Author Topic: Legitimate my eye!!  (Read 1352 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanGovan

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 162
  • Reputation: +229/-7
  • Gender: Male
Legitimate my eye!!
« on: May 24, 2013, 08:11:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0

  • The following is the result of a long debate with a member of my family. He accepts most of the premises and rejects many of the conclusions, due to an unfortunate infection by the Liberal virus. Ideas for ways to improve these syllogisms would be greatly appreciated.



    Quote from: Bishop Fellay
    7 Nous déclarons reconnaître la validité du sacrifice de la Messe et des Sacrements célébrés avec l’intention de faire ce que fait l’Eglise selon les rites indiqués dans les éditions typiques du Missel romain et des Rituels des Sacrements légitimement promulgués par les papes Paul VI et Jean-Paul II.

    7. We declare that we recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments celebrated with the intent of doing what the Church does according the rites referred to in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramental Ritual lawfully promulgated by Popes Paul VI and Jean-Paul II.
    [/color]

    To do that which leads to the damnation of souls is evil.
    To promote the New Mass in any way whatsoever leads to the damnation of souls.
    Therefore, to promote the New Mass in any way whatsoever is evil.

    To do that which is evil is unlawful.
    To promote the New Mass in any way whatsoever is to do that which is evil.
    Therefore, to promote the New Mass in any way whatsoever is unlawful.
    or:
    ----------
    To do that which leads to the damnation of souls is against the law of God.
    To promote the New Mass in any way whatsoever is to do that which leads to the damnation of souls.
    Therefore, to promote the New Mass in any way whatsoever is against the law of God.

    That which is against the law of God is unlawful.
    To promote the New Mass in any way whatsoever is against the law of God.
    Therefore, to promote the New Mass in any way whatsoever is unlawful.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To promote the New Mass in any way, shape, or form is unlawful.
    To promulgate the New Mass was to promote it.
    Therefore, to promulgate the New Mass was unlawful.

    To refer to the New Mass as “lawfully promulgated” is to claim that to promulgate it was lawful.
    To claim that to promulgate it was lawful is to tell an untruth.
    Therefore, to refer to the New Mass as “lawfully promulgated” is to tell an untruth.


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    That which causes souls to go to the New Mass leads to their damnation.
    The untruth that the New Mass was “lawfully promulgated” causes souls to go to the New Mass.
    Therefore, the untruth that the New Mass was “lawfully promulgated” leads to the damnation of souls.
    or:
    ------------
    Bishop Fellay claims that the new Mass was “lawfully promulgated.”
    To claim that the New Mass was “lawfully promulgated” risks causing souls to go to it.
    Bishop Fellay risks causing souls to go to the New Mass.


    That which causes souls to go to the New Mass leads to their damnation.
    Bishop Fellay risks causing souls to go to the New Mass.
    Therefore, Bishop Fellay risks leading souls to their damnation.


    Adversus hostem Fidei aeterna auctoritas esto! To the enemies of the Faith no quarter!

    If they refuse to be converted by the Heart of the Immaculate, then in the end they shall be

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18160
    • Reputation: +8250/-634
    • Gender: Male
    Legitimate my eye!!
    « Reply #1 on: May 26, 2013, 06:03:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .seangovan syllogisms.


    Quote from: SeanGovan

    The following is the result of a long debate with a member of my family. He accepts most of the premises and rejects many of the conclusions, due to an unfortunate infection by the Liberal virus. Ideas for ways to improve these syllogisms would be greatly appreciated.


    You asked for it, you got it, Toyota!  HAHAHAHAHA



    I commend you, SeanGovan, for having the fortitude to endeavor this effort
    with your family member and also to post here your summary of the effects.

    I would immediately expect that your family friend does not accept some of
    the premises because you have not sufficiently supported them.  How can
    you expect someone to agree to your unfounded assertion that the Newmass
    leads souls to damnation, for example?



    Quote
    Quote from: Bishop Fellay
    7 Nous déclarons reconnaître la validité du sacrifice de la Messe et des Sacrements célébrés avec l’intention de faire ce que fait l’Eglise selon les rites indiqués dans les éditions typiques du Missel romain et des Rituels des Sacrements légitimement promulgués par les papes Paul VI et Jean-Paul II.

    7. We declare that we recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments celebrated with the intent of doing what the Church does according the rites referred to in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Sacramental Ritual lawfully promulgated by Popes Paul VI and Jean-Paul II.
    [/color]




    I find it noteworthy that you have "lawful" in the place where I have only
    seen "legitimate" as found on The Recusant website and in the Newsletter,
    and on the documents from Resistance priests such as +W, Frs. Pfeiffer,
    Chazal, Hewko and Girouard, among others.  


    Where did you get "lawful," anyway?



    I realize that some claim they are equivalent words, but I am of the mind
    that different words have different connotations, otherwise there wouldn't
    be much point in having them.  Eskimos are said to have some 50 different
    words for "snow."  We southerners have "sleet," "slush," "hard pack," "powder,"
    "firn," "snowflake," "blizzard," "snowdrift," "avalanche," "snowman," "ice,"
    "iceberg," "growler," and a few others, but I doubt they add up to 50. When
    your whole world is immersed in a thing, you tend to see nuances as being
    really important, so as to evoke different words for something that an
    "outsider" might think are superfluous distinctions, but to you, could be
    the difference between life and death.

    I have added spaces between lines to make them easier to read.



    Quote
    To do that which leads to the damnation of souls is evil.

    To promote the New Mass [Newmass] in any way whatsoever leads to the damnation of souls.

    Therefore, to promote the New Mass [Newmass] in any way whatsoever is evil.




    This is good, but perhaps you have a few preparatory ones that treat
    of the basis by which you arrive at the proposition that is the minor, above?
    That is, to say that "To promote the New Mass in any way whatsoever leads
    to the damnation of souls," is actually a CONCLUSION that is supportable by
    numerous syllogisms in itself.  I suspect you omitted those, if you have any,
    out of concern for brevity here on CI.  I share your concern that readers
    will be jaded after two or three syllogisms, alas.

    This next one, I would suggest scrapping, because the word "unlawful" is too
    vague in our age.  Abortion is "lawful" by our current standards, you know.



    Quote
    To do that which is evil is unlawful.

    To promote the New Mass [Newmass] in any way whatsoever is to do that which is evil.

    Therefore, to promote the New Mass [Newmass] in any way whatsoever is unlawful.
    or:

    ----------




    This, however, is an improvement, as it makes clear you're talking about "the
    law of God," and not secular law:

    Quote
    To do that which leads to the damnation of souls is against the law of God.

    To promote the New Mass [Newmass] in any way whatsoever is to do that which leads to the damnation of souls.

    Therefore, to promote the New Mass [Newmass] in any way whatsoever is against the law of God.




    That one is okay, but again, I suggest having some preparatory
    material to support the minor
    ,
    "To promote the Newmass.."
    Notice my spelling, "Newmass," because it does not deserve a capital
    'M' since it is not a proper noun.  

    Now, below, I recommend using "illegitimate" (which see) in lieu of the
    "unlawful" because legitimacy implies not only what is man-made and/or
    "democratically elected," but also that which is morally proper or not
    sinful, that is, not in defiance of the law of God, or opposed to the
    infinite and just will of God.  

    In our age, society has largely lost the notion of sin, and has forgotten
    what it is to offend God.  "So long as you don't hurt anyone" is their
    only concern. There goes morality out the window!  Before you know it,
    you're hurting people left and right and you don't even recognize the
    self-contradiction of it.



    Quote
    That which is against the law of God is unlawful [illegitimate].

    To promote the New Mass [Newmass] in any way whatsoever is against the law of God.

    Therefore, to promote the New Mass [Newmass] in any way whatsoever is unlawful [illegitimate].
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------




    Here, it can be seen that "illegitimate" includes the notion of something
    that can be 'legal' such as abortion, but still abhorrent to God and therefore
    not legitimate or moral.



    Quote
    To promote the New Mass [Newmass] in any way, shape, or form is unlawful [illegitimate].

    To promulgate the New Mass [Newmass] was to promote it.

    Therefore, to promulgate the New Mass [Newmass] was unlawful [illegitimate].





    To refer to the New Mass [Newmass] as “lawfully [legitimately] promulgated” is to claim that to promulgate it was lawful [legitimate].

    To claim that to promulgate it was lawful [legitimate] is to tell an untruth.

    Therefore, to refer to the New Mass [Newmass] as “lawfully [legitimately] promulgated” is to tell an untruth.


    -----------------------------------------------------------------------




    Once again, you need about 5 supporting syllogisms that use
    indisputable major propositions and a stepping series of minors
    that are products of the indisputable majors plus reason and
    logic, to arrive at your major,
    below, that the Newmass (note
    spelling - recommended by +W) leads to the damnation of those who
    attend it.


    I deleted the size 3 and changed red to darkred because it was annoying,
    and I have seen members complain about such things. It is sufficient, it
    seems to me, to use the darkred font, but even that gets to be too much
    real quick. Other colors like blue or firebrickred are much less
    obtrusive. ESPECIALLY when used for more than 1-3 words in a row!

    If ALL CAPS can be construed as "shouting" (it really is - and I can only
    conclude that those people could never make it past the first day on
    the job in any construction office, where all the blueprints they use
    every day are ALL CAPS FROM STEM TO STERN, because that's the way
    the ball bounces in technical fields) then RED FONT would be construed
    as blasting in your ear with a megaphone at 80 decibels, which could
    cause hearing loss, at least temporarily.



    Quote

    That which causes souls to go to the New Mass [Newmass] leads to their damnation.

    The untruth that the New Mass [Newmass] was “lawfully [legitimately] promulgated” causes souls to go to the New Mass [Newmass].

    Therefore, the untruth that the New Mass [Newmass] was “lawfully [legitimately] promulgated” leads to the damnation of souls.

    or:  [I moved the colon outside the underline for you]
    -------



    Bishop Fellay claims that the new Mass [Newmass] was “lawfully [legitimately] promulgated.”

    To claim that the New Mass [Newmass] was “lawfully [legitimately] promulgated” risks causing souls to go to it.

    Bishop Fellay risks causing souls to go to the New Mass [Newmass].





    That which causes souls to go to the New Mass [Newmass] leads to their damnation.

    Bishop Fellay risks causing souls to go to the New Mass [Newmass].

    Therefore, Bishop Fellay risks leading souls to their damnation.





    You're doing well.

    This is an excellent endeavor, to not only think through the logic of what is
    going on, but to pronounce it in such a way that it can be well understood
    by someone who reads the words, and has good will.

    There are a lot more of these that could go in here.  I don't have the energy
    or the presence of mind right now to type them, however.  I should be sleeping
    to get ready for Mass!! But this was just too good to pass up.  

    I'll get back to it tomorrow, if that's okay with you.



    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.


    Offline SeanGovan

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 162
    • Reputation: +229/-7
    • Gender: Male
    Legitimate my eye!!
    « Reply #2 on: May 26, 2013, 07:56:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Neil Obstat
    There are a lot more of these that could go in here.  I don't have the energy
    or the presence of mind right now to type them, however.  I should be sleeping
    to get ready for Mass!! But this was just too good to pass up.

    I'll get back to it tomorrow, if that's okay with you.


    Dear Neil:

    Thanks! I was hoping you would comment. Please do get back to me, when you have time...with more syllogisms!

    (BTW, the pseudonym you chose is a stroke of genius. Been wanting to say that for a while!)

    In amore Veritatis,

    Sean Govan
    Adversus hostem Fidei aeterna auctoritas esto! To the enemies of the Faith no quarter!

    If they refuse to be converted by the Heart of the Immaculate, then in the end they shall be

    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18160
    • Reputation: +8250/-634
    • Gender: Male
    Legitimate my eye!!
    « Reply #3 on: May 28, 2013, 02:21:36 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: SeanGovan

    Dear Neil:

    Thanks! I was hoping you would comment. Please do get back to me, when you have time...with more syllogisms!




    Am I wrong to say that you must already have some more that you were not
    willing to post for fear of reprisals here by members who don't like syllogisms?  

    Am I wrong to say that you must have more of these that support your minor
    proposition that, "To promote the Newmass in any way whatsoever leads
    to the damnation of souls"(?)



    Quote
    (BTW, the pseudonym you chose is a stroke of genius. Been wanting to say that for a while!)

    In amore Veritatis,

    Sean Govan


    Thanks, Sean, but this is not about me.  God will be my judge. If times were
    more sane or normal, I wouldn't have to stoop to such deviance, e.g., if the
    Internet had existed in 1954, I would never have chosen such a handle then,
    and of that I can assure you with 100% accuracy, i.e., "without anything
    objectionable contained therein."                HAHAHAHAHAHAHA



    I commend you, SeanGovan, for having the fortitude to endeavor this effort
    with your family member and also to post here your summary of the effects.

    When you are talking to an experienced swimmer who has never felt the
    power of rushing water, for example, how can you explain to him that it is
    an act approaching suicide to set foot into a rapidly moving river?  He is
    going to think that his experience of bodily immersion in calm water makes
    him an expert in water, and who are you to tell him otherwise?

    I would immediately expect that your family friend does not accept some
    of the premises because you have not sufficiently supported them.  How
    can you expect someone to agree to your unexemplified (here, anyway)
    assertion that the Newmass leads souls to damnation, for example?  That
    proposition is, as it were, a link in your chain, but it is weak inasmuch as
    it is not supported, and the whole chain is only as strong as its weakest
    link.


    There are some helpful clues in the following Pentecost sermon of Fr.
    Hewko.  These are not presented as syllogisms, but they touch on the
    same propositions of which syllogisms are made.  

    As you know, constructing syllogisms takes work. You have to apply your
    mind and will with deliberate effort, and at times it can be quite trying. It
    is never effortless, but for some, it is easier and for others it is more
    difficult.  For most, it is repulsive, and for a very few it is actually fun.  
    It seems to me that you may be among these few, SeanGovan, and if
    you are, it's something you should be proud of, and do not listen to the
    spirit of the world which would discourage you.  At the same time, do
    not 'let it go to your head' such that it becomes a passion that consumes
    your zeal, and you become an in-your-face aggressor.  Not that such a
    thing is sinful or bad or deformed, but it will get to be a problem dealing
    with people.  It seems to me that it's better to control yourself, and to
    only apply those skills which are appropriate for the given situation.

    I offer this material below, so that someone can then use it to build the
    syllogisms you want.  Maybe I can help you, but like I said, this takes
    work. And right now it's going to have to wait, again.  But I wanted to
    put this up where you can see it right away.

    I've bolded a few spots that look promising.............



    From Fr. Hewko's Pentecost sermon:

    And now, this whole, horrible spirit of dialogue, which makes Catholics
    lose their faith,
    and puts all religions on an equal level, this is the goal
    of the Freemasons, which is to mock God by putting all religions on an equal
    footing, which actually leads to atheism. Indifferentism leads to
    atheism, as Pope Leo XIII said.  


    ...

    At Vatican II, it was easy for most bishops, most priests, most faithful
    to go along with the Newmass, go along with the conciliar church;  it was
    easier!  No more, much penance, no more contraception, I mean, no more
    denial of contraception, of taking the children God sends, but the easier
    route: contraception!  The whole spirit of the world penetrating into the
    Church, because the Church at Vatican II embraced the world, and
    became worldly, committing adultery with the revolution.
     So it was
    easier, for many priests, it was easier -- to go along with the Newmass:
    Oh, I've gotta be "obedient"
    -- to be obedient to my bishop!

    So they went along with the Newmass.  And they didn't want to lose their
    pension, like the two old priests that Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Tim grew up with,
    these old priests, many other priests would come and visit them.

    I'm sure Fr. Pfeiffer told you this story, but many times they would say, and
    Fr. Hannifin would tell them, "You've got to say the Latin Mass! That's what
    you're ordained to do!  Don't go with this new Protestant thing!"  And they
    would say, these old priests, "Well, if I do, the bishop will kick me out -- I'll
    lose my pension, I'll lose my health insurance."  Fr. Hannifin would say, "Well,
    of course!  That's what we're about!"  They would say, "I don't have your
    courage."  Many, many priests, most!  

    Very few had the clarity of faith, the simplicity to just suffer for Our Lord.

    ...

    It's also this document that admits to the legitimacy of the Newmass!
    Since when does any SSPX bishop or priest say the Newmass is
    "legitimate?"
    -Which means 'healthy' for the whole Body of Christ.  
    It's poison!
     -And the New Code of Canon Law, which is also
    imbued with poison!

    So you need fortitude in this day, to NOT GO ALONG with the revolution
    now, within Tradition!  -Cannot go along with that!  If you want to save
    your faith, and your soul,
    you cannot go along with it.

    And the proof is, look at the fruits.

    ...

    So, let's turn to the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God;  she's an enemy of
    ecumenism!
     She's an enemy of Communism!  She's an enemy to the
    Modernism in the errors of Vat.II and the Newmass.
     She is not a friend
    of the Newmass
    , the Mother of God.  How could she be a friend a "mass"
    that mocks her Son?  -that uncrowns Him? -that desecrates Him?

    So, she is the Mother of Tradition.  She is the Mother of Catholic
    Tradition.  You gotta stay close to her.  


    ...

    And I remind you of Archbishop Lefebvre, he says, at the time of the council
    they, the bishops and the cardinals, they came to the Freemasons.  In fact,
    Cardinal Bea flew to New York city, and met with B'nai B'rith Freemasons, and
    he said, "What do you want from the Church, from the Council?" They said,
    "Give us religious liberty. Make all the religions equal."  And it happened.
    Dignitatis Humanae - they uncrowned Jesus Christ.  It makes a mockery of
    Jesus Christ, the King.


    They went to the Protestants and said, "What do you want? How can we
    pray together?"  They said, "Well, give us a 'mass' we can pray, as
    Protestants
    with it."  So they made the Newmass with the help of 6
    Protestant ministers, taking out everything specifically Catholic, and now
    Protestants can pray the Newmass!  But we Catholics want nothing to do
    with that Newmass -- it'll kill your faith!
    -Make you lose your faith! -And
    the council, the conciliar church.

    And then they came to the Communists.  "What do you want?"  "We want
    to have the Orthodox priests at the Vatican Council!"  They said, "Don't
    condemn Communism!
    And especially, don't do that terrible consecration
    of Russia that the Virgin of Fatima asked for."  And Archbishop Lefebvre
    presented HIMSELF, 450 signatures of cardinals and bishops to HAVE THE
    POPE CONSECRATE RUSSIA AND CONDEMN COMMUNISM at Vatican II.  It
    was put in a drawer.  And there was a pact, an agreement made with the
    Communists to say nothing against Communism at the council.
    [The Pact of Metz]

    So, that tells you that the Council was inebriated with the smoke of satan.

    So, what has got into the hands of the leaders of the SSPX to start
    befriending and minimizing the council?!  -Saying things like, "Religious liberty
    is limited," -saying things like, "Oh, well, let's not make 'super-heresies' of
    the Council!"  Well, they ARE super heresies!  They were in fact
    CONDEMNED by many previous popes, religious liberty, false
    ecumenism, false freedom of conscience
    , and so forth.

    So, it's very serious, this battle we are in.  And this is the age
    [where] God put us
    . He didn't put us in the high middle ages, He put
    us [here,] now.





    Now, perhaps it is not obvious to you, SeanGovan, but of the say, 20 points
    I bolded above, there could be constructed perhaps 100 syllogisms -- of
    course, additional information would be required.  

    There is a process, which you seem to have touched on, so you know
    what I'm talking about, whereby a logical progression can be broken down
    into smaller and smaller steps. Once completed, a thoroughly detailed
    syllogistic progression becomes practically inescapable. When you back up
    each step of the way (or at least select ones) with references to
    authoritative sources, it adds credibility to the whole.


    All of the points above that refer to loss of faith could be gathered into a
    group.

    The ones that mention the Newmass is an offense against God could be
    in a group.

    The ones that say someone who is a friend of God cannot be a friend of
    the Newmass could be grouped.

    Once grouped together, segments and pieces can be used to evoke other
    facts not contained here, and to aid in the imagination that is required to
    formulate syllogisms and to conceptualize the objectives and process of
    each of them.

    The heresies of Vat.II which were all, of course, precursors to the Newmass
    can be likewise grouped, one of which (not mentioned here) being that the
    Mass of Ages could be usurped de facto by an imposter, a whole-cloth
    fabrication 'made by human hands,' that is, by a Freemason and six
    Protestant ministers.  That BTW, is not to be found in Vat.II, but pay close
    attention to the one sentence above:  "And the proof is, look at the fruits."

    When Fr. Hewko said that he was ready to go into a lot more detail listing
    the fruits and questioning their causes, but he was constrained by time,
    unfortunately for us!  

    Now, syllogisms are all about "proof," therefore, we should look into how
    the Newmass, as a bad fruit of the unclean spirit of Vat.II,
    demonstrates to us that we cannot go along with the revolution in Tradition
    if we want to save our faith and save our soul, and the virtue that helps
    us to do so is called "fortitude."



    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

    Offline SeanGovan

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 162
    • Reputation: +229/-7
    • Gender: Male
    Legitimate my eye!!
    « Reply #4 on: May 28, 2013, 11:26:58 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thanks for the tips.

    The problem with my family member is that his mind is mush. Most of the time, when I ask him a yes-or-no type of question (including, but not limited to, "Do you accept this premise?"), he is apparently incapable of giving a straight yes-or-no type of answer. He obscures the answer to every question by piles upon piles of rhetoric which he refers to as "distinctions." Most of the conversation goes something like this:

    "Do you accept this premise?"
    "In the sense that blah blah blah blah, and blah blah blah, yes, not forgetting of course the blah blah blah, as well as blah blah. If it's blah blah blah, or blah blah, yes, you can look at it that way. But remember that blah blah and also blah blah! It depends!"

    When I do manage to get a straight yes-or-no question out of him, he will say "yes" if it doesn't look like it will destroy his conclusion (i.e., the New Mass was legitimately promulgated because Bishop Fellay says so); but when he realizes - thirty seconds later - that it will destroy his conclusion, he immediately says the opposite of what he just said. Then, when I point out that the premise he is now denying is the same one that he has just admitted, he flat out denies ever having admitted it! This happens a lot with him. His problem isn't a lack of good will; there's a problem with mind. He has a particularly violent infection of the Liberal virus.

    Look again at my syllogisms above. He has accepted every single premise and every single conclusion down to and including the two premises of the fifth syllogism, at least once (and has also denied a number of them one or more times). But he flatly denies the conclusion of that fifth syllogism:

    Quote
    To promote the New Mass in any way, shape, or form is unlawful.
    To promulgate the New Mass was to promote it.
    Therefore, to promulgate the New Mass was unlawful.


    When I point out that can't deny the conclusion unless he either denies a premise or denies that the conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premises, all he can say is "There's a hole in your argument somewhere."

    So frankly, I don't know what to do except pray and make sacrifices for him.
    Adversus hostem Fidei aeterna auctoritas esto! To the enemies of the Faith no quarter!

    If they refuse to be converted by the Heart of the Immaculate, then in the end they shall be


    Offline Elsa Zardini

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 317
    • Reputation: +0/-0
    Legitimate my eye!!
    « Reply #5 on: May 28, 2013, 01:03:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yes Neil Obstat (end); thank you: “…demonstrates to us that we cannot go along with the revolution in Tradition if we want to save our faith and save our soul, and the virtue that helps us to do so is called "fortitude."

    Fortaleza (Devocionario SSPX: 255. 2004: “Atacar con valor y audacia los obstáculos puestos al bien”. Now, «le don de force de savoir dire non, quand il faut dire non, parce que la force consiste davantage à résister au mal qu'à attaquer l'ennemi» (end of Bishop Tissier’s homily) either I don’t understand (Plant Taxonomist) or not obstacles yet in the SSPX so as to call it NeoSSPX, with which I disagree based on unnumbered unanswered number of proofs which you all know better than me.

    Yes SeanGovan: “misión imposible” to obtain a “yes, yes; no, no” from a liberal/modernist/diplomat –if I may add: “La diplomacia es el arte de postergar las decisiones hasta que ellas se resuelvan por si mismas”.


    Offline Neil Obstat

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 18160
    • Reputation: +8250/-634
    • Gender: Male
    Legitimate my eye!!
    « Reply #6 on: May 28, 2013, 03:02:12 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • .


    This makes a big difference:

    Quote from: SeanGovan
    Thanks for the tips.

    The problem with my family member is that his mind is mush. Most of the time, when I ask him a yes-or-no type of question (including, but not limited to, "Do you accept this premise?"), he is apparently incapable of giving a straight yes-or-no type of answer. He obscures the answer to every question by piles upon piles of rhetoric which he refers to as "distinctions." Most of the conversation goes something like this:

    "Do you accept this premise?"
    "In the sense that blah blah blah blah, and blah blah blah, yes, not forgetting of course the blah blah blah, as well as blah blah. If it's blah blah blah, or blah blah, yes, you can look at it that way. But remember that blah blah and also blah blah! It depends!"

    When I do manage to get a straight yes-or-no question out of him, he will say "yes" if it doesn't look like it will destroy his conclusion (i.e., the New Mass was legitimately promulgated because Bishop Fellay says so); but when he realizes - thirty seconds later - that it will destroy his conclusion, he immediately says the opposite of what he just said. Then, when I point out that the premise he is now denying is the same one that he has just admitted, he flat out denies ever having admitted it! This happens a lot with him. His problem isn't a lack of good will; there's a problem with mind. He has a particularly violent infection of the Liberal virus.




    Perhaps some day he will recognize the signal grace that God has given
    him by sending you to try to talk some sense into his head.  

    You must remain calm, and do not be upset with him, as frustrating as
    it may be.  You must try to bring calm and quiet into the discussion.



    Quote
    Look again at my syllogisms above. He has accepted every single premise and every single conclusion down to and including the two premises of the fifth syllogism, at least once (and has also denied a number of them one or more times). But he flatly denies the conclusion of that fifth syllogism:

    Quote

    To promote the New Mass in any way, shape, or form is unlawful [should say illegitimate].

    To promulgate the New Mass was to promote it.

    Therefore, to promulgate the New Mass was unlawful.





    All I can suggest at this point is for you to attempt a new format, and to try
    to translate all your work into other words for him.  He has become hardened
    to the very words you've been using, and he may be associating his confusion
    -- not with the concepts but with words you have used.  

    There is some chance, how much I don't know, that when your friend
    sees you adapting and changing your script, your manner, your vocabulary,
    then he may be able to rationalize in his own subjectivity that you are
    making an effort to conform to his need, somehow, and that therefore he
    is obliged to make some effort to conform to your need.  

    It's a WAG but what the hey --- give it a shot!!


    Therefore, one place to change it up would be to stop using "unlawful" and
    start using "illegitimate" - and stop using "lawful" and start using "legitimate."
    For him, the word "lawful" might be a roadblock because he sees the New
    Code of Canon Law as the epitome of lawfulness, for example.



    Quote
    When I point out that [one] can't deny the conclusion unless he either denies [the major] premise, [denies the minor premise] or denies that the conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premises -- all he can say is "There's a hole in your argument somewhere."

    So frankly, I don't know what to do except pray and make sacrifices for him.




    I recall having two kinds of teachers in my youth, those who were very
    inspiring and those who were utterly painful to listen to and to work with.
    Of course, there were many in between, but let's forget about those for
    now.  

    The ones with whom I had no desire to work were the ones who insisted
    on always using exactly the same words to describe the matter being
    taught.  It was as though the FORMULA was a kind of deity.  In my attempt
    to attain better understanding, when I would ask any question about the
    matter, they would only reply using the same words again, only this time
    it would be LOUDER.

    The teachers who were inspirational always (as best I can recall) tried to
    find some OTHER WORDS to convey the meaning they hoped I would be
    able to learn in the lesson.  They did not demand of me that I learn the
    exact words they used, but that I would internalize the essence of the
    concept itself.  

    I think this may be what is going on here with your family friend.  He
    would be better able to look at the concepts you proffer if you could find
    alternative vocabulary, to jar him out of his rut, as it were.  He is stuck
    in a rut.  Have you ever had a 4x4 in the mud up to its axles?  As soon
    as the mud touches the undercarriage of the vehicle, a tremendous
    suction develops which makes the retrieval of the vehicle several times
    more difficult.  I saw a firetruck that fell into a sink hole, and the crane
    that came in to pull it out failed, and collapsed.  They had to bring in
    three cranes twice that size to pull out the firetruck and when it
    was finally retrieved the FRAME was bent.  The firetruck looked like
    a horseshoe.



    Here is a way of re-doing this problematic syllogism for you:


    To make any promotion of the Newmass
    in any manner whatsoever would be illegitimate.

    The promulgation of the Newmass would be
    to make some manner of promotion of it.

    Therefore, someone's promulgation of the Newmass
    would be illegitimate.




    Or,

    Advertising, commending and otherwise praising
    the Newmass in some way would be illegitimate.

    The promulgation of the Newmass would be
    commending and advertising and praising it.

    Therefore, for anyone to promulgate the Newmass
    would be illegitimate.





    I recommend using "would be" instead of "is" or "was," at least in the early
    stages, because it gives a little room to be not so "trapped."  I think
    your friend might be feeling trapped, and he's having a "caged wild animal"
    response, that is, an instinctive thing beyond his control.





    .--. .-.-.- ... .-.-.- ..-. --- .-. - .... . -.- .. -. --. -.. --- -- --..-- - .... . .--. --- .-- . .-. .- -. -.. -....- -....- .--- ..- ... - -.- .. -.. -.. .. -. --. .-.-.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16