Been taking a course on critical thinking.  Some of the points made I think reference the state in the Church well.  It also shows how and why some folks stick to the neo-SSPX and over look their change. (same holds true witht he Church after Vatican II)

When we strongly believe something (or strongly desire it to be true), then we tend to do the following:

1. We seek evidence that supports what we believe and…avoid or ignore evidence that goes against it. For example, the socialist seeks evidence that capitalism is unjust and ill-fated and ignores or denies evidence of its success; the capitalist tends to do exactly the reverse.
…
2. We rate evidence as good or bad depending on whether it supports or conflicts with our belief. That is, the belief dictates our evaluation of the evidence, rather than our evaluation of the evidence determining what we should believe.

3. We stick with our beliefs even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence as long as we can find at least some support, no matter how slender. A dramatic example from World War II is Stalin’s calamitous insistence that Hitler was not going to invade the Soviet Union, despite the clear evidence of German forces massing on the border. Stalin’s mistake was not that he had no basis for thinking Hitler would not invade; rather, it was failing to surrender that belief when that basis was outweighed by contrary indications.38

I think the key word here is "belief".  To believe in something is to know that it is true without a doubt.  Even if others try to persuade you, they are not effective because that is how your hard drive is programmed.  If your computer is programmed to compute 1+1=3 than every time you punch in the equation you would get the wrong answer.  This would not be done out of malice, but of ignorance.  This would not be denial or international lying.

I believe the young priests of the SSPX have been "misprogrammed".  Now the old priests?  Definitely denial.

:dancing-banana:
The shrinks call it "denial." I'm afraid God calls it "lying,"---to oneself, but lying, nonetheless!

It is called "delusion", or in some situations "cognitive dissonance", not denial.
Example: Vigilance is normal, "hyper vigilance" is indicative of paranoia.
Such an accusation could be leveled against the Resistance. So hows about showing some justification for this vigilance over the SSPX? Fr Pfeiffer spreading rumors that Benedict 16th was a satan worshipper who sacrificed babies does not wash with me, and I suspect wont wash with anyone else from the "Catholic" masses whom you are supposed to want to avail of Resistance masses. The laity pay for the survival of the priests and the maintenance of the churches when the collection basket goes round. We deserve better, and solid direction, not paranoia and rumors.
 :nunchaku:

Been taking a course on critical thinking.  Some of the points made I think reference the state in the Church well.  It also shows how and why some folks stick to the neo-SSPX and over look their change. (same holds true witht he Church after Vatican II)

When we strongly believe something (or strongly desire it to be true), then we tend to do the following:

1. We seek evidence that supports what we believe and…avoid or ignore evidence that goes against it. For example, the socialist seeks evidence that capitalism is unjust and ill-fated and ignores or denies evidence of its success; the capitalist tends to do exactly the reverse.
…
2. We rate evidence as good or bad depending on whether it supports or conflicts with our belief. That is, the belief dictates our evaluation of the evidence, rather than our evaluation of the evidence determining what we should believe.

3. We stick with our beliefs even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence as long as we can find at least some support, no matter how slender. A dramatic example from World War II is Stalin’s calamitous insistence that Hitler was not going to invade the Soviet Union, despite the clear evidence of German forces massing on the border. Stalin’s mistake was not that he had no basis for thinking Hitler would not invade; rather, it was failing to surrender that belief when that basis was outweighed by contrary indications.38

In fact Stalin knew invasion was imminent and this was the reason for the Soviet Union providing gas to German occupied Europe. Stalin sent a general to negotiate with the western allies before Germany built up its military and proposed that they all invade Germany before it gets strong. He also ordered that many factories in the west of the CCCP be rebuilt in the east behind the Urals for safety from the Axis.

If you are wrong about the example you cited, are you not also wrong about your premise? Or do I "lack the ability to think critically"? Is it an emotional and sensationalist argument from you? Or are you interested in the truth?

Sorry Soulguard.  While I understand your comment fully. I disagree.  I've spoken to SSPX priests who flat out deny that there has been any change in the SSPX attitude.  Even when confronted with blatant contradictions made by + Fellay (in print).  One priest in particular simply said " I don't have time to talk about that right now" and walked away.  That's denial.

Does not sound like denial to me. It sounds like you assume you know his motive. I just told you why they have different opinions to you but you wont accept it. That is a logical reason, but it does not give you the conclusion you want.

On another note.  I don't remember advocating that one stay away from an SSPX Mass, nor is that the topic of this thread.

perhaps you did not, but other resistance supporters have. What is your opinion on attending an SSPX mass btw?

When a priest walks away flustered during an otherwise calm and peaceful discussion saying "I don't have time to talk about this right now", only to walk across the yard and strike up a conversation with someone else is in fact a type of denial.

There are in-fact, SSPX priests in denial.  Perhaps YOU don't want to accept it?

Just as the SSPX use to worn about the Indult groups, not because of what they said, but because of what they didn't say, the same now holds true with the SSPX.  The danger lies in the fact that they no longer sound the warning against modernist Rome.  

St. Bernard said a priest is like a barking guard dog.  His job is to sound the alarm when danger is approaching.  The SSPX has stopped barking.  There in lies the danger.

Not sins of commision, but sins of Omission.

Sorry, I disagree.  When the guard dog stops barking the enamy is given free reign.

.

...the example I gave was cut [copy] and pasted from an online Masters [Master's] Degree course.  If you care to know the exact reference, I can give it to you next week when I get back to the office...  No one said Stalin had no eye's [eyes] to see what was happening, or that he wasn't preparing for the worst.  The point was, that he was refusing to accept it.  One could also argue that Hitler himself was refusing to accept eminent [imminent] defeat.

I hope you don't mind the patches, Ekim.  You did mean to say "Master's Degree," didn't you?  Or do you prefer to omit the apostrophe to appease your professor?  If it's the latter, I have news for you:  Your professor is unqualified to teach ANYONE ANYTHING, let alone a "Master's Degree" course!

I have a few comments on your OP, if you don't mind.  

.
.
.

Been taking a course on critical thinking.  Some of the points made I think reference the state [of things?] in the Church well.  It also shows how and why some folks stick to the neo-SSPX and over look [overlook] their change [overlook changes departing from the old SSPX]. (same holds true witht [with] he [the] Church after Vatican II)

When we strongly believe something (or strongly desire it to be true), then we tend to do the following:

1. We seek evidence that supports what we believe and…avoid or ignore evidence that goes against it. For example, the socialist seeks evidence that capitalism is unjust and ill-fated and ignores or denies evidence of its success; the capitalist tends to do exactly the reverse.

From the start, your course is based upon the pseudo-science of modern "psychology" which is nothing more than a deception of the devil.  The term "psychology" was STOLEN from philosophia perennis and has nothing to do with the long-established study of how the human mind works, as an intimate interaction of man's mind with the mind of God, because, modern "psychology" ignores the existence of the mind of God, at the lowest level, but that's merely a preparation for its replacement principle, the assertion that the mind of Man REPLACES or BECOMES the mind of God.

While I agree, in one sense, please be careful not to be led astray into thinking that is the only possible meaning of the words you're using here.  There is a physical and natural aspect to knowledge, but man is a spiritual being as well.  Don't make the mistake that man is entirely animal, and likewise don't make the mistake that man is entirely spiritual.  Man is a sort of hypostasis of BOTH matter and spirit, of body and soul.  Therefore, all of our beliefs and knowledge have not only a material or temporal aspect, they also have a spiritual aspect.  Your course in critical thinking sounds like a strictly secular course, which is fine (if you can STAND it!) but please do not be led into error by 'experts' who are mere charlatans, because they do not know anything about the true spiritual aspect of knowing.  Epistemology is a very important school today because the fact of knowledge is under serious attack by the devil, and most of his victims have no idea that they are a victim.  Don't you be one of them!

…
2. We rate evidence as good or bad depending on whether it supports or conflicts with our belief. That is, the belief dictates our evaluation of the evidence, rather than our evaluation of the evidence determining what we should believe.

There is nothing wrong with letting our belief show us the truth of whether something is good or bad -- so long as our belief is given to us by the infallible revelation of God.  The Church gives us the Catholic Faith (something your professor or textbook author does not believe!) and we do not have to wonder whether or not it is true.  We are assured by God that it is true,  A)  because one or more popes have defined it infallibly as being from the revelation of God, which is what we mean by ex-cathedra definition, or   B)  when any one pope ever once condemned the contrary, which is an act of infallibility even if it's not found in Denzinger!  (Denzinger is a private publication, not an official Church docuмent or publication).

While your course does not proclaim "2...." to be an ERROR, nonetheless, it presents "2...." as if you might want to THINK it is an uninformed or unsophisticated or unenlightened or somehow ANACHRONOUS way of thinking.

Your course is not capable of pronouncing error in matters of faith or morals!  But the Pope is!  But your course doesn't say that, does it?!?!  (Why not? -- and furthermore, how did I know your course doesn't say that??????)

3. We stick with our beliefs even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence as long as we can find at least some support, no matter how slender. A dramatic example from World War II is Stalin’s calamitous insistence that Hitler was not going to invade the Soviet Union, despite the clear evidence of German forces massing on the border. Stalin’s mistake was not that he had no basis for thinking Hitler would not invade; rather, it was failing to surrender that belief when that basis was outweighed by contrary indications.38

"Even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence?" and what constitutes this "overwhelming contrary evidence?"  What or who determines what constitutes evidence in the first place?  Does a Foucault pendulum constitute evidence that the earth rotates on its own axis?  The fact is, such pendulums constitute no such evidence whatsoever.  But you can go to hundreds of public displays of them all over the world and see cast-in-bronze plaques proudly proclaiming the baseless proposition to the contrary.  Based on nothing.  

You can go to any major publisher in the world and see if they will publish your book on the greatest hoax of history, the non-existent evidence of gas chambers and cremation of Jєωs by nαzιs during WWII, and see, you won't find a single one that will help you, but is that proof of "overwhelming evidence" to the contrary?  

We "stick with our beliefs" because God has revealed them Who cannot deceive nor be deceived.  Does your course teach you that?  Why not, or, how did I know to ask you whether your course teaches you that?  

Be careful, Ekim, because if you really want to take this course, and you put down in writing the things I'm pointing out here, you could easily find yourself unable to pass the course.  That's how the organized enemies of the truth have arranged such things as the "Master's Degree" courses you can take just about anywhere.  In order to be accredited, such institutions must pass muster in the litmus test of ʝʊdɛօ-Masonry, even if they're not honest enough to admit it.  

.
.
.

Carried to the present situation, whether or not the subtle bishop consummates any 'deal' with modernist Rome is of no importance.  It doesn't matter.  The XSPX is being gradually slow-cooked, doctrinally, like a frog in a pot, just like the parish Catholics of the Vat.II age were, and it isn't going to matter.  Little by little, all the substance of the longstanding old SSPX will dissolve and there will be a natural separation of the sheep from the goats, such that the pew-sitters at the local XSPX chapels will be friends with the Lutherans across the street, because the Bishop says it's a good idea.  And anyone who doesn't like the idea had best just get lost, because he will be less welcome than a skunk at a lawn party.


.