Author Topic: The Vulnerary Zone - where Sedes can refresh and review the fine points (Read 2001 times)

Neil Obstat · « **on:** July 21, 2012, 04:15:36 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

minute 17:00 in this sermon

"...Pope Benedict must convert. He's holding down the iron fist on those who do
not accept every detail of Vatican II. He says on the one side, you don't have to
accept every detail. On the other side, he smashes. And at the same time, at the
exact same time, he's telling us, "We welcome you with open arms. We want you
to come inside with open arms. And we accept you as you are. And we want you
to help us. But if you do not do everything as we say, we are going to
excommunicate you again." We are getting threats. These are not the ways of
Christ..."

This behavior of B16 is consistent with other disconnects that he practices. An
example is his canard of "hermeneutic of continuity," whereby the heresies of
Vatican II are not opposed to the perennial teachings of Holy Mother Church,
because it is the same Church, and therefore Her teachings must be consistent
with themselves.

All of these disconnects are due to his de facto denial of the principle
of non-contradiction, which denial goes a long way to explaining why
he did so poorly when he was required to study the Summa of St.
Thomas. This is a fundamental error in philosophy, at the very
foundation of thought itself, and it therefore affects all his thinking.
...

SJB quotes from out of this following paragraph:

Quote

...
OH, right -- the ubiquitous Sede contingent: "Wait a minute, Neil, what
authority can you produce who teaches this doctrine you are proclaiming??" My
answer, so you don't have to bother asking (unless you can't read this because
you're too blind to see it or whatever), is: please produce for me any
"authority" in the history of the Church who would have dared to speculate on
the consequences of denying the principle of non-contradiction. You don't have
to bother, because you won't find it. There are none. For to do so would have been
tantamount to saying, "I will now presume that an insane lunatic has become Pope
and his deconstructed inanity has been accepted as tolerable by the world at
large, but only resisted by a small remnant who dares to hold fast to the traditions
that have been handed down." No way. They would have been relegated to a
crazy farm for having entertained the possibility, in all seriousness. And no, this
does not mean I have accused the Pope of being a lunatic. This is a hypothetical
example, to answer an inevitable question before it's ever asked. Think of another
question!

But I digress.............

This (his subjective denial of the principle of non-contradiction) is why he's okay
with telling one group A and another group B, and then put the two groups
together and let them fight it out. He seems to do that for entertainment.

Then at minute 19:00 he gives another example of a priest in the Philippines who
says the TLM (Indult) but does not believe in the bodily presence of Christ in
the Blessed Sacrament. He believes there is a "real" presence of Christ there
but not a "bodily" presence there. This is a good example of the FRUIT of denial
of the principle of non-contradiction, which the Pope holds, and so he's not
about to discipline the members of the Church who exhibit the bad fruit of this
error in fundamental thinking.

At minute 20:00 he says in the Philippines in the district where he says Mass there
is no confessions. 10 Masses on Sunday but no confessions, even during the
week. The official message is "confessions by appointment only," for those who
feel they really need it, but there are no appointments. This is another example
of the fruit of the denial of the principle of non-contradiction, whereby the
clergy of that district don't think that forgiveness of sins is necessary for
salvation: you can have sins, but you can still get into heaven where you
cannot have sins. It's effectively accommodation to the Lutheran heresy, but
by a route that even Luther did not take!!

Luther was indeed a vile heretic, but he was not literally crazy.

At minute 25:00 Fr. Pfeiffer mentions the crisis in northern Mexico these past few
weeks, where Fr. Cardozo (he doesn't say his name, though) said Mass and the
faithful who assisted were told by SSPX priests that going to that Mass was a
"mortal sin," and that they would be refused Communion if they did not confess it.
So any of your disbelieving friends who doubt that could happen in the SSPX, can
tell Fr. Pfeiffer that he's got his facts wrong. I would love to hear Fr.'s reply to
that accusation!!

Minute 26:30 ~ this unlawful prohibition of Communion is not the "stick" of Christ,
but the "stick of the devil!... 27:20 The reign of terror is beginning to enter
Tradition."

29:10 "... We must condemn most boldly the errors. We must not be too hard
upon the sinners. The way of the Church is to be most harsh, most strict on
doctrine; to be most clear on doctrine, for it is these things that are necessary for
life. The mother that says, 'This is poison! Do not eat it!' But when the child has
eaten some poison, he comes in with poison -- (you little brat, you ate poison
(motions slapping - congregation laughs)) -- she doesn't do that. She takes the
boy to the doctor..."

31:10 "We are not hearing a condemnation of the errors anymore."

-- We haven't been hearing a clear condemnation of the errors since 1960! Hey,
doesn't that date ring a bell? .........................

And in his quote, he asks how I would determine the pope's insanity:

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: NeilO
..."Wait a minute, Neil, what authority can you produce who teaches this doctrine
you are proclaiming??" My answer, so you don't have to bother asking (unless you
can't read this because you're too blind to see it or whatever), is: please produce
for me any "authority" in the history of the Church who would have dared to
speculate on the consequences of denying the principle of non-contradiction.
You don't have to bother, because you won't find it. There are none. For to do so,
would have been tantamount to saying, "I will now presume that an insane lunatic
has become Pope and his deconstructed inanity has been accepted as tolerable by
the world at large, but only resisted by a small remnant who dares to hold fast to
the traditions that have been handed down." No way. They would have been
relegated to a crazy farm for having entertained the possibility, in all seriousness.
And no, this does not mean I have accused the Pope of being a lunatic. This is a
hypothetical example, to answer an inevitable question before it's ever asked. Think
of another question!

But I digress.............

This (his subjective denial of the principle of non-contradiction) is why he's okay
with telling one group A and another group B, and then put the two groups together
and let them fight it out. He seems to do that for entertainment.

An insane pope would lose his office according to the authorities. Neil, how would you ever determine his insanity?

Thank you, SJB, for thinking of another question. You have not disappointed me.

It is not up to me to determine the sanity, or lack thereof, of the pope. Nor is it
up to you, any other layman, or even individual clergy throughout the world. Nor
is it proper for any clergy to suggest to a layman or laymen that he/they should
presume to pass judgment on the pope. And therefore, it is improper for you, a
mere layman, to suggest it as well. But you do. You do it again and again, even
after someone has instructed you that you should not. You have been cautioned
but no matter, you persist in your improper suggestions, as if you dare to do the
very work of the Adversary, whether or not you intend to do so.

You may contend that you do not recognize them as popes, therefore the rules do
not apply to you. But you then overlook the fact that others, to whom you speak,
do recognize them as popes, and therefore your words are scandalous to them,
and you offend them, saying things offensive to pious ears. Sometimes this may
cause you to take pause, but at other times it does not, and you even use
invective and hyperbole in your pertinacious endeavor to denounce them.

Fr. Pfeiffer gave a sermon on the Gospel for the 7th Sunday after Pentecost, and
put "wolves in sheep's clothing" into present-day context. This is to our edification.
For in saner times long ago, it would not have been entertained, it seems to me,
that the quality of wolf in the person of the Roman Pontiff, could possibly be
attributable to his mental and/or emotional incompetency in spiritual matters. But,
as Fr. Pfeiffer aptly contends, these are not normal times. In these days of the
Crisis in the Church, laymen are placed in situations that have been until now
unprecedented, for, even though he did not say so, we can today get a bit deeper
comprehension of what was foretold in Scripture, especially regarding the
Apocalypse of St. John, because we are seeing it fulfilled before our very eyes.

It was not my doing, but I am at liberty to notice the fact, that there have been
those who have questioned the mental competency of all the Conciliar popes,
starting with John XXIII, with perhaps the exception of JPI. They all did things
and said things that in saner days long ago, would have seemed to have been
grounds for action to remove them. Nor would such post mortem judgment by a
legitimate authority be out of the question. But it is not up to me or you to do so,
nor is it okay for a Sede priest to stand before his congregation and to urge them
on to such a sin of presumption. Moral transgression comes to mind.

I have taken note of the fact that we have these conciliar popes who have raised
the specter of doubt toward their abilities due to their own demonstration of their
denial of the principle of non-contradiction. But any Sede priest who claims to be
Catholic, and then proceeds to promote doing something that is not Catholic, is
actually practicing that which he would be expected to denounce and to forbid:
the denial of the principle of non-contradiction. That is, by telling laymen that they
are permitted to judge the pope, they act as anti-Catholic while they presume to
be Catholic, which is an effective denial that this would be self-contradictory.

So then, perhaps you can modify your question to ask something that I can
answer?

SJB selectively quotes me again, telling me (effectively) what my opinion is, in
his words:

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: NeilO
Thank you, SJB, for thinking of another question. You have not disappointed me.

It is not up to me to determine the sanity, or lack thereof, of the pope. Nor is it up to you, any other layman, or even individual clergy throughout the world. Nor is it proper for any clergy to suggest to a layman or laymen that he/they should presume to pass judgment on the pope. And therefore, it is improper for you, a mere layman, to suggest it as well. But you do. You do it again and again, even after someone has instructed you that you should not. You have been cautioned but no matter, you persist in your improper suggestions, as if you dare to do the
very work of the Adversary, whether or not you intend to do so.

So, according to your opinion, an insane pope doesn't lose his office, and even if he did, NOBODY, even the Roman clergy, could act to rectify the situation.

Just wait until he dies, then elect another?

But I did not say that an insane pope does not lose his office. Those are SJB's
words. What I said was, whether the pope loses his office or does not lose his
office, it is NEVER up to me, or SJB, any other layman, or even any priest in the
world to announce that the pope has lost his office. I am trying to be as simple
and forthright as possible here, without being condescending or presumptuous or
even insulting. Maybe I'm not quite at the very crux of the matter yet, but it
sure seems to be getting very close to the crux, IMHO.

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: NeilO
And therefore, it is improper for you, a mere layman, to suggest it as well. But you do. You do it again and again, even after someone has instructed you that you should not. You have been cautioned but no matter, you persist in your improper suggestions, as if you dare to do the very work of the Adversary, whether or not you intend to do so.

How then is it proper for you to "caution" me and judge me?

I am simply observing the facts. Are we in the same reality, you and I? Have you
not said that the pope is not the pope? Have you not said that the pope can lose
his office and you or I or someone is able to make that judgment? Have you not
said that starting with John XXIII, alias Angelo Roncalli, that he was invalidly
elected, or that some cleric or layman can say that without any fear of
transgression? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote

Quote from: NeilO
You may contend that you do not recognize them as popes, therefore the rules do
not apply to you. But you then overlook the fact that others, to whom you speak,
do recognize them as popes, and therefore your words are scandalous to them,
and you offend them, saying things offensive to pious ears. Sometimes this may
cause you to take pause, but at other times it does not, and you even use
invective and hyperbole in your pertinacious endeavor to denounce them.

I never said this at all nor have I denounced anybody.

I am glad to see you say you have not denounced anyone. That's an achievement
in itself, I suppose. Sometimes our words come off as imparting a tone, but that's
only because we are seeing them written and not hearing them spoken.

But I am not understanding the first part of your sentence:

Are you saying you never said that you do not recognize the conciliar popes as
having been popes? Or are you saying you never said that since you deny they
are popes that therefore the rules (relating to how we must be subject to the
Roman Pontiff) do not apply to you? Or are you saying you never said something
else?

Quote

Do you think your words critical of Vatican II and the NOM "scandalize" and "offend" some Catholics in the NO? Can't you see this standard of yours is ridiculous?

Whether my words scandalize them or not is of no concern to me, and it
should be of no concern to you, either. You are forgetting something.

Was Our Lord worried that His words could scandalize the Jєωs?
Were the Apostles worried that their words would scandalize the unbelievers?
Did St. John Chrysostom stay up at night fretting about how he offended heretics?
Did +ABL lose sleep over how hard his sermon must have been for Modernists to hear?
Is Fr. Pfeiffer worried that his words will scandalize the Novordiens?

You are forgetting (or maybe you're deliberately trying to get around it) that we
are talking here about the Faith. I am taking the position in defense of the
Traditional Catholic Faith, and the Novus Ordo people are following the imposter
Council of Vatican II and its aftermath, which is objectively a departure from the
Faith. I hope we don't have to go over that again.

As such, their position is indefensible, and if they are offended, it's because they
have departed from the Faith.

Similarly, since I am defending Tradition, which teaches that we recognize the
Pope as being the Pope. Even if we don't like what he teaches and even if we
think he should be deposed, we continue to recognize him, for we do not have the
power to depose him, and it does not do any good to run around campaigning for
his deposition all considered, since we have this situation that we have, etc., etc.;
then it is you, as a Sede, who are departing from the Catholic Tradition by doing
just that: running around and campaigning (or at least arguing in favor of the
rights of laymen to deny the pope) for the de facto deposition of the
"so-called" Roman Pontiff.

I can only say that you, as a Sede, by doing what you are doing, are thereby
departing from the Faith, because I am saying that I cannot do as you are doing
because if I did, I would be departing from the Faith. I am not judging you, but
rather I am judging what you are doing, because I am judging that I cannot do it
also.

If I were to accept your argument, that it is "ridiculous" for me to say things that
may scandalize Novordiens, while accusing Sedes of scandalizing me and others
like me, then I would have to give up defending the Faith and presume that Sedes
are correct, and that we can all judge the pope, to have Strawberry Fields forever,

...........and everyone lived happily ever after...............

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try!
No hell below us,
Above us only sky...
...Imagine all the people,
Living life in peace!
You may say I'm a dreamer,
But I'm not the only one.
I hope someday you'll join us,
And the world will be as one!

SJB · « **Reply #1 on:** July 21, 2012, 06:00:27 AM »

Quote from: NeilO

And in his quote, he asks how I would determine the pope's insanity:

No, I was asking if there was a remedy. Is the Church simply at the mercy of an insane pope?

SJB · « **Reply #2 on:** July 21, 2012, 06:14:22 AM »

Quote from: NeilO

I am simply observing the facts. Are we in the same reality, you and I? Have you
not said that the pope is not the pope? Have you not said that the pope can lose
his office and you or I or someone is able to make that judgment? Have you not
said that starting with John XXIII, alias Angelo Roncalli, that he was invalidly
elected, or that some cleric or layman can say that without any fear of
transgression? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You obviously don't know what I've said here. You come across as some arrogant kid who hasn't a clue what he's talking about. You need to work on that, Neil.

Funny, when I observe the facts, you call it an improper judgment.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #3 on:** July 21, 2012, 12:23:23 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: NeilO
And in his quote, he asks how I would determine the pope's insanity:

No, I was asking if there was a remedy. Is the Church simply at the mercy of an insane pope?

No? No, what? No, you didn't ask how I would determine the pope's insanity?

Now, which one of us, you or me, is dealing in reality? I am merely going by
what you said:

Quote

An insane pope would lose his office according to the authorities. Neil, how would you ever determine his insanity?

So, first you ask me how I would ever determine his insanity, then, when I say
that you asked me that, you say, "No, I was asking if there was a remedy."

If you had intended to ask "if there was a remedy," then why didn't you ask that?
What you asked was, "how would (I) ever determine his insanity." This is what
we talk about when we say "objective truth" opposed to "subjective reality."

When you change content mid stream, toward your own subjective reality, it
doesn't make for a good impression. It makes you look like a Modernist.

Beyond that, I have answered your question as best I can, how I would determine
the pope's insanity: it isn't my place to determine that, so rephrase your question,
or ask one that I can answer.

Furthermore, did you read what I had said in my detailed reply in this paragraph?

"It was not my doing (that is, I have not questioned the mental competency of all
the conciliar popes), but I am at liberty to notice the fact, that there have been
those who have questioned the mental competency of all the conciliar popes,
starting with John XXIII, with perhaps the exception of JPI. They (that is, the
conciliar popes) all did things and said things that in saner days long ago, would
have seemed to have been grounds for action to remove them. Nor would such
post mortem judgment by a legitimate authority be out of the question. But it
is not up to me or you to do so, nor is it okay for a Sede priest to stand before his
congregation and to urge them on to such a sin of presumption. Moral
transgression comes to mind."

You have said, above, "I was asking if there was a remedy."

Yes, there was a remedy; there has been a remedy, and there would be a remedy.

It takes a legitimate authority, that is, not you, not me, not a lone, Sede priest
standing at his podium giving a sermon on Sunday, but a legitimate authority, to
judge the pope. An example of that would be, for starters, the College of
Cardinals, meeting to address the mental and emotional capacity of the Pope to
act as pope. I don't think that has ever happened before, but there is one case of
a future pope, together with the cardinals, putting a former pope on trial, when
they exhumed the body of the deceased Pope Honorius I, and dressed him in papal
vestments, read their accusations against him, and waited for his reply. There was
no reply. So they threw his body into the Tiber river.

Now, if you think you have the authority, why don't you, and some of your
numerous friends, exhume the body of the so-called pope of your choice from its
tomb, dress it in papal vestments, hold trial, and when the body has no defense
for itself under your accusations, then throw it into the Tiber? You might make
headlines.

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: NeilO
I am simply observing the facts. Are we in the same reality, you and I? Have you
not said that the pope is not the pope? Have you not said that the pope can lose
his office and you or I or someone is able to make that judgment? Have you not
said that starting with John XXIII, alias Angelo Roncalli, that he was invalidly
elected, or that some cleric or layman can say that without any fear of
transgression? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You obviously don't know what I've said here.

On the contrary, you have said something and then you deny you said it (see the
first several sentences of this post), so it is you who don't know what you have
said. What I don't know is what your latest whim is, as to what you now WISH that
you would have said.

Why don't you take that short list, right here, and explain how you have not said
those things, and then we can deal in reality instead of in a chimera of your own
imagination. For example, here is the short list:

1) Have you not said that the pope is not the pope?

2) Have you not said that the pope can lose his office and you or I or someone is
able to make that judgment?

3) Have you not said that starting with John XXIII, alias Angelo Roncalli, that he
was invalidly elected, or that some cleric or layman can say that without any fear
of transgression?

Quote

You come across as some arrogant kid who hasn't a clue what he's talking about. You need to work on that, Neil.

And if you really want to have an intelligent conversation, you will have to desist
from the ad hominems, SJB, because I won't tolerate them, nor should I.

It seems you are stuck and you don't like it, so now you're hurling insults. I
don't have to prove you're hurling insults; it's right here for all to see.

Quote

Funny, when I observe the facts, you call it an improper judgment.

That's vague. Be specific, and stop whining.

It makes you look like a whiner when you whine like this. Are all Sedes whiners?

Your observation of a "fact," at the beginning of this post, is an illusion. What are
you referring to here? Something else? Don't expect I can read your mind.

Overall, it seems you would demand that the Church would conform to your
expectations, and if she doesn't, then you can proclaim that she isn't the Church.
It appears from our exchange that you make the same demands on others, like
you are doing toward me. If I don't conform to your expectations, then I am to be
denounced and derided.

You say you have not denounced anyone, then you proceed henceforth to say, I
"come across as some arrogant kid who hasn't a clue what he's talking about."

That is a cheap shot, without foundation, I resent it, and I demand an apology.

Emerentiana · « **Reply #4 on:** July 21, 2012, 12:35:22 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: NeilO
And in his quote, he asks how I would determine the pope's insanity:

No, I was asking if there was a remedy. Is the Church simply at the mercy of an insane pope?

Yes! Its hard for some trad Catholics to accept this cold hard fact. When you do, you will be free from confusion!

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #5 on:** July 21, 2012, 01:11:02 PM »

Quote from: Emerentiana

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: NeilO
And in his quote, he asks how I would determine the pope's insanity:

No, I was asking if there was a remedy. Is the Church simply at the mercy of an insane pope?

Yes! Its hard for some trad Catholics to accept this cold hard fact. When you do, you will be free from confusion!

Cold, hard fact: that would be a proposition. E.g., This is a sentence. The sky is blue.
When it rains, the ground is wet. A ship that is unsinkable cannot founder. There is no
salvation outside the Church. These are examples of propositions.

Please forgive my justified addition of a comma between "cold" and "hard."

Now, let's see, here:

"I was asking if there was a remedy." Is that a proposition? No.

"Is the Church simply at the mercy of an insane pope?" Is that a proposition? No.

Please explain, then, what this "cold, hard fact" is, to which you allude, Emerentiana.

Because, the only fact I can see here, cold, hard, or otherwise, is that you seem to
be confused as to the meaning of the word, "fact."

SJB · « **Reply #6 on:** July 21, 2012, 01:19:56 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: NeilO
And in his quote, he asks how I would determine the pope's insanity:

No, I was asking if there was a remedy. Is the Church simply at the mercy of an insane pope?

What I said is no different than saying "how would one ever determine his sanity." Only YOU think you always means you personally. It could be that you're self-centered and believe every statement refers somehow to YOU.

SJB · « **Reply #7 on:** July 21, 2012, 01:22:49 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: NeilO
And in his quote, he asks how I would determine the pope's insanity:

No, I was asking if there was a remedy. Is the Church simply at the mercy of an insane pope?

No? No, what? No, you didn't ask how I would determine the pope's insanity?

Now, which one of us, you or me, is dealing in reality? I am merely going by
what you said:

Quote
An insane pope would lose his office according to the authorities. Neil, how would you ever determine his insanity?

So, first you ask me how I would ever determine his insanity, then, when I say
that you asked me that, you say, "No, I was asking if there was a remedy."

If you had intended to ask "if there was a remedy," then why didn't you ask that?
What you asked was, "how would (I) ever determine his insanity." This is what
we talk about when we say "objective truth" opposed to "subjective reality."

When you change content mid stream, toward your own subjective reality, it
doesn't make for a good impression. It makes you look like a Modernist.

Beyond that, I have answered your question as best I can, how I would determine
the pope's insanity: it isn't my place to determine that, so rephrase your question,
or ask one that I can answer.

Furthermore, did you read what I had said in my detailed reply in this paragraph?

"It was not my doing (that is, I have not questioned the mental competency of all
the conciliar popes), but I am at liberty to notice the fact, that there have been
those who have questioned the mental competency of all the conciliar popes,
starting with John XXIII, with perhaps the exception of JPI. They (that is, the
conciliar popes) all did things and said things that in saner days long ago, would
have seemed to have been grounds for action to remove them. Nor would such
post mortem judgment by a legitimate authority be out of the question. But it
is not up to me or you to do so, nor is it okay for a Sede priest to stand before his
congregation and to urge them on to such a sin of presumption. Moral
transgression comes to mind."

You have said, above, "I was asking if there was a remedy."

Yes, there was a remedy; there has been a remedy, and there would be a remedy.

It takes a legitimate authority, that is, not you, not me, not a lone, Sede priest
standing at his podium giving a sermon on Sunday, but a legitimate authority, to
judge the pope. An example of that would be, for starters, the College of
Cardinals, meeting to address the mental and emotional capacity of the Pope to
act as pope. I don't think that has ever happened before, but there is one case of
a future pope, together with the cardinals, putting a former pope on trial, when
they exhumed the body of the deceased Pope Honorius I, and dressed him in papal
vestments, read their accusations against him, and waited for his reply. There was
no reply. So they threw his body into the Tiber river.

Now, if you think you have the authority, why don't you, and some of your
numerous friends, exhume the body of the so-called pope of your choice from its
tomb, dress it in papal vestments, hold trial, and when the body has no defense
for itself under your accusations, then throw it into the Tiber? You might make
headlines.

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: NeilO
I am simply observing the facts. Are we in the same reality, you and I? Have you
not said that the pope is not the pope? Have you not said that the pope can lose
his office and you or I or someone is able to make that judgment? Have you not
said that starting with John XXIII, alias Angelo Roncalli, that he was invalidly
elected, or that some cleric or layman can say that without any fear of
transgression? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You obviously don't know what I've said here.

On the contrary, you have said something and then you deny you said it (see the
first several sentences of this post), so it is you who don't know what you have
said. What I don't know is what your latest whim is, as to what you now WISH that
you would have said.

Why don't you take that short list, right here, and explain how you have not said
those things, and then we can deal in reality instead of in a chimera of your own
imagination. For example, here is the short list:

1) Have you not said that the pope is not the pope?

2) Have you not said that the pope can lose his office and you or I or someone is
able to make that judgment?

3) Have you not said that starting with John XXIII, alias Angelo Roncalli, that he
was invalidly elected, or that some cleric or layman can say that without any fear
of transgression?

Quote
You come across as some arrogant kid who hasn't a clue what he's talking about. You need to work on that, Neil.

And if you really want to have an intelligent conversation, you will have to desist
from the ad hominems, SJB, because I won't tolerate them, nor should I.

It seems you are stuck and you don't like it, so now you're hurling insults. I
don't have to prove you're hurling insults; it's right here for all to see.

Quote
Funny, when I observe the facts, you call it an improper judgment.

That's vague. Be specific, and stop whining.

It makes you look like a whiner when you whine like this. Are all Sedes whiners?

Your observation of a "fact," at the beginning of this post, is an illusion. What are
you referring to here? Something else? Don't expect I can read your mind.

Overall, it seems you would demand that the Church would conform to your
expectations, and if she doesn't, then you can proclaim that she isn't the Church.
It appears from our exchange that you make the same demands on others, like
you are doing toward me. If I don't conform to your expectations, then I am to be
denounced and derided.

You say you have not denounced anyone, then you proceed henceforth to say, I
"come across as some arrogant kid who hasn't a clue what he's talking about."

That is a cheap shot, without foundation, I resent it, and I demand an apology.

You need to grow up, Neil.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #8 on:** July 21, 2012, 08:35:48 PM »

I need to grow up?

Why would I presume you are asking the same question I have already answered
previously? I invited you to ask a different question, so you then asked one
rephrased that I had already answered, and I'm supposed to know that?

I need to grow up?

You need to take a break.

Lighthouse · « **Reply #9 on:** July 21, 2012, 09:57:09 PM »

SJB:

Quote

You obviously don't know what I've said here. You come across as some arrogant kid who hasn't a clue what he's talking about.

E:

Quote

accept this cold hard fact.

NO:

Quote

Please forgive my justified addition of a comma between "cold" and "hard."

Fowler, Modern English Usage, Third Edition:

Quote

1. Generally, commas should be inserted between adjectives preceeding and qualifying a noun.

2. But, by convention, in many contexts where the last adjective is in closer relation to the noun than the preceding ones, or where the adjectives form a kind of unit, the comma is ofter omitted. Also frequently when the last adjective has no such priority.

Examples given: abundant patriotic pageantry; a good little boy; a super-efficient liquid-cooled rear engine.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #10 on:** July 21, 2012, 11:16:20 PM »

Quote from: Lighthouse

SJB:

Quote
You obviously don't know what I've said here. You come across as some arrogant kid who hasn't a clue what he's talking about.

E:

Quote

accept this cold hard fact.

NO:
Quote
Please forgive my justified addition of a comma between "cold" and "hard."

Fowler, Modern English Usage, Third Edition:

Quote
1. Generally, commas should be inserted between adjectives preceeding and qualifying a noun.

2. But, by convention, in many contexts where the last adjective is in closer relation to the noun than the preceding ones, or where the adjectives form a kind of unit, the comma is ofter omitted. Also frequently when the last adjective has no such priority.

Examples given: abundant patriotic pageantry; a good little boy; a super-efficient liquid-cooled rear engine.

Rewind............... Okay, let's leave the comma out. Come to think of it, that actually looks better.

So, then: do you have anything to add to the following?

Cold hard fact: that would be a proposition. E.g., This is a sentence. The sky is blue.
When it rains, the ground is wet. A ship that is unsinkable cannot founder. There is no
salvation outside the Church. These are examples of propositions.

Now, let's see, here:

"I was asking if there was a remedy." Is that a proposition? No.

"Is the Church simply at the mercy of an insane pope?" Is that a proposition? No.

Please explain, then, what this "cold hard fact" is, to which you allude, Emerentiana.

......... no answer from E .................. should I then guess the answer? ............

As I understand Emerentiana, her "cold hard fact" is that she thinks the Church
should somehow not be confined to recognizing a pope as valid, who is, in the opinion
of some particular Catholics, not capable of being pope, for whatever reason.

How far off the mark is that? I'm sorry if I have to restate things, but I'm having a lot
of trouble understanding things that are not literally spelled out.

Lighthouse · « **Reply #11 on:** July 22, 2012, 12:35:13 AM »

Nothing to add from here. Just trying to help out a Bro in need.

Carry on. As you were.

SJB · « **Reply #12 on:** July 22, 2012, 10:06:01 AM »

Quote from: NeilO

"I was asking if there was a remedy." Is that a proposition? No.

"Is the Church simply at the mercy of an insane pope?" Is that a proposition? No.

Neil, given the context of my "questions," don't you think they could be rhetorical questions? :-)

Anyway, the real issue you seem not to notice is that if a pope appeared to be clinically insane, the Church would have a remedy. If a pope becomes a public heretic, the Church has a remedy. You are correct in that the remedy does not involve you or I, but that's not at issue here.

The problem today is much deeper than the heretical pope issue.