courses available on the internet which are not expensive and are firmly grounded in the Aristotlean/Thomistic tradition.

Add emotion to the mix and there's a real problem. I've never claimed to be a theologian, but I do offer what I know in order to help clarify certain problems. If there is an error in reasoning, then it should be demonstrated as false, not emotionally censured as 'sophistry' which has a very specific meaning as well.

Caminus · « **Reply #36 on:** July 13, 2010, 03:01:11 PM »

Quote

Pure Ratzinger.

See how you let your emotionally charged, undefined phraseology do all the work for you? What does this mean? How is it helpful?

Even if I used a bad argument, it doesn't amount to sophistry which has a very specific meaning. A sophist is one who purposely uses fallacious argumentation in order to distract from the substance of the question, endlessly focusing on the purely accidental.

Now explain how drawing your attention to substantive points is sophistry other than from the fact that you don't like what I say. Or are my arguments and observations censured as sophisms because they refute what you say either in your premises or in your conclusions?

Caminus · « **Reply #37 on:** July 13, 2010, 03:04:53 PM »

Quote

You stoke others up by calling them liars and filthy and vicious, and then when they reach boiling point and turn it back on you, you bat your big eyes. You're Mr. Innocent.

You dutifully recall some to the commandments while absolving others from the same sin because of alleged provocation? In context, you won't find any of that kind of language at all. You bear false witness in order to suit your purposes of excusing others of the same sin. Even if I granted your self-serving premise, it doesn't change the character of Dawn's mortal sins against charity and justice. You simply overlook them, make up a false excuse and carry on as if nothing happened.

Belloc · « **Reply #38 on:** July 13, 2010, 03:06:24 PM »

Quote from: Jamie

This thread illustrates a common problem amongst traditional Catholics - people who want to be or claim to be theologians but who have no ground at all in the science of logic.

If you haven't studied formal and material logic you are not capable of studying theology, physics, metaphysics, etc. All of those sciences are based on logic as the root.

That is why we get people like the Dimonds who interpret (frequently wrongly) theological statements without understanding the logical grounds behind them.

Speculation from those without logical formation is as unwanted amongst trads as it is amongst new Catholics.

I strongly suggest that those who do want to be theologians - or to study any of the Church's sciences first take a course in formal logic. There are at least two such courses available on the internet which are not expensive and are firmly grounded in the Aristotlean/Thomistic tradition.

one of these days i am going to start MTh program, was accepted, but either no $$ or time...

Trinity · « **Reply #39 on:** July 13, 2010, 06:07:52 PM »

it doesn't change the character of Dawn's mortal sins against charity and justice.

Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

Dawn · « **Reply #40 on:** July 13, 2010, 07:23:19 PM »

What on earth are you talking about? You just said I was guilty of mortal sin and then you say we are not to judge?
Who made you judge and jury. I have not said anyone was in mortal sin nor would I ever dare such a thing.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #41 on:** July 13, 2010, 07:48:02 PM »

Caminus, when I was first here you would call me things like filthy and depraved just for being sedevacantist, or at the very least say that what I said was filthy and depraved.

You can tell me I'm bearing false witness and that you never spoke this way. But if you do deny saying those things, I will know right away that you are a liar and a complete phony. I will also go back and dig up your posts, so that everyone else here will know you're a liar. So it's up to you. Please make it easy on me and yourself and let's move on past the name-calling.

Jamie's post irritates me more than yours, though.

Here, Jamie, let me translate your post for you: "I am studying logic and I want everyone to think I know more than I do so I am going to make everyone else feel stupid for not being formally grounded in logic." Yeah, that is exactly the process of the saints. How well I remember St. Athansius saying "The problem with laymen taking it upon themselves to judge the Arians is that they aren't formally grounded in logic."

More pseudo-intellectual bullying of the Vatican II school. Is that where you're being trained? You sound like you're in seminary of some sort -- where is it?

How many of you people are out there, trying to scare people into following a series of men who are manifestly trying to destroy the Catholic Church? If I wasn't scared by the likes of Father Hardon, priests who stayed in Vatican II and who spilled tons of ink and wrote many books, what makes you think I'm going to be scared by you? I am not scared by ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs who learn some Latin and write some books to make themselves look like authorities, not that I'm saying you or Father Hardon fit that bill. At least I hope you don't. But in general, that is what is going on. I guess they have to do something to fill all that time in their fake church which they have gutted and reupholstered to their depraved liking, not only architecturally but theologically.

Jamie said:

Quote

That is why we get people like the Dimonds who interpret (frequently wrongly) theological statements without understanding the logical grounds behind them.

Why don't you provide an example and we'll see if it has any merit. This is totally unsubstantiated. Besides the ones that they shoehorn into their rash denial of baptism of desire, the usual suspects ( the Council of Florence, Unam Sanctam ), I don't know of any wrongly interpreted theological statements.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #42 on:** July 13, 2010, 08:02:05 PM »

To reiterate, since it has been a while: The reason I am a sedevacantist is because --

* An ecuмenical Council of the Catholic Church called by the Pope in union with the bishops cannot teach error or heresy

* Vatican II taught error at least in one place, Dignitatis Humanae, and you can look at John Daly's list to see the others

* I also believe it is a dogmatic fact, part of the OUAM, that a Pope cannot err when speaking through the Ordinary Magisterium. This was not defined ex cathedra, but it was still defined at Vatican I in Dei Filius.

Dogmatic Constitution of the Vatican One Council --

Quote

"Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed."

* Post-VII docuмents contain heresy and error, notably the Joint Decree on Justification, which is rampantly heretical

*I also believe along with Bellarmine and many theologians that a manifest heretic cannot be the head of the Church. JPII and Benedict are manifest heretics

* On top of that, the Church cannot provide harmful disciplines or liturgy. I haven't yet made up my mind about the Novus Ordo in se, but I do know the true Church could not possibly suggest its children attend a Mass with no grace, such as the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, where there is no consecration of the Host.

Is that enough reasons for you? Are you still going to accuse me of being emotional, Caminus? Any single one of these reasons would have been good enough to be sedevacantist. Taken all together, they make me question the good faith of anyone who would defend these wretched, hideous non-Popes, who are not only heretics, but do next to nothing to stop the most bestial child molestation and perversion. I allow myself that much emotion because it is based on facts.

Dawn · « **Reply #43 on:** July 13, 2010, 08:02:57 PM »

Here you go Raoul, Fr. Martin Stepanich who has a
doctorate in Sacred Theology, He is a sedevacatist might know just a little bit more than either Caminus or Jaimie.

He has written articles that are easily located by a quick search. This holy man is one of the Jewels of our Church who is very much alive today still says the Daily Mass and still writes articles teaching the Truths of the Church.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #44 on:** July 13, 2010, 08:04:07 PM »

I regret to say I called Father Martin Stepanich a heretic last year, I should go unearth that thread and apologize. But for now, I apologize here. He is very big on implicit faith.