Why can't trads get along?

[JuniorCouncilor]

I have started work on a 'reply' - you will find the current draft here: http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/08/dealing-with-argumentative-attacks-sub.html

*sigh*  I knew I shouldn't have used a tongue-in-cheek argument, but I was so sick and tired of being ignored that I finally gave in.

I'm really, really sorry if you put a lot of work into this.  The argument that I used is not one that I actually believed.  It was intended to help you understand the problem, and possibly to finally provoke a response to my real argument.  My real argument is best exemplified by one of my earlier posts-- I can't find the number right now.

If it's helpful to you at all, I don't exactly believe all of the arguments laid out in your original flowchart.  In particular, I don't believe point 7, because it's clear that even if ecumenism is what the "Church" teaches now, it wasn't at the time, and therefore the popes of that time were clearly not heretics.  Your argument that infallibility does not apply to XYZ statements may well be correct, as well.

The problem is that we have a considerable period of time over which the "Church" is apparently teaching the opposite of what it taught before.  Then the "Church" goes further and "canonizes" the principal exponent of this new teaching.  How is an ordinary Catholic ever supposed to realize that what the "Church" is teaching is actually an error that the pre-conciliar popes characterized as "madness"?

But if they can't tell, then it seems clear that the "Church" has led people into error, which the Church ought not, according to Christ's promises, to be able to do.

You have asked why I don't use St. Thomas' method for responding to Sedevacantists?

Because, the theories you put forth are simply ill founded upon wrong assumptions that you fail to bring forth.

I have brought forth my assumptions as best I know how, in good faith, repeatedly, hoping that you would answer my actual objection instead of just trying to win the argument.  I admit that I finally gave in to a tongue-in-cheek argument that I didn't really believe out of sheer frustration that you wouldn't actually answer my argument or objection, but kept asserting, with no explanation whatsoever, that accepting the dogmatic fact that Bergoglio is pope actually somehow resolves the problem raised by the canonization of Wojtyla.

Basically, I feel like you're treating me with less regard than you would a Protestant.  Please, since I know for many Catholics, it is a worse thing to be a sedevacantist than a Protestant, just treat me as you would a Protestant.  You wouldn't tell a Protestant, "Your objections stand in contradiction to this fact and the doctrine of the Church," and "You need to work through your objections and reconcile them with the fact that Pope Francis is the Pope."  You would help the poor pitiful Protestant work through his objections.  At least, I hope you would.

My fear, however, is that you don't want to face my objection on its own terms, because you won't actually be able to answer it.  Your article actually seems to take a first crack at it, but it makes three arguments I don't think it's possible to accept:  first, that just because Wojtyla never taught anything claimed as "infallible", the "Church" can't possibly have actually led people into error in a way that would actually contradict its infallibility.  I can't see how that's true, because in addition to the pope's extraordinary magisterium, there is the ordinary and universal magisterium, by which Wojtyla and the bishops in union with him consistently taught doctrine opposed to that of their predecessors for a quarter of a century, which when I first became a Catholic, was longer than I had been alive.

Secondly, your argument that the canonization of Wojtyla does not imply that he should be imitated in everything leaves my objection untouched, because he made it clear that ecumenism was something he considered to be very important and beneficial, and the "Church" has said nothing to the contrary for almost half a century at this point.  How, I ask you, can an ordinary Catholic not conclude from all this that the Assisi prayer meetings were not, in fact, an outright GOOD thing?  Would it not be totally unnatural and perverse to draw any other conclusion?

Thirdly, the argument that Wojtyla could be canonized for his personal life but not his pontificate would be fine, if it were just a question of his pontificate having had disastrous results despite the fact that he hadn't done anything seriously problematic.  As it is, his actions with respect to the First Commandment are extremely problematic, and it's difficult, if not impossible, for anyone who has read the Old Testament, to imagine that God would allow that to just be glossed over-- which, as far as I can tell, is exactly what you want to do.

One last point.  It seems clear to me that you don't consider all dogmatic facts to be equal, because while you attack the sedevacantists for failing to recognize Bergoglio as pope (dogmatic fact 1), you are silent on the question of the SSPX refusing to recognize Karol Wojtyla as a saint (dogmatic fact 2).

I hope I managed to make my assumptions as clear as possible this time.  My training is in engineering and formal-type logic, not theology.

[JuniorCouncilor]

JC, both posts 202 and 206 of yours were excellent.

You are most kind, although I fear that I gave in to a certain petulance in 202.  In any case, thank you very much for the compliment! 

[JuniorCouncilor]

One can respond defensively or take a post within the context of the original query.

I think in this case one can legitimately do both.

You have chosen to be defensive which means, Junior, you consider your own pridefulness as a besetting sin and the idea that you worship your own opinion hit close to home.

I'm actually pretty sure that's not the case.  I'm pretty ridiculously open-minded, would much rather be told clearly what I ought to believe, and would much rather agree with others than disagree.

But being told what to believe is now considered bad-- that kind of doctrinal certainty is something that the claimant to the papal throne advises us should be avoided, or at least not sought.

All people suffer from pride as a consequence of the fall of Adam. Trads are no different.

With that much, at least, I can totally agree.

[JuniorCouncilor]

If 'sedevacantism' is correct and the See of Peter has been vacant since V2, then ultimately  I would logically arrive at the following conclusion:

Jesus Christ was not the Son of God because:
1. The dogmatic fact established by the acceptance of the Popes would be false, meaning that the Bishops in union with Rome were unable to determine who was the principle of unity as declared by Vatican I,
2. Without the principle of unity of faith and unity of government (as a result of #1) the Church loses the mark of unity. 
3. Without all Four Marks the social organism known as the Catholic Church ceases to be the Church of Christ
4. Jesus' promise of indefectibility as well as the First Vatican Council declaration of the perpetual line of successors is broken. 

If you still want to play, let's modify the game a little bit.  First, suppose I grant you #1.  However, let us suppose that shortly after each papal election, the pope-elect makes clear that he is in fact a heretic.  Would you still arrive at the same conclusion (Jesus Christ was not the Son of God)?

I note, briefly, that in my book, that makes no sense.  There are plenty of miracles to prove that Jesus Christ was God even if Catholics had misunderstood Him as promising things that He didn't promise.  Among the Fathers of the Church, the greatest of these miracles was  held to be the growth of the Church even in the face of persecution.

The bottom line:  even if the Catholic Church could be written off (which I still believe is impossible), Jesus Christ couldn't.  I think your conclusion is too dramatic.  You'll note that mine didn't go that far:  I would simply no longer be able to be a Catholic, but I would still have to find a Christian synthesis of some kind.

I'm really spending way too much time on this argument, so I may have to back off now myself.  God bless.

[tradical]

If 'sedevacantism' is correct and the See of Peter has been vacant since V2, then ultimately  I would logically arrive at the following conclusion:

Jesus Christ was not the Son of God because:
1. The dogmatic fact established by the acceptance of the Popes would be false, meaning that the Bishops in union with Rome were unable to determine who was the principle of unity as declared by Vatican I,
2. Without the principle of unity of faith and unity of government (as a result of #1) the Church loses the mark of unity. 
3. Without all Four Marks the social organism known as the Catholic Church ceases to be the Church of Christ
4. Jesus' promise of indefectibility as well as the First Vatican Council declaration of the perpetual line of successors is broken. 

If you still want to play, let's modify the game a little bit.  First, suppose I grant you #1.  However, let us suppose that shortly after each papal election, the pope-elect makes clear that he is in fact a heretic.  Would you still arrive at the same conclusion (Jesus Christ was not the Son of God)?

I note, briefly, that in my book, that makes no sense.  There are plenty of miracles to prove that Jesus Christ was God even if Catholics had misunderstood Him as promising things that He didn't promise.  Among the Fathers of the Church, the greatest of these miracles was  held to be the growth of the Church even in the face of persecution.

The bottom line:  even if the Catholic Church could be written off (which I still believe is impossible), Jesus Christ couldn't.  I think your conclusion is too dramatic.  You'll note that mine didn't go that far:  I would simply no longer be able to be a Catholic, but I would still have to find a Christian synthesis of some kind.

I'm really spending way too much time on this argument, so I may have to back off now myself.  God bless.

pm sent.

also my response was to the general sv thesis that P12 was the last valid Pope.

P^3

ps. My conclusion is based on the interlocking set of dogmas and understanding of what constitutes heresy.  If one dogma falls, they all fall. 

[Sbyvl36]

Something tells me we're not thinking of the same P12

[tradical]

Something tells me we're not thinking of the same P12

nope.

nice plane!

[voxxpopulisuxx]

Something tells me we're not thinking of the same P12

This belongs in my 'oooo-I want one thread!
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8422.0

[red solo cup]

Where would you mount the machine-gun? The cowling is in the way.

[Older Salt]

Trads are very disunified.

The opposite of Traditional Christendom during Lepanto.

[voxxpopulisuxx]

Trads are very disunified.

The opposite of Traditional Christendom during Lepanto.

During that time we knew who was pope and what was Catholic

[tradical]

Trads are very disunified.

The opposite of Traditional Christendom during Lepanto.

It took the Pope to unite the princes and even then it was close.

Consider this time period as 'before' the Pope united those who were loyal to defend Christendom.

P^3

[Sbyvl36]

Trads are very disunified.

The opposite of Traditional Christendom during Lepanto.

It took the Pope to unite the princes and even then it was close.

Consider this time period as 'before' the Pope united those who were loyal to defend Christendom.

P^3

Christendom doesn't exist anymore.

[Cleves]

Trads are very disunified.

The opposite of Traditional Christendom during Lepanto.

It took the Pope to unite the princes and even then it was close.

Consider this time period as 'before' the Pope united those who were loyal to defend Christendom.

P^3

Christendom doesn't exist anymore.

Nope, but the Caliphate does ;______;

[voxxpopulisuxx]

Trads are very disunified.

The opposite of Traditional Christendom during Lepanto.

It took the Pope to unite the princes and even then it was close.

Consider this time period as 'before' the Pope united those who were loyal to defend Christendom.

P^3

Christendom doesn't exist anymore.

Nope, but the Caliphate does ;______;

in the fevered dreams of the zionists and neocon warmongers