Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Caminus on July 12, 2010, 08:15:43 PM
-
Let this be a thread where the new and improved popular Mike can provide evidence of my many sophistries while providing an adequate refutation. Maybe you can even invite your French exemplaries over to help you in this endeavor.
-
Is this going to be the big thread devoted to your promise to refute the early church fathers who rejected BOD?
-
Is this going to be the big thread devoted to your promise to refute the early church fathers who rejected BOD?
Which Fathers?
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=CEXELJ40
-
CMMM, where have you been hiding-have not seen you in awhile here......
-
Is this going to be the big thread devoted to your promise to refute the early church fathers who rejected BOD?
No, this is where Mike gets to expose all of my wretched sophistries by which I am misleading the masses.
I also invite his right-hand-woman, the ever-cordial, Miss Dawn, who has claimed I promote error and heresy, to participate as well.
People make all kinds of rash claims for sensation. Now it's time to back it up. Or they can simply apologize and move on.
-
CMMM, where have you been hiding-have not seen you in awhile here......
I've been around, spend more time reading and laughing than arguing.
Laughter, I find, is far better for yourself than arguing.
-
While you're at it, Caminus, see if you can extract a few apologies for the false witness they've born against Myrna and myself. I honestly think you will have better luck extracting your own teeth.
-
CMMM, where have you been hiding-have not seen you in awhile here......
I've been around, spend more time reading and laughing than arguing.
Laughter, I find, is far better for yourself than arguing.
true, the bad rap some trads have is more :argue: :cussing: and far less :roll-laugh2: :roll-laugh1: :laugh2: than they should do......
-
Is this going to be the big thread devoted to your promise to refute the early church fathers who rejected BOD?
No, this is where Mike gets to expose all of my wretched sophistries by which I am misleading the masses.
I also invite his right-hand-woman, the ever-cordial, Miss Dawn, who has claimed I promote error and heresy, to participate as well.
People make all kinds of rash claims for sensation. Now it's time to back it up. Or they can simply apologize and move on.
I disagree on occasion w/Dawn , but she is a nice lady, agree or disagree with her at times...
Trinity-maybe the MOUNT can do their own SV forum and you will no longer have to feel the "hate".....a site with the BVM on one site, the waving USA flag on the other.......some sites can play music, maybe Toby Keith....."we'll put a boot...."
oops, now will likely get 9 ignores, whoa-is-me... :shocked: :laugh1:
-
CMMM-see, humor is a lot funner!! :dancing-banana:
-
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.
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.
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.
Why do you think you have this many ignores? Lots of people on this board are SSPX, but even they won't defend you.
-
Trinity said:
While you're at it, Caminus, see if you can extract a few apologies for the false witness they've born against Myrna and myself. I honestly think you will have better luck extracting your own teeth.
There's the irony, because you just bore false witness against me by saying that I bore false witness. You accuse someone pretty lightly of being non-Catholic and breaking commandments... What false witness? I said you were an implied Americanist, and you are.
An actual Americanist is someone who thinks all religions are more or less roads to heaven. An implied Americanist is someone who thinks the system of government we have in the U.S., one that places erroneous, false religions on a par with the true religion, is the best form of government. You apparently don't want Christ to rule over nations, you think everyone should be free to do what they want, and of course that is what leads to rampant immorality and heresy. You don't say that in so many words, but how else am I to take it when you praise our form of government as "the best"? "Best" means "better than the rest," and you are saying that you prefer our government to Catholic governments.
That is implied Americanism, it is also implied Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, "liberty, equality, fraternity," because the whole philosophy comes from Masonry that man should not be coerced to do what is right, and so for that end they will try to remove the rule of God from the nations, and you rejoice over this and say it is the "best form of government"... This is the essence of Vatican II and religious liberty too. It is condemned by Leo XIII, but he doesn't give it the name "implied Americanism" -- that is my invention. :baby:
If you'd just care to read Immortale Dei instead of calling me names then you'd have an old friend back, Dawn, as well as other good people on your side.
-
and I see that you see through them in their attempts to use you against others..they suck up to you a lot, despite you are in opposition to them often....
-
Trinity said:
While you're at it, Caminus, see if you can extract a few apologies for the false witness they've born against Myrna and myself. I honestly think you will have better luck extracting your own teeth.
There's the irony, because you just bore false witness against me by saying that I bore false witness. You accuse someone pretty lightly of being non-Catholic and breaking commandments... What false witness? I said you were an implied Americanist, and you are.
An actual Americanist is someone who thinks all religions are more or less roads to heaven. An implied Americanist is someone who thinks the system of government we have in the U.S., one that places erroneous, false religions on a par with the true religion, is the best form of government. You apparently don't want Christ to rule over nations, you think everyone should be free to do what they want, and of course that is what leads to rampant immorality and heresy. You don't say that in so many words, but how else am I to take it when you praise our form of government as "the best"? "Best" means "better than the rest," and you are saying that you prefer our government to Catholic governments.
That is implied Americanism, it is also implied Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, "liberty, equality, fraternity," because the whole philosophy comes from Masonry that man should not be coerced to do what is right, and so for that end they will try to remove the rule of God from the nations, and you rejoice over this and say it is the "best form of government"... This is the essence of Vatican II and religious liberty too. It is condemned by Leo XIII, but he doesn't give it the name "implied Americanism" -- that is my invention. :baby:
If you'd just care to read Immortale Dei instead of calling me names then you'd have an old friend back, Dawn, as well as other good people on your side.
well said Mike!, dawn, me and others happyto offer them :cheers:.if only.....
-
That is the madness of this whole thing. Trintiy and Myrna would bend over backward to defend their idea of Americanism and Liberty. Now, my argument with Caminus was in defending Cecelia. And here is were the insanity comes in. Trinity and Myrna are supposed to be sede. So, they should defend Cecelia and the truths she speaks as loudly as they defend eveyones right to be an American Heretic. But, no they hide behind the poor little ole me routine, when they are very good at throwing out names at people. And, then then since their lame attemts at getting us to tear into each other do not work, Trintiy tries to enlist Caminus. Which is really rich because Caminus is the only person that I have on ignore. As Raoul says Caminus uses so much flowery lanquage and so many pointed barbs while he deperately hopes that we will think he know what he is talking about.
Shame on the two of you ladies for defending Americanism and not defending what you both supposedly hold to be the truths of the Church.
-
Raoul ---> said <<< An actual Americanist is someone who thinks all religions are more or less roads to heaven. An implied Americanist is someone who thinks the system of government we have in the U.S., one that places erroneous, false religions on a par with the true religion, is the best form of government. You apparently don't want Christ to rule over nations, you think everyone should be free to do what they want, and of course that is what leads to rampant immorality and heresy. You don't say that in so many words, but how else am I to take it when you praise our form of government as "the best"? "Best" means "better than the rest," and you are saying that you prefer our government to Catholic governments>>>>
With all due respect Raoul it would be a good practice for you to start using that quote feature. I think you would gain a lot more respect.
In defense of Trinity, you misunderstand, and I know that you know there is no such a thing as a Catholic government today, which is what she was answering about; what we have TODAY I know that you know that because you are an intelligent person.
Next you accuse me of the same, of which I have never said. Therefore I repeat, PLEASE use the quote feature and I will do the same when addressing you in the future.
******************
Belloc, never fear about all your ignores, think about the over 900 members here that love to read and laugh at you!
-
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?
-
So C.M.M.M.'s way is the best! :roll-laugh2:
-
Dawn, with all due respect, I don't see Ceceila post here?
?
-
There's the irony, because you just bore false witness against me by saying that I bore false witness. You accuse someone pretty lightly of being non-Catholic and breaking commandments...
Dawn said to Caminus:
You are a mean viscous arrogant heretic. You are the most unchivalrous man I have ever had the chance to know.
-
This thread is in direct relation to what Caminus posted yesterday and what Raoul and I said in return. Still what is your position as far as what Cecilia said in the other thread that this ties into?
-
Dawn, please don't be so judgemental; I am not a mind reader, and was not here yesterday. Please refer to the thread PLEASE SHARE, and while there share something positive for a change.
I'll wait :popcorn:
-
Well then I guess you should read the other thread and not steop into something that was not directed to you. Enjoy your popcorn
-
Caminus said:
Your entire commentary betrays rather your fideistic disdain for Thomistic theology and philosophy, even for being reminded of basic moral duties.
Basic moral duty to treat all as if they were Jesus.
Since Raoul believes in being governed by Jesus, how does he explain his behavior toward others?
Since I have placed myself under the government of Jesus, how does he explain my purported refusal to want this country placed under the government of Jesus?
-
Caminus said:
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.
-
Caminus said:
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.
In that case Trinity was right to court Caminus in the attacks against us. Myrna and Trinity play that game too well. Attack and then pull back behind the "who? little ole me, well fiddle-dee-dee, I can not be behind those attacks looky at my thread on the wonders of the Sunday sermons of the CMRI.
The ignore works well for me with Caminus. And, I guess it will do just as well against the Apostles of luv and warm and fuzzy feelings.
-
Caminus said:
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.
would compliment you Mike, you did read, listen and have made positive changes I see in past yr or so....
SV does have have merit, but for me, not at this time, ...yet.....
-
Still waiting, Myrna?
-
?
-
Caminus said:
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
?
Pick practically any sentence from any post... How about this whopper from your last one --
Caminus said:
"You have very little tolerance for the intricate reasoning that accompanies theological science, which is why you hold Pius XII as suspect."
Pure Ratzinger. The first falsehood is that I have little tolerance for intricate reasoning. Just because I say yours is phony is different from not appreciating "intricate reasoning." In your egomania you apparently put yourself on the same footing as St. Thomas, but you are not, you are an amateur like me. Except your ambition is to become a theologian while my skills are more of a rhetorical nature. I am not interested in getting bogged down in theological debates, though they can be fun, when more important debates are pressing. The Popes themselves don't often quote huge hunks of theology.
Then after having falsely tried to establish what you pretend to be my contempt for intellectuals -- if you haven't noticed, I am an intellectual, though I am not or at least not yet anything resembling a theologian -- you move onto Pius XII. You use your false premise to draw a false conclusion; that I don't understand Pius XII because I am a crude sledgehammer and he is a glorious Aquinas.
But the questions I raise about Pius XII have to do with specific actions he took, like starting a Commission for Liturgical Reform and appointing Bugnini at the head of it, changing the Holy Week rites, changing the Psalter to a classical i.e. PAGAN Latin, introducing NFP and teaching it in a vague and confusing way, and all of this right before Vatican II -- and I'm supposed to believe he was a conservative who stood against the tide? Well, I don't.
Then there are his words. Like his Christmas Message of 1944:
1. Having passed, as it has, through an ocean of blood and tears in a form perhaps never experienced in past ages, it has lived through the indescribable atrocities with an intensity such that the recollection of so many horrors must remain stamped in its memory, and even in the deepest recesses of its soul, like a picture of a hell against which anyone who cherishes a sense of humanity desires more than anything else to close the door forever.
FORMATION OF A COMMON MEANS TO MAINTAIN PEACE
62. The decisions already published by international commissions permit one to conclude that an essential point in any future international arrangement would be the formation of an organ for the maintenance of peace, of an organ invested by common consent with supreme power to whose office it would also pertain to smother in its germinal state any threat of isolated or collective aggression."
This speaks for itself. Pius XII, who lived in the time of the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic democracies -- which as a skilled diplomat and politician he knew very well, thank you -- calls for an international organ a la the future UN, which of course would be ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic also, to "smother in its germinal state any threat" of war. In other words, war is peace. This is simply flat-out communism, it is Big Brother, it is the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. He is championing it.
You have nothing to say against this because the evidence is damning, and you know it. So you try to turn my questions about Pius XII into some proof of my lesser theological fluidity, while throwing out all kinds of junk about my "fideism"!
AND THAT MY MAN IS SOPHISTRY.
Just because I am a new Catholic that has not yet had the time to omnivorously study theology -- though I hope to one day -- does not mean I disdain "intricacy." That is why I am able to untangle yours for the garbage it is, because I do have a mind that can work through convoluted arguments. I know the difference between St. Thomas and Ratzinger, okay? St. Thomas is difficult but rewarding and his thought blossoms for those who take the time to study it; Ratzinger is a fraud, a phony, a Meister Eckhart pseudo-mystic trussed-up with lots of concepts from Contintental philosophy. He's also a heretic and commits the acts of an apostate.
Almost everything you say is lost in some fog of nonexistent distinctions... Okay, I am general and I don't quote theologians enough. I give you that one. I've also been Catholic for just over a year. What I do is sift information, I read through Bellarmine Forums, through French forums, and I do read many other people who quote the theologians. I stand on the shoulders of those giants, because in the short time I have to figure out where to go to church and which side is right, I will take advantage of those who have done years of research and work. I then, like a judge, throw my weight on the sedevacantist side, because they have the most convincing arguments.
-
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 said:
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.
-
Caminus-you and I are now tied for ignores......... :dancing-banana: :sign-party-time: :ready-to-eat: :jumping2:
-
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.
-
No the problem lies in conviction by intimation, and those who will elect themselves judge, jury and executioner.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
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.
-
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 --
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Do you know he lives about one hour from me? I have not met him, but I hear updates all the time from my own priest who does visit him.
-
No, but please have your priest bring him my apologies! I'm sure he will understand that I fell prey temporarily to scruples.
The one problem with Father Stepanich -- he might think the letter Suprema Haec Sacra[/i] constitutes a dogma. Apart from that, I am glad to see one representative of the Franciscans who has navigated all obstacles.
-
As for theologians who are sedevacantist, I will confess there aren't many, but we do have Father Guerard des Lauriers on the sedeprivationist side -- which is more or less the same. Jamie will not be able to say he lacked training. And Caminus certainly can't say he didn't make distinctions. ( In my opinion, he made a few too many ).
Not to mention that Vatican II is not exactly replete with stunning theology. I'd say Guerard des Lauriers pretty much trumps anyone you have got.
-
Is this going to be the big thread devoted to your promise to refute the early church fathers who rejected BOD?
Which Fathers?
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=CEXELJ40
Thank you for the megaupload link C.M.M.M .... finally at least an attempted scholarly response to those quotes.
-
Just because I say yours is phony is different from not appreciating "intricate reasoning."
Justice demands you give evidence for the claim. In fact, your tangents into the realm of meandering fantasy and irrelevancy more closely resembles sophistry than anything I write. But I think you need more training in philosophy in order to qualify as a sophist. As it stands, your problem is just general loose thinking.
In your egomania you apparently put yourself on the same footing as St. Thomas, but you are not, you are an amateur like me.
Another false accusation without any evidence. Simply because I study his doctrine, reverence it as the Popes have taught and use it daily in order to judge the crisis before us obviously doesn't amount to thinking I equal anyone. The claim is quite silly and unjust.
Except your ambition is to become a theologian while my skills are more of a rhetorical nature.
Now you are delving into my secret ambitions?
I am not interested in getting bogged down in theological debates, though they can be fun, when more important debates are pressing. The Popes themselves don't often quote huge hunks of theology.
That is to say you are not interested in being restrained by nagging details.
Then after having falsely tried to establish what you pretend to be my contempt for intellectuals --
Not just any intellectuals, only traditional thomistic philosophers and theologians.
if you haven't noticed, I am an intellectual, though I am not or at least not yet anything resembling a theologian
You certainly have a knack for descriptive essays and understanding the subtlety of human behaviors and if that qualifies for the definition of being an 'intellectual' so be it, but you are correct in that you are not a theologian.
-- you move onto Pius XII. You use your false premise to draw a false conclusion; that I don't understand Pius XII because I am a crude sledgehammer and he is a glorious Aquinas.
I move to Pius XII in order to demonstrate your intolerance for fine theological reasoning. Every criticism you've leveled could be reduced to this intellectual disposition. You don't even give yourself a chance to understand him because you let your unfounded suspicions measure your intellectual grasp.
But the questions I raise about Pius XII have to do with specific actions he took, like starting a Commission for Liturgical Reform and appointing Bugnini at the head of it, changing the Holy Week rites, changing the Psalter to a classical i.e. PAGAN Latin, introducing NFP and teaching it in a vague and confusing way, and all of this right before Vatican II -- and I'm supposed to believe he was a conservative who stood against the tide? Well, I don't.
The above catalogue demonstrates your other bad intellectual habits -- interpreting something innocuous in an evil light, guilt by a very strained association, imputing false motives, founding criticisms on your own unfounded assumptions, lack of research and serious consideration, drawing certain relations on a whim and then infering wild conclusions, or otherwise relying on a multitude of small distortions while fundmantally lacking the reverence a Catholic ought to have for the Roman Pontiff.
Then there are his words. Like his Christmas Message of 1944:
1. Having passed, as it has, through an ocean of blood and tears in a form perhaps never experienced in past ages, it has lived through the indescribable atrocities with an intensity such that the recollection of so many horrors must remain stamped in its memory, and even in the deepest recesses of its soul, like a picture of a hell against which anyone who cherishes a sense of humanity desires more than anything else to close the door forever.
FORMATION OF A COMMON MEANS TO MAINTAIN PEACE
62. The decisions already published by international commissions permit one to conclude that an essential point in any future international arrangement would be the formation of an organ for the maintenance of peace, of an organ invested by common consent with supreme power to whose office it would also pertain to smother in its germinal state any threat of isolated or collective aggression."
This speaks for itself. Pius XII, who lived in the time of the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic democracies -- which as a skilled diplomat and politician he knew very well, thank you -- calls for an international organ a la the future UN, which of course would be ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic also, to "smother in its germinal state any threat" of war. In other words, war is peace. This is simply flat-out communism, it is Big Brother, it is the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. He is championing it.
This has already been covered elsewhere on the board.
You have nothing to say against this because the evidence is damning, and you know it. So you try to turn my questions about Pius XII into some proof of my lesser theological fluidity, while throwing out all kinds of junk about my "fideism"!
AND THAT MY MAN IS SOPHISTRY.
No not really, not even close.
Almost everything you say is lost in some fog of nonexistent distinctions...
Like what exactly? This thread was in response to your accusations of my wretched sophistry. This was stated in response to my comments regarding the terrible logic of Miss Cecelia. I explained to you how her thinking was fallacious, yet you ignored it and continued to make more unfounded claims. This is your standard operating procedure and it lacks any integrity. You've obviously convinced yourself of certain things, but it is most unimpressive when put to the page.
-
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.
The things you were saying were full of filth and depravity, just like CM and Bob Dimond. I don't take too kindly to mortal sins against justice and charity. You've toned it down quite a bit and I appreciate that. No Catholic ought to tolerate such behavior.
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.
The quote had nothing to do with you. It was from your friend Dawn who flipped her lid and posted an entire thread in order to calumniate me. I used it to demonstrate your hypocrisy, your flimsy justifications notwithstanding.
-
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.
What you did was objectively mortally sinful. I make no comment on your subjective culpability. If I accused you of being unfaithful to your husband without any just cause whatsoever, you would rightly label it a mortal sin against justice. Why do you think it is acceptable for you to accuse me of the greatest crime of infidelity against God Himself without any cause other than the fact that you wanted to drive a dagger in my back? The table keeps turning: who made you judge and jury of heresy anyway?
See the problem with ad hominem? It's a never ending cycle.
-
Mike, since you've admitted that you cannot adduce any recent egregious sophistry I'll let this slide. Be sure to point it out to me in the future so I can change my ways.
-
I am glad you confronted this, Caminus. Raoul's "unfounded suspicions" have been tiresome, to say the very least. If a person doesn't hold a view in the first place they can't defend it in the second place. A true misunderstanding is bad enough, but the near constant disruption of this unauthorized and baseless inquisition has wreaked too much havoc. I did notice that Raoul did not defend Dawn. I am very glad this heretic hunt has been laid on the table, so to speak. Perhaps now we can live in peace and get on with our lives.
-
Trinity in your newly found blind hatred of me you forget one thing, and that is that as sedevantists we do not believe Benedict to be a valid pontiff. Benedict is in fact a heretic. And, anyone who knows his false teachings then goes onto defend them and make excuses for the heresies of Benedict or John Paul or any of the Vatican II pontiffs is a heretic. Remember? Do you no longer believe Benedict and company to be heretics, and Caminus for defending there heresies?
Maybe this will refresh your memory:
Don't Get Your Hopes Up about Ratzinger: Q & A
Most Rev. Donald J. Sanborn
Questions and answers.
1. Who is Joseph Ratzinger?
He was born in 1927 in Bavaria, and was ordained a priest in 1952. During Vatican II, he was the personal theologian of Cardinal Frings. Later he taught at Tübingen, the ultra-left-wing university in southern Germany. Paul VI made him the Archbishop of Munich in the 1970’s. John Paul II placed him in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a post which he held until recently.
2. Which side was he on at the Council?
Ratzinger was the right hand man of the much older Karl Rahner, who together with Hans Küng, managed to control the Council. This they did by the collusion of what was called the European Coalition, which was the well-organized and vocal group of northern European bishops who hijacked the Council. Ratzinger, therefore, together with Rahner and Küng, represented the extreme left wing of the Council.
3. Is it accurate to say, then, that Ratzinger is a conservative?
No. From the point of view of the Catholic Faith, Ratzinger is not even a Catholic. He is a public heretic just like Wojtyla. He could be styled a conservative Novus Ordite, inasmuch as he is not in favor of women priests, contraception, abortion, sodomy, etc. He also has said a few things in favor of the traditional liturgy. But in comparison to Catholic popes, such as Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI or Pius XII, he is not even a Catholic.
4. Why do you say that Ratzinger is not even a Catholic?
Because he is an ecuмenical maniac, more ecuмenical, I think, than even Wojtyla, if that is possible. But ecuмenism is contrary to our holy Faith. It was condemned in no uncertain terms by Pope Pius XI in 1928, as being equivalent to the “abandonment of the religion revealed by God.” Ecuмenism is the heart and soul of Vatican II. All of the liturgical, doctrinal, and disciplinary changes of Vatican II were made in the name of ecuмenism. Ratzinger assured the cardinals in his very first speech that he would continue the reforms of Vatican II and continue to reach out to other religions through ecuмenism. Our faithful must understand that ecuмenism is the central problem. Ecuмenism and Catholicism cannot get along. If Ratzinger is ecuмenical — and he is — then he is no good, and no pope.
5. What do you think that his program will be?
I think that he will push the ecuмenical agenda very vigorously. His “reign” will be short, and for this reason I think he will move swiftly toward what he has called “reconciled diversity,” a term which he has borrowed from Oscar Cullman, a Protestant minister. This means that he will strive to bring all religions together in some grand organization in which each one keeps its identity, but nevertheless considers itself to be in communion with everyone else. He will start with the schismatics and the Protestants. I would not be surprised if he makes some very bold moves in this direction. During Wojtyla’s time, he elaborated all of the theology necessary for it.
6. What theology are you referring to?
The “new ecclesiology.”
7. What is the new ecclesiology?
It is the teaching concerning the nature of the Church of Christ. The traditional ecclesiology is quite simple: the Church of Christ is the Roman Catholic Church, which is the unique means of salvation in the world. Any religion outside of the Roman Catholic Church, whether Greek Orthodox, Protestants, Jews, etc., despite whatever truths they may possess, or even valid sacraments, are false religions and are not means of salvation.
Obviously such an ecclesiology is incompatible with ecuмenism. So already from the 1930’s an ecuмenical ecclesiology has been elaborated by the Modernists in which some value can be seen in non-Catholic religions. This new ecclesiology was incorporated into the teachings of Vatican II, and it is the vehicle of ecuмenism.
What is the new ecclesiology? Here it is in summary:
• The Church of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are not one and the same thing, since non-Catholic churches belong to the Church of Christ, but not to the Catholic Church.
• The Church of Christ “subsists in” the Roman Catholic Church, inasmuch as the Roman Catholic Church has the “fullness” of all of the elements of the Church of Christ.
• The Church of Christ, although it does not subsist in non-Catholic churches, because they lack the “fullness,” is nevertheless found in these non-Catholic churches in an imperfect way.
• Non-Catholic churches are therefore truly “particular churches” which make up, together with the Roman Catholic Church, the one Church of Christ.
• The Roman Catholic Church is in “partial communion” with these non-Catholic churches, to the extent that they have elements of the Church of Christ, such as valid sacraments and true doctrines.
• Non-Catholic churches are “means of salvation” to the extent that they preserve the genuine elements of the Church of Christ.
• In those non-Catholic churches that have a valid Eucharist (e.g., Greek Orthodox), the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church becomes present every time they offer a valid Eucharist.
• Non-Catholic churches which are not subject to the Roman Pontiff (which means all of them) are “wounded” because of this lack of subjection. Yet they continue, despite their repudiation of the Roman primacy, to be “particular Churches,” i.e., member-churches of the big Church of Christ.
8. What does all this mean?
It means the abandonment of the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the nature of the Church of Christ. It contradicts the traditional teaching, and we therefore say that Vatican II is heretical and that Ratzinger is a heretic for having promulgated this teaching. For this reason, I say that Ratzinger is not even a Catholic.
9. What other heresies does Ratzinger espouse?
He is an evolutionist with regard to truth and the Church. In a speech given at a Protestant church in Rome in 1993, he said the following: “Therefore the goal, the aim of every ecuмenical effort is to attain the real unity of the Church which implies a multitude of forms which we cannot yet define.” Elsewhere he states: “For the time being I do not dare suggest any concrete, possible and imaginable realizations of this future church.” Now, I ask, what is more defined than the doctrine, worship and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church? Do you realize how alarming it is to hear him say such a thing, that we have no idea what the Church will be like in the future, owing to ecuмenism? Ratzinger is a Darwinian evolutionist with regard to the Catholic religion.
10. Does Ratzinger express this evolutionist idea anywhere else?
Yes, in his book Many Religions — One Covenant, (1998) Ratzinger makes some very alarming statements:
• “What we need, however, is respect for the beliefs of others and the readiness to look for the truth in what strikes us as strange or foreign; for such truth concerns us and can correct us and lead us farther along the path.” (p. 110)
• “I shall learn my own truth better if I understand the other person and allow myself to be moved along the road to the God who is ever greater, certain that I never hold the whole truth about God in my own hands but am always a learner, on pilgrimage toward it, on a path that has no end.” (ibid.)
Now I ask you, how can someone who has the Catholic Faith say such things? Does not the Catholic Church teach all truth in the name of Christ, and with the assistance of Christ? Ratzinger does not have the faith. How could the Catholic Faith be “on a path that has no end?” How could a Catholic say, “I never hold the whole truth about God in my own hands?” Is this not dogmatic evolutionism, condemned by Saint Pius X, in its purist form?
Listen to what else Ratzinger says:
• “Religion contains the precious pearl of truth, so to speak, but it is always hiding it, and it is continually in danger of losing sight of its essence. Religion can fall sick, and become something destructive. It can and should lead us to truth, but it can also cut men off from the truth...We may find it relatively easy to criticize the religion of others, but we must be ready to accept criticism of ourselves and of our own religion.” (Ibid.)
• “Karl Barth [a Protestant theologian] distinguished in Christianity between religion and faith...[H]e was right insofar as the religion of the Christian can succuмb to sickness and become superstition: the concrete religion in which faith is lived out must continually be purified on the basis of truth, that truth which shows itself, on the one hand, in faith and, on the other hand, reveals itself anew through dialogue, allowing us to acknowledge its mystery and infinity.” (p. 111)
From these quotations, it is clear that Ratzinger has the Modernist idea that faith is every man’s religious experience, and that it is distinguished from his religion, i.e., the collection of dogmas, liturgical observances, and disciplines which he holds and practices. Religion, he says, can become corrupt. So it must be subject to a constant purification which is achieved by faith, which is not religion, and dialogue, i.e., with other religions.
This distinction of religion and faith is typically Modernist. It subjects “religion” to perpetual, open-ended change. In other words, as he said above, we have no idea what the future church will be like.
The Catholic teaching, in contrast, is that the object of our faith is the infallible dogmas taught by the Roman Catholic Church, which are absolutely unchanging and irreformable. The liturgy and disciplines of the Church conform to these unchangeable dogmas and therefore are also unchangeable in their essence.
Listen to what Ratzinger says about the missionary activity of the Catholic Church:
• “Missionary activity in the future cannot proceed as if it were simply a case of communicating to someone who has no knowledge at all of God what he has to believe.” (p. 112)
• “The proclamation of the gospel must be necessarily a dialogical process. We are not telling the other person something that is entirely unknown to him; rather, we are opening up the hidden depth of something with which, in his own religion, he is already in touch.” (Ibid.)
• “The dialogue of religions should become more and more a listening to the Logos, who is pointing out to us, in the midst of our separation and our contradictory affirmations, the unity which we already share.” (Ibid.)
These affirmations of Ratzinger absolutely destroy the teaching of the Catholic Church, that it is the one true Church outside of which there is no salvation. The Catholic Church never conducted its missionary activity in such a way. It never “dialogued” with false religions. While it was careful not to insult people, and even to accept certain of their customs not incompatible with Catholicism, it never recognized value in the false religions which they encountered. Did Saint Peter or the early popes “dialogue” with the Roman idolaters, in order to find the “unity which they already shared?”
Ratzinger’s church is one which is unknown to Catholics and to the history of Catholicism. Ratzinger is asking us to adhere to an unknown church of the future, so that in actuality we will abandon the eternal and immutable Church of Christ.
11. How do you think Ratzinger will treat traditionalists?
He will totally ignore the sedevacantists, I think. Perhaps he will excommunicate one or two of us. I think that he will give something to the Indult movement and the Fraternity of Saint Peter. They accept Vatican II and have no trouble with the new ecclesiology. So Ratzinger will have no trouble, I believe, in granting them more status than Wojtyla did. Wojtyla hated the traditional movement. Ratzinger is different. On matters of pure taste, he is more conservative than Wojtyla, and will favor the preservation of the traditional Latin Mass, something like a museum piece. As long as they are on board with “reconciled diversity,” the Indult people and the FSSP will receive favor from Ratzinger.
In so doing, I think that Ratzinger will appeal to the left wing of the Society of Saint Pius X to regularize itself, i.e., come under the Vatican. He may grant them considerable concessions. If he is successful, he will split this group, as they are already split into left and right.
Unfortunately, however, I think that the remnant SSPX will blithely continue the same old line of “being with the Holy Father” — a bold-faced lie — and at the same time continue their practice of defiance by organized and universal disobedience to him. So there is not much hope there.
12. So what should our attitude be toward Ratzinger?
The same as toward Wojtyla: that he is not a Catholic because he is a heretic, and that he is imposing a false religion upon Catholics. For both of these reasons he cannot be a Catholic pope. We must continue as always, all the time praying to God that He restore to us one day a true Catholic pope. It is only through a true Catholic pope that our Catholic Church and our Catholic lives will return to normal.
SUMMARY
• Ratzinger is a heretic principally because of his stance on ecuмenism and the new ecclesiology, both of which have been condemned by the Church.
• Ratzinger is an evolutionist with regard to the very nature of the Church, which shows a heretical attitude toward the Church, as it is an object of our faith.
• Ratzinger says that Catholics do not have the whole truth about God, and must dialogue with non-Catholics in order to find it.
• We need to persevere in our resistance to Modernism by holding Ratzinger to be a false pope, and by continuing to hold fast to what we have received from our ancestors as the Catholic Faith.
Taken form Novus Ordo Watch.
There are many on this board who do not hold the sedevacantist argument (hello Belloc) but are willing to enter into a discussion about the subject and do not resort to scathing remarks.
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in praelio. Contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium. Imperet illi Deus, supplices deprecamur. Tuque princeps militiae caelestis, Satanam aliosque spiritus malignos, qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo divina virtute in infernum detrude. Amen.
-
Scathing remarks indeed!
I just read through this entire thread since I was unable to be here yesterday (in case anyone wondered what happened to me :smirk:).
Accusations against a person of committing mortal sins on a public forum for anyone to read is pretty bad.
-
Alexandria said:
I just read through this entire thread since I was unable to be here yesterday (in case anyone wondered what happened to me :smirk:)
I wondered! I was worried that you left in a huff because I called your sense of humor "a little dark and dour."
Maybe without being conscious of it I'm trying to get back at you for calling me "constipated" even if it were true... :wink:
-
Alexandria said:
I just read through this entire thread since I was unable to be here yesterday (in case anyone wondered what happened to me :smirk:)
I wondered! I was worried that you left in a huff because I called your sense of humor "a little dark and dour."
Maybe without being conscious of it I'm trying to get back at you for calling me "constipated" even if it were true... :wink:
When did I do that?
No, I didn't leave in a huff. I couldn't access the internet at all yesterday and was ready to throw the whole thing out the window. Had to wait until my "Administrator" got home. It was a L O N G day!!! :cool:
-
R76, one more thing.
About my "dark and dour" humor...I wouldn't expect a west coaster to appreciate an east coast sense of humor. If ever you should visit Manhattan, you will find this "dark and dour" sense of humor quite prevalent. And, having known me, you'll be ready! :wink:
-
and Caminus for defending there heresies?
Your malice and ignorance is unbelievable. You really need to get some spiritual help.
-
Dawn seems to think that one must be 100% correct about everything or they are 100% wrong about everything. The proof of Dawn and Raoul's reign of terror is all over this board, but if anyone calls them on it, they are in the wrong. The proof is in Caminus' corner this time. And right and truth trump self righteousness every time. If I believe Caminus has the right in this (and I do) it is because I was treated the same way.
I have always understood that a public sin demands a public penance.
-
Jesus said you are to be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect. Jesus said you are either for HIm or you are against Him. He gave no leeway. The Truth is the same today yesterday and always. Fr. Says it is either Black or white no room for gray. Which until two weeks ago you agreed with remember when I would say that to you from Fr.?
-
I have said that very thing for a long time. It is just that easy and clear. It is either black or white no shades of gray. It is either of Christ or it is not.
And, now so you know you are on ignore.
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in praelio. Contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium. Imperet illi Deus, supplices deprecamur. Tuque princeps militiae caelestis, Satanam aliosque spiritus malignos, qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo divina virtute in infernum detrude. Amen.
-
Alexandria, Raoul, Dawn, umbleay.... you all are soldiers for Christ and in my prayers for Gods protection and continued guidance. Keep up the good fight against those who oppose Mother Church.
:applause:
:incense:
-
Mgr Gaume, Credo or The Refuge of a Christian, 1890, pg. 18 --
In an age when the sophist is king, reasoning no longer has any worth, or very little. With a scalpel in one hand, his candle-snuffer in another, here comes the sophist to attack the most solid of your arguments. He obscures them, dissects them, denatures them, hides from them, and he ends by delivering them to the mocking laughter of the crowd, the ignorant and the lettered.
My one question is, how did Mgr. Gaume meet Caminus way back in 1890? Did he have a time-machine? Remember Caminus is the one who sees no heresy in the Joint Declaration on Justification. And when cornered, he just says "I don't find the Dimonds' arguments convincing."
That is what it always comes down to with these pseudo-intellectuals who bend over backwards to defend HERETICS and DESTROYERS of Holy Mother Church. Whatever you say as a sede is emotional or extreme. They paint themselves as reasonable and patient and following theological strictures. But whenever you make a point based on clear facts, they just say "I'm not convinced." All their supposed intellect falls apart, and they are reduced to an immature four-year old brat sticking his fingers in his ears and going "I can't hear you, na na na."
I'm sure there is a name for this junk they do -- is it Alinsky? Some kind of psychological technique. One day the world will wake up to your SOPHISTRY, though, because that's all it is, built on thin air, trying to scare people not only away from true theology, but away from common sense, freezing the resistance and pumping blood into this abomination they've set up in Rome.
I pity you when you meet God with your mingy, pitiful distinctions that oftentimes really are none, Caminus. Because while you may fool some people here, God, who is truth, knows very well that there is a difference between DISTINGUISHING, and DEFORMING, DENATURING, OBSCURING and, with the most shameless bad faith, EVADING the arguments of others, like you have evaded all of Cecilia's points in this thread, reduced to the lamest of defenses: "Women should take care of hearth and home, don't worry your pretty little head."
Are you going to trade going to heaven just so, in your own mind, you can continue to be right, even though secretly you must know you're not? Or are you going to be a man and show some humility? Don't miss out on eternity with God just because you don't want to give ground to a stranger on the Internet. Because while I don't say you're a heretic, necessarily, you are so deep into downplaying and downgrading heresy and trying to make it seem harmless, that you might as well be, O king of BAD FAITH.
-
Correction: Cecilia's sede-defending posts were in another thread.
-
Thank you for your prayers PartyisOver 221. They are much needed.
-
Alexandria, Raoul, Dawn, umbleay.... you all are soldiers for Christ and in my prayers for Gods protection and continued guidance. Keep up the good fight against those who oppose Mother Church.
:applause:
:incense:
Party, thank you. I need your prayers too, especially for protection and continued guidance.
-
Mgr Gaume, Credo or The Refuge of a Christian, 1890, pg. 18 --
In an age when the sophist is king, reasoning no longer has any worth, or very little. With a scalpel in one hand, his candle-snuffer in another, here comes the sophist to attack the most solid of your arguments. He obscures them, dissects them, denatures them, hides from them, and he ends by delivering them to the mocking laughter of the crowd, the ignorant and the lettered.
My one question is, how did Mgr. Gaume meet Caminus way back in 1890? Did he have a time-machine? Remember Caminus is the one who sees no heresy in the Joint Declaration on Justification. And when cornered, he just says "I don't find the Dimonds' arguments convincing."
That is what it always comes down to with these pseudo-intellectuals who bend over backwards to defend HERETICS and DESTROYERS of Holy Mother Church. Whatever you say as a sede is emotional or extreme. They paint themselves as reasonable and patient and following theological strictures. But whenever you make a point based on clear facts, they just say "I'm not convinced." All their supposed intellect falls apart, and they are reduced to an immature four-year old brat sticking his fingers in his ears and going "I can't hear you, na na na."
I'm sure there is a name for this junk they do -- is it Alinsky? Some kind of psychological technique. One day the world will wake up to your SOPHISTRY, though, because that's all it is, built on thin air, trying to scare people not only away from true theology, but away from common sense, freezing the resistance and pumping blood into this abomination they've set up in Rome.
I pity you when you meet God with your mingy, pitiful distinctions that oftentimes really are none, Caminus. Because while you may fool some people here, God, who is truth, knows very well that there is a difference between DISTINGUISHING, and DEFORMING, DENATURING, OBSCURING and, with the most shameless bad faith, EVADING the arguments of others, like you have evaded all of Cecilia's points in this thread, reduced to the lamest of defenses: "Women should take care of hearth and home, don't worry your pretty little head."
Are you going to trade going to heaven just so, in your own mind, you can continue to be right, even though secretly you must know you're not? Or are you going to be a man and show some humility? Don't miss out on eternity with God just because you don't want to give ground to a stranger on the Internet. Because while I don't say you're a heretic, necessarily, you are so deep into downplaying and downgrading heresy and trying to make it seem harmless, that you might as well be, O king of BAD FAITH.
This is typical and not to mention ironic considering that you haven't been able to produce even one example of sophistry. Do you even know what sophistry is? My words my denature and obscure your opinions and the foundation thereof, but in doing so they help reveal the truth which exists outside of you. Thus the violent reaction to what I write. In this you bear relation to the Modernist who identifies revelation and the sources of truth with the subjective experience of man.
It is the mark of a fanatic who threatens eternal condemnation to any who does not adhere to his opinions. The Devil has so stirred his mind as to make him mistake his opinions for revelation, that an afront to his opining is like an affront to God Himself.
I'm not even sure why I am responding, considering that anyone who crosses you is to be considered a secret agent attempting to scare you from your opinions. The mere suggestion that you've erred is met with accusations of psychological manipulation. Refusal to acquiesce your will is interpreted as having a bad will.
Nothing you say has any foundation in theology or philosophy or even basic logic. You simply hide behind your emotional devices in the hope that all challenges will be silenced. Oddly enough, you have this in common with the Sophist who does not address the essence of things, but rather endless accidental phenomenon.