.seangovan syllogisms.

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 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 docuмents 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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"(?)

(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 ѕυιcιdє 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 docuмent 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
ecuмenism!  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
ecuмenism, 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."

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”.