Will the Liberal Church 'Schism'?

  • Thread starter Thread starter EudistCJM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Magnus467 said:
It doesn’t take an expert to know what’s going on. Do you care to refute me or just attack my credibility? I don’t think the Pope could any clearer.
Click to expand...
He’s not attacking you. He agrees with you. Look again.
 
Amen to that Father…oops, I mean “Future” Father. Glad there are people like you out there about to be ordained!!!
Emmit_Fitzhume said:
The Pope has made it clear than anyone who has an attachment to the TLM can attend SSPX Chapels to fulfill that attachment without fear of reprimand. I think ROME believes that way, because they know that the TLM is not offered freely enough throughout all the parishes.
Click to expand...
 
Emmit_Fitzhume said:
The Pope has made it clear than anyone who has an attachment to the TLM can attend SSPX Chapels to fulfill that attachment without fear of reprimand. I think ROME believes that way, because they know that the TLM is not offered freely enough throughout all the parishes.
Click to expand...
This is a bit of a straw man. It is to be a last resort and not the first option.
 
Magnus467 said:
It doesn’t take an expert to know what’s going on. Do you care to refute me or just attack my credibility? I don’t think the Pope could any clearer.
Click to expand...
There are two problems here, Magnus, as I see it. The first is that since you have offered no credentials as either a canon lawyer or as an interpreter of the Pope’s words, I am not attacking neither you personally nor your credibility. Neither am I attacking. Relax.

The second is easily cleared up by searching ‘supplied jurisdiction’ in Canon Law. I now oversimplify the idea, but what it means is that in the present state of catechetics and moral teachings of individual Priests in the Archdiocese where I live–and a resounding silence in response to queries to the Chancery of said Archdiocese, I have come to not trust the clergy here, although I am sure there are beacons of light to be found among them (although I have not the privelege of having found them). In this state of emergency in which I have found myself, I turn to validly Ordained Priests who may administer the Sacraments to me.

An oversimplification, yes. But I am neither a self|ppointed canon lawyer nor an armchair theologian. Just a happy and grateful Catholic who has found the Faith eternal.
 
It is a bit of a straw man because you didn’t, in my opinion, address the reality of what I was saying. Maybe straw man isn’t the best word, but I feel as though you just circumvented.
 
I am sorry. I am not sure exactly what it is you are trying to say. I guess you have a problem with the unbroken apostolic succesion from the time of Christ down to the last priest ordained and the last Bishop Consecrated. Do you have a problem with apostolic succesion? Do you have a problem with Holy Orders? I have been nothing but kind to you. What exactly is your problem with me? Please explain
Magnus467 said:
It appears your hypothetical ordination would be illicit and so would your hypothetical ministries. Just sayin’
Click to expand...
 
Magnus467 said:
Rome has made it clear that Catholics who are in good standing with the Catholic Church must not attend SSPX Masses …
Click to expand...
I don’t think the words “must not” were used. I believe they said “it was not recommended at this time” or words to that effect. But that would be true of any suspended priest, SSPX or not. Or any priest who does not have faculties allowed by the local bishop, for that matter.
 
You are right. Straw man was not the best choice of words.
Magnus467 said:
It is a bit of a straw man because you didn’t, in my opinion, address the reality of what I was saying. Maybe straw man isn’t the best word, but I feel as though you just circumvented.
Click to expand...
 
maurin said:
There are two problems here, Magnus, as I see it. The first is that since you have offered no credentials as either a canon lawyer or as an interpreter of the Pope’s words, I am not attacking neither you personally nor your credibility. Neither am I attacking. Relax.

The second is easily cleared up by searching ‘supplied jurisdiction’ in Canon Law. I now oversimplify the idea, but what it means is that in the present state of catechetics and moral teachings of individual Priests in the Archdiocese where I live–and a resounding silence in response to queries to the Chancery of said Archdiocese, I have come to not trust the clergy here, although I am sure there are beacons of light to be found among them (although I have not the privelege of having found them). In this state of emergency in which I have found myself, I turn to validly Ordained Priests who may administer the Sacraments to me.

An oversimplification, yes. But I am neither a self|ppointed canon lawyer nor an armchair theologian. Just a happy and grateful Catholic who has found the Faith eternal.
Click to expand...
The Pope’s words do not require much interpretation. He is pretty clear. I am relaxed. Even though you do not trust them, they are still validly ordained. I know only heroic priests. I would appreciate that you would stop calling me a self appointed lawyer and an armchair theologian.
Someone needs to stick up for the Church on these forums! Again, it doesn’t require a doctorate to understand these things.
 
Straw Man Argument (definitions of a fallacy)
In a strawman argument, “the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition’s best argument.” {Stephen Downes Guide to the Logical Fallacies}
Click to expand...
A strawman is “an argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.” {American Heritage Dictionary, in TheFreeDictionary} The A.H. Dictionary also gives two other definitions — including “a bundle of straw made into the likeness of a man and often used as a scarecrow” which is the origin of using strawman to describe one type of logical fallacy — but this page will focus on the use of strawman in logic and rhetoric. For other definitions, see Wikipedia’s disambiguation for StrawMan.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia says: “A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To ‘set up a straw man’ or ‘set up a straw-man argument’ is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent’s actual argument has not been refuted. … It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument.” / “One can set up a straw man in the following ways: 1) Present a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent’s actual position has been refuted. 2) Quote an opponent’s words out of context — i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent’s actual intentions. 3) Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person’s arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated. 4) Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical. 5) Oversimplify a person’s argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.”
Click to expand...
Code: 
Here is an evaluation, a strategy, and a resource:
**evaluation** (and editorial opinion) — A strawman argument pretends that something false is true, so it is intellectually dishonest.
**a defensive strategy** — Your only defense is to "know your stuff" by educating yourself, so you'll by know the evidence and logic that supports each position.
**an educational resource ** — Because we in ASA want to help promote honesty and integrity in science (and in other areas of life) a central goal is to minimize the distorted "strawman" caricatures built by opponents of a view, so you can learn what each view actually is.  In an effort to do this, our main educational strategy is to help you "get the best information and arguments that all sides of an issue can claim as support... so you can get an accurate understanding."  {quoted from Accurate Understanding and Respectful Attitudes}
Click to expand...
One type of strawman argument is “those [legal] arguments in briefs or opinions created solely for the purpose of debunking or ‘discovering’ them. Arguments so created are like ‘straw men’ because they are, by nature, insubstantial.” {from answers.com}
Click to expand...
asa3.org/ASA/education/think/strawman.htm
 
Don’t worry. THat is being done. That is why I and others like me are here. We are defending The Church
Magnus467 said:
Someone needs to stick up for the Church on these forums! Again, it doesn’t require a doctorate to understand these things.
Click to expand...
 
Magnus467 said:
The Pope’s words do not require much interpretation. He is pretty clear. I am relaxed. Even though you do not trust them, they are still validly ordained. I know only heroic priests. I would appreciate that you would stop calling me a self appointed lawyer and an armchair theologian.
Someone needs to stick up for the Church on these forums! Again, it doesn’t require a doctorate to understand these things.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, you are certainly interpreting the Pope’s words. All he has said is what we all acknowlege to be true. But you take steps much much further than he does. I am a loyal son to the Holy Father. If supplied jurisdiction does not apply in such cases as I have described, His Holiness would be remiss in his pastoral care of our souls not to make that clear to us.

Your passion would much better serve the Church fighting the liberals who are destroying Her, rather than the Society who is doing nothing but building Her up.

I DO apologize if you think I am calling you personally an armchair theologian or amateur canon lawyer. But for lack of credentials, aren’t all of us?
 
maurin said:
In order to call a spade a spade, you use the label"spade." To deny the use of labels is to fall into the modernist liberal sin of relativism.
But I think we already have.
Click to expand...
My, my, my! That plank in your eye, Maurin, is growing at an alarming pace. I rather doubt that too many self-styled “traditionalists” would consider Pope Benedict XVl a liberal or a “modernist” who fell into the sin of religious relativism but you just have.
  1. As regards matters in which without harm to faith or discipline - in the absence of any authoritative intervention of the Apostolic See - there is room for divergent opinions, it is clearly the right of everyone to express and defend his own opinion. But in such discussions no expressions should be used which might constitute serious breaches of charity; let each one freely defend his own opinion, but let it be done with due moderation, so that no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to discipline.
Click to expand...
  1. It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as “profane novelties of words,” out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved” (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,” only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.
Click to expand...
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xv/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xv_enc_01111914_ad-beatissimi-apostolorum_en.html

The above quote has appeared on this forum many times. Perhaps you haven’t bothered to read it because it doesn’t suit your purpose or you deem that it doesn’t apply to you? The irony for you and those who might agree with you] is that the part of the encyclical this quote is taken from goes on to reininforce Pope Pius X’s condemnation of Modernism.
 
And the beam in your own Frosty? Is that what blinds your eye to the actual discussion above?

The mistake you make so loudly and to your own embarrassment is ascribing to me calling the Pope a liberal or a modernist. I have done no such thing.

But I do repeat that to deny a liberal is a liberal or that a modernist is a modernist is what seems to be killing the Faith and our Holy Mothr the Church. All to the chortles and glee of the devil. But in the end, Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart will triumph. She will crush his head. As Our Lord promised, the gates of hell shall not prevail.

Great to see you back on the Forum, Frosty. Whatt’s it been, two years since I last had the honor of your wisdom and wit?

Oh, and Frosty, did you read the quote you posted? It isn’t clear that you did.
 
Ok so if I have a love for the TLM may I take part in SSPX Mass? Are all the sacraments valid?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top