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.

It is a strange mind that considers making a retraction grandstanding.

It is a strange mind that considers making a retraction grandstanding.

It certainly is.

You've confused your scruples for objectivity and you are causing dissension.  For what?  

To supposedly justify a statement that says Vatican II deepens and makes more explicit aspects of Church Tradition!

How and where does it do that?

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.

Please address the argument.

Quote from: Telesphorus

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.

Another perfect example of jumping to conclusions not supported by the evidence.

Your posts here certainly suggest that you're on the path to Fellay-ism with the mindset you're spouting. You're falling for false charity and pure smoke-screens by Menzingen.

More evidence of the hatred of precision, and the inability to detect nuance and distinction.

Hatred of precision?

The defenders of the Doctrinal Preamble are the ones who hate precision and speak like Pharisees.  And you've fallen for it in this case.

Either Vatican II deepens understanding of aspects of Church doctrine not yet formulated or it is the result of a whole-sale perversion of the mind.

It can't be both.

Sean, you need to drop the immature one-liners and answer his question.

I noticed you conveniently left out the word "certain."

You lack reading comprehension if you think that makes a difference.

Which is your problem.

If you can't understand what's written, then you shouldn't be commenting on it.

If you think you made an error before, then you should say you realize you lack the competence to understand the preamble.

aspects, some aspects, certain aspects, those all mean the same thing in context.

I certainly didn't leave anything out to change the meaning.

If it explicitly formulates certain aspects, then it explicitly formulates some aspects, so what are those aspects that it explicitly formulates?

It's pretty simple for people who can read.