Author Topic: In Justice to Bishop Fellay: (Read 12455 times)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #15 on:** July 12, 2013, 02:45:38 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Heaven help us if, within our Resistance, "theological distinctions" become synonomous with "hair-splitting!"

Sure it is hair-splitting.

It says Vatican II deepens and makes more explicit "certain aspects" - and in your mind that's a disclaimer.

Well, unless they say explicitly what those "certain aspects" are it's a blank check.

I'm afraid you may not have the intellectual ability to deal with these sophists.

They talk past honest men, they ignore serious objections, they pretend they're oh so clever at wording their compromises to supposedly let them off the hook.

How can a whole-sale perversion of the mind deepen and make more explicit certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church not yet explicitly formulated?

It can't.

These people are practically admitting to speaking out of both sides of their mouth, and you're defending them because you've made a cult of the SSPX.

These SSPX priests don't have authority. Either they follow Catholic Tradition and the spirit of their founder or they choose to shake hands with modernists.

They've chosen the latter.

Wake up!

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #16 on:** July 12, 2013, 02:47:05 PM »

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Quote from: Columba
Quote from: SeanJohnson
On several occassions in the recent past, I have accused Bishop Fellay of violating Catholic doctrine in his April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration. [...]

Now, certainly I believe Bishop Fellay used diplomatic language in this provision, and hoped it would be acceptable to both modernist and traditionalist.

That is another way of saying that +Fellay used ambiguity. This could be justified on some occasions, but it is ambiguous language acceptable when declaring doctrine?

I disagree:

Ambiguity is the use of language capable of disparate meaning.

"Certain aspects" is not an ambiguous phrase:

It stands in clear contradistinction to "all aspects."

I definately agree that clearer language more akin to the June 27, 2013 "Declaration of the Three Bishops" ought to have been used.

"All aspects" would not be ambiguous but "certain aspects" is because it is not clear which of the aspects are referenced. Furthermore, "all aspect" of the life and doctrine of the Church could not possibly be present in a council of limited scope.

So which aspects of the Church are present in Vatican II and are there aspects present in the Council not of the Church? Obviously, the Council does contain many foreign aspects. That overriding disqualification of Vatican II is obscured in paragraph 4 because the language is unclear.

...hence my final sentence of your quote (i.e., clearer language ought to have been used).

But ambiguous language (i.e., pharaseology which can mean two contradictory things) was not used, since the phrase "certain aspects" completely precludes an interpretation of "all aspects, or all the doctrines of V2."

Columba · « **Reply #17 on:** July 12, 2013, 02:48:01 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Heaven help us if, within our Resistance, "theological distinctions" become synonomous with "hair-splitting!"

Please do not accuse the Resistance of evolving new criteria. The April 15 Declaration is clearly unacceptable by traditionally Catholic and classic SSPX criteria.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #18 on:** July 12, 2013, 02:50:14 PM »

They accepted Vatican II as being implicit in the Tradition of the Church, and suggest the problems are just a matter of a few errors, as opposed to being the fruit of a wholesale perversion of the mind - and that's what Vatican II is.

“The pope says that … the council must be put within the great tradition of the church, must be understood in accordance with it. These are statements we fully agree with, totally, absolutely,” the bishop said. “The problem might be in the application, that is: is what happens really in coherence or in harmony with tradition?”

-Bishop Fellay

Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre

As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.”

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #19 on:** July 12, 2013, 02:51:45 PM »

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

Sean, don't fall for the mindset that it's sinful to criticize Bishop Fellay. His doctrinal preamble was garbage and has never been publicly retracted. You don't owe him an apology, you did nothing wrong. It is Bishop Fellay that needs to apologize for his sorry preamble.

More imprecision:

The issue is not the whole of the Doctrinal Declaration, but a very precise provision of it which I misread.

Based on my misreading of this particular provision, I accused him of betraying the faith.

Clearly that was an injustice I am hereby correcting.

It is limited to this particular issue.

The sloppier Resistance argumentation becomes; the more jumps in logic; the more conclusions are based on rationales which exclude relevent evidence (or contain irrelevent evidence); the more credibility Resistance argumentation will suffer...rightfully.

Incompetence does not beget confidence.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #20 on:** July 12, 2013, 02:53:13 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

A bastard mass is legitimately promulgated?

Why don't they come out and admit they're breaking with the Archbishop?

They can't and won't because they are deceivers. They'd have to admit they were hypocrites or were wrong in condemning Campos and the FSSP!

They are absolute scoundrels, and they know it!

Separate issue.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #21 on:** July 12, 2013, 02:54:25 PM »

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti

Quote
The language of the Declaration says, " the Council "clarifies - i.e. deepens and makes more explicit over time - certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church that are implicitly present in them or not yet formulated conceptually."

Quote
“We believe we can affirm, purely by internal and external criticism of Vatican II, i.e. by analyzing the texts and studying the Council’s ins and outs, that by turning its back on tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, it is a schismatic council.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

Quote
We consider as null…all the post-conciliar reforms, and all the acts of Rome accomplished in this impiety.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Joint Declaration with Bishop de Castro Mayer following Assisi, December 2, 1986)

No comparison. Bishop Fellay is a liberal, and he has abandoned Archbishop Lefebvre's stance on Vatican II. The Archbishop never said that Vatican II "deepens certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church".

Separate issue; demonstrates the inability to stay on point, and the inability to understand necessary distinctions.

You are blending topics.

Columba · « **Reply #22 on:** July 12, 2013, 02:54:38 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Columba
Quote from: SeanJohnson
Quote from: Columba
Quote from: SeanJohnson
On several occassions in the recent past, I have accused Bishop Fellay of violating Catholic doctrine in his April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration. [...]

Now, certainly I believe Bishop Fellay used diplomatic language in this provision, and hoped it would be acceptable to both modernist and traditionalist.

That is another way of saying that +Fellay used ambiguity. This could be justified on some occasions, but it is ambiguous language acceptable when declaring doctrine?

I disagree:

Ambiguity is the use of language capable of disparate meaning.

"Certain aspects" is not an ambiguous phrase:

It stands in clear contradistinction to "all aspects."

I definately agree that clearer language more akin to the June 27, 2013 "Declaration of the Three Bishops" ought to have been used.

"All aspects" would not be ambiguous but "certain aspects" is because it is not clear which of the aspects are referenced. Furthermore, "all aspect" of the life and doctrine of the Church could not possibly be present in a council of limited scope.

So which aspects of the Church are present in Vatican II and are there aspects present in the Council not of the Church? Obviously, the Council does contain many foreign aspects. That overriding disqualification of Vatican II is obscured in paragraph 4 because the language is unclear.

...hence my final sentence of your quote (i.e., clearer language ought to have been used).

But ambiguous language (i.e., pharaseology which can mean two contradictory things) was not used, since the phrase "certain aspects" completely precludes an interpretation of "all aspects, or all the doctrines of V2."

I should have said ambiguous again instead of unclear.

The contradistinction of "certain aspects" with "all aspects" is a red herring. "Certain aspects" could be interpreted in various ways depending upon which of the unspecified aspects one believes are referenced.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #23 on:** July 12, 2013, 02:56:30 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

The sloppier Resistance argumentation becomes; the more jumps in logic; the more conclusions are based on rationales which exclude relevent evidence (or contain irrelevent evidence); the more credibility Resistance argumentation will suffer...rightfully.

Do you believe Vatican II deepens and makes explicit certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church implicitly present in its Tradition?

You're the sloppy one. We're fully justified in wondering how you can defend part of this docuмent and make some histrionic "retraction" as though you owed Bishop Fellay an apology.

You need to start looking at your own ego, which is the reason for this scrupulous grandstanding.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #24 on:** July 12, 2013, 02:57:14 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Heaven help us if, within our Resistance, "theological distinctions" become synonomous with "hair-splitting!"

Sure it is hair-splitting.

It says Vatican II deepens and makes more explicit "certain aspects" - and in your mind that's a disclaimer.

Well, unless they say explicitly what those "certain aspects" are it's a blank check.

I'm afraid you may not have the intellectual ability to deal with these sophists.

They talk past honest men, they ignore serious objections, they pretend they're oh so clever at wording their compromises to supposedly let them off the hook.

How can a whole-sale perversion of the mind deepen and make more explicit certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church not yet explicitly formulated?

It can't.

These people are practically admitting to speaking out of both sides of their mouth, and you're defending them because you've made a cult of the SSPX.

These SSPX priests don't have authority. Either they follow Catholic Tradition and the spirit of their founder or they choose to shake hands with modernists.

They've chosen the latter.

Wake up!

Very emotionalized.

I will concede the argument when you can demonstrate why "certain aspects" necessarily includes the heretical portions of V2.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #25 on:** July 12, 2013, 02:58:09 PM »

If you're defending the garbage in the preamble we should be excused for thinking you're looking for excuses to defend the whole thing.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #26 on:** July 12, 2013, 02:59:56 PM »

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Heaven help us if, within our Resistance, "theological distinctions" become synonomous with "hair-splitting!"

Please do not accuse the Resistance of evolving new criteria. The April 15 Declaration is clearly unacceptable by traditionally Catholic and classic SSPX criteria.

Huh?

More imprecision.

I find none of the words in your response in the quote of my comment you provided.

And yet again: A demonstrated inability to stay on point.

The issue is not the general unacceptability of the AFD (which I completely agree with), but whether the language of #4 is the acceptance of the hermeneutic and a betrayal of the Faith.

The phrase "certain aspects" prevents this presumption.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #27 on:** July 12, 2013, 03:03:07 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Very emotionalized.

You bait people with your histrionics and complain about righteous anger?

You're acting like a clown.,

Quote

I will concede the argument when you can demonstrate why "certain aspects" necessarily includes the heretical portions of V2.

You're talking past us. Bishop Fellay in so many words accepted Vatican II, and did so in interviews too.

Quote

The more one analyzes the docuмents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, ecuмenism, religious liberty, collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism.

Now how can such a thing deepen and make more explicit certain aspects of the life and doctrine of the Church?

Your grandstanding "retraction" is simply outrageous.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #28 on:** July 12, 2013, 03:04:46 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: ServusSpiritusSancti
Sean, don't fall for the mindset that it's sinful to criticize Bishop Fellay. His doctrinal preamble was garbage and has never been publicly retracted. You don't owe him an apology, you did nothing wrong. It is Bishop Fellay that needs to apologize for his sorry preamble.

More imprecision:

The issue is not the whole of the Doctrinal Declaration, but a very precise provision of it which I misread.

Based on my misreading of this particular provision, I accused him of betraying the faith.

Clearly that was an injustice I am hereby correcting.

It is limited to this particular issue.

The sloppier Resistance argumentation becomes; the more jumps in logic; the more conclusions are based on rationales which exclude relevent evidence (or contain irrelevent evidence); the more credibility Resistance argumentation will suffer...rightfully.

Incompetence does not beget confidence.

Sean, you need to quit being stubborn and listen to what we're trying to tell you for a minute.

Starting with the recent declaration of the three Bishops a few weeks ago, I am concerned that you're starting to lean towards Bishop Fellay's side. You were making statements that you hoped the declaration was a step towards rebuilding, and now you're apologizing for a statement you made that wasn't even sinful. You need to quit letting what this priest told you fog your thinking. "He's a priest, so what he said must be true" doesn't apply, priests are prone to error as well.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #29 on:** July 12, 2013, 03:10:00 PM »

The scrupulosity of some to criticize Bishop Fellay's disgraceful words and actions is not good for the Resistance. These people think it's charity not to criticize him, but it's really pacifism.

Now, that's not to say that there isn't a line that should be drawn. I agree that accusing him of being a Freemason or ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ without proof is uncalled for. But his words and actions are completely open to criticism and are worthy of it. No one owes him any apology.