Author Topic: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLVII - May 17th, 2014 (Read 5146 times)

hugeman · « **Reply #20 on:** May 19, 2014, 10:19:37 PM »

Yes, Neil,

That's what I wanted it to look like. Thank you. I thought I had all
the correct color coding, but I guess not! Nice job!

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #21 on:** May 20, 2014, 09:05:15 PM »

Quote from: hugeman

Yes, Neil,

That's what I wanted it to look like. Thank you. I thought I had all
the correct color coding, but I guess not! Nice job!

Thanks. I didn't change any of the color codes. You were just missing one quote code. For each "quote" in brackets you have to follow it with one "/quote" in brackets. If you have two or more of the former followed by the latter, the latter has to have the same quantity of occurrences within the same post, or else NONE of the codes work, color, bold, underline, font or anything else. Then the final straw is (the thing that's most often missed), you have to be sure the little box is checked next to "Format MbCode?" It automatically unchecks itself when the quote codes don't match, so after you fix the codes, you have to manually click on that box or else NONE of the codes will work again.

Alternatively, you can copy your whole post from the composition window and return to the thread, then click "reply" and in the new comp window, paste your whole post and try Preview, to see if it's fixed. But that takes more clicks than just checking the tiny box.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #22 on:** May 20, 2014, 09:24:50 PM »

Quote from: J.Paul

Need I point out that describing his perception of sedevacantist thinking is not helpful to anyone but the R&R indoctrinates. [?]

That does not help us to navigate the inconsistencies of the opposing position or try to help us conceive of a different viewpoint which might lead to a position with fewer or no contradictions.

I added the question mark. Did you leave it off on purpose?
Presuming it belongs there and your first sentence is a question, my answer is, yes, it helps for you to point that out.

"Describing his perception of sede-thinking is not helpful to anyone but the R&R indoctrinates."

As I understand this, you're saying that it should be obvious that his perception is helpful to those who have learned to appreciate the R&R position by studying Church doctrine, but for those who have stopped short of such study (to some degree) and have then leapt to the conclusion that presuming that the popes since John XXIII are invalid (for example) simplifies everything, then it's much less stressful and confusing to just Occam-razor the discussion and jump ship. Or are you saying something else?

Then you say, "That does not help..." which seems to imply that the +W syllogism is rather the overly-simplified device (instead of the sede-vacancy approach) which overlooks all the various flavors of sede-thinking, which BTW are all consequent to an ostensibly over-simplified precept of "the pope is not the pope." Is this correct? That is, am I describing what you intend to imply there?

I have asked the open question for sedes to respond here, and 2Vermont hesitatingly tried and was immediately discouraged by Ambrose, with a strawman dismissal and no substance.

So I offered to help find out WHAT it is ABOUT the logic proffered that is not accurate. But there are no responses, but for yours, claiming that this method is somehow inadequate. I fail to see the inadequacy.

Do sedes believe or do they not believe that the Popes are infallible? If they do not, then I would like to know why they think they are not. After all, they have been quoting Vat.I repeatedly, saying that is dogma, and papal infallibility is incuмbent upon all Catholics. But here we are with precisely 0 (zero) sedevacantists willing to assent to belief in papal infallibility, as described (again) here in this EC. The only reason seems to be that they know what the next step is, and they refuse to even go there, and so, they're taking a left turn mid-block to avoid the upcoming traffic light.

It would be great if we could get some rubber on the road before the next EC because +W is going to have more on this. He's giving us a week to chew on it and then we can make better progress. But you can only LEAD a sede to the EC, you can't MAKE him chew on it.

.

JPaul · « **Reply #23 on:** May 21, 2014, 08:45:04 AM »

Quote

As I understand this, you're saying that it should be obvious that his perception is helpful to those who have learned to appreciate the R&R position by studying Church doctrine, but for those who have stopped short of such study (to some degree) and have then leapt to the conclusion that presuming that the popes since John XXIII are invalid (for example) simplifies everything, then it's much less stressful and confusing to just Occam-razor the discussion and jump ship. Or are you saying something else?

What I am saying is that those would have been indoctrinated by the Conciliar/Menzingen/resistance organs in the R&R theory will have their understanding reinforced by the Bishop's interpretation.
Also here it is inferred that the R&R theory is superior and correct when certain church teaching and doctrine is assembled in a manner which is supportive of it.
But you do not mention that the sede is also based upon some solid church teaching and doctrine which in certain aspects lends credibility to this theory.
And it is also true that those who hold the R&R position tend to stop short of studying these doctrines as to do so would undermine position that they hold.

Regardless, what I find inadequate is not the Bishop making his case for R&R, but rather the choice of subject which he chooses to pursue.

In this very grave and dark time in which we live, there are certainly more pressing and important subjects upon which the clergy should work and expound upon than the mind of sedvacantist of their alleged errors.

The faithful need to understand the thinking of the man who the Bishop maintains is the true pope, and the grave implications and results of that thinking.

Menzingen embarked on its campaign against sedevacantism a while back. Soon to be followed by Fathers Pfeffer/Chazal et al, and now the Bishop in his current weekly novella.

It is a fact, that even were the good Bishop to convert each and every sede in the world to his view on this matter, it would do nothing to save the church.

One does wonder if the few remaining true Catholic bishops will ever join together in their hierarchical function and perform the solemn duties of admonition and then condemnation, if required, of the errant Roman occupants.

There being the singular locations in which conversion, proselytization, and resistance will at all the effective in the restoration of the faith in the church, and that is in Rome, and that is in the Chancery's, and that is that is at their bishops conferences, and that is at their there ecuмenical affairs.

What the sedevacantist thinks, or what the Mormon or the Hindu thinks is irrelevant and is a diversion and a distraction.

What I do logically conclude from all of this is that tradition and the Catholic faith are in dire need of a true resistance. One which is prepared to confront the conciliar menace and the Jєωιѕн hand which animates it.

Now that I have had to detail my observations, I shall allow the Bishop to carry on his work further unmolested.

God Bless