I am back for a bit

[mikemac]

Well, I think it is  bit less than coffee and I do drink coffee. I really want to order this, what type, fashion do you buy?

I've been reading that Yerba Mate is addictive and that people get headaches when they don't get their fix.

Actually, I think those are hallmarks of coffee.  I have heard the exact opposite, and my experience is also different.  People are amazed at how non-addictive it is (one can often go days without it, and not notice).

I have no experience with it myself.  Just going by what the folks in this forum thread have to say.

https://www.teachat.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11920

[Vetus Ordo]

Well, I think it is  bit less than coffee and I do drink coffee. I really want to order this, what type, fashion do you buy?

I've been reading that Yerba Mate is addictive and that people get headaches when they don't get their fix.

Actually, I think those are hallmarks of coffee.  I have heard the exact opposite, and my experience is also different.  People are amazed at how non-addictive it is (one can often go days without it, and not notice).

Coffee is a sign of election.

Cherish it.

[Non Nobis]

Well, I think it is  bit less than coffee and I do drink coffee. I really want to order this, what type, fashion do you buy?

I've been reading that Yerba Mate is addictive and that people get headaches when they don't get their fix.

Actually, I think those are hallmarks of coffee.  I have heard the exact opposite, and my experience is also different.  People are amazed at how non-addictive it is (one can often go days without it, and not notice).

Coffee is a sign of election.

Cherish it.

So is instant coffee a sign of LOTS of purgatory?   

[Gardener]

Well, I think it is  bit less than coffee and I do drink coffee. I really want to order this, what type, fashion do you buy?

I've been reading that Yerba Mate is addictive and that people get headaches when they don't get their fix.

Actually, I think those are hallmarks of coffee.  I have heard the exact opposite, and my experience is also different.  People are amazed at how non-addictive it is (one can often go days without it, and not notice).

Coffee is a sign of election.

Cherish it.

So is instant coffee a sign of LOTS of purgatory?   

Instant coffee is the cheap grace of the caffeine-salvation economy.

[Mono no aware]

Well, I suspect QMR is not that well versed in most matters orthodox.  It is no shame....we can't be masters at everything!

There was a poster, named Saint_Augustine, who used to post here.  You might remember him.  I would like to see him lock horns and colloquy with livenotonevil.

QMR rejects Orthodoxy out of hand because it lacks the epistemological perfection of having a supreme arbiter: which at present is Francisco el Magno.  But you are right, it would be interesting to see Livenotonevil be confronted with someone who can give him a serious challenge.  A more seasoned Orthodox poster here is the unfortunately-named abc123, who I imagine would give Saint_Augustine some kind of schooling.  The Roman Catholic v. Eastern Orthodox debates are always good ones, but speaking as someone who has passed on Orthodoxy myself, it's nearly six and a half dozen the other as far as I'm concerned.  Inescapably, one must be willing to swallow some measure of contradiction and sectarianism in either communion.

[abc123]

Well, I suspect QMR is not that well versed in most matters orthodox.  It is no shame....we can't be masters at everything!

There was a poster, named Saint_Augustine, who used to post here.  You might remember him.  I would like to see him lock horns and colloquy with livenotonevil.

QMR rejects Orthodoxy out of hand because it lacks the epistemological perfection of having a supreme arbiter: which at present is Francisco el Magno.  But you are right, it would be interesting to see Livenotonevil be confronted with someone who can give him a serious challenge.  A more seasoned Orthodox poster here is the unfortunately-named abc123, who I imagine would give Saint_Augustine some kind of schooling.  The Roman Catholic v. Eastern Orthodox debates are always good ones, but speaking as someone who has passed on Orthodoxy myself, it's nearly six and a half dozen the other as far as I'm concerned.  Inescapably, one must be willing to swallow some measure of contradiction and sectarianism in either communion.

Pon-

You are way too kind. Needless to say I'm rather dull (reflected by my name), who readily admits that most posters on here are more intelligent than myself. If, however I can give an occasional truthful utterance or edifying comment I consider my presence here beneficial.

[Quaremerepulisti]

But this comes with a curse, because when he tries to argue in favor of his "semi-trad" position and pro-Vatican II apologia, he is unfortunately limp, ineffectual, and inept.In a way he exemplifies the dreaded Catch-22.  It's disquieting to watch someone try to defend the indefensible: that truth is relative.

Well, thanks for pointing this out.  I'm always open to helpful criticism.  But there's an important distinction.  Truth itself isn't relative.  However, our knowledge of the truth (at least contingent truth) is relative.  This, no matter how "indefensible" you might believe it to be, is in fact the case.  You might find that sort of statement shocking, but you will find that you can't actually disprove it when you get down to the nitty-gritty.

Philosophy can't even prove, absolutely prove, that when you put your car in reverse and hit the gas in order to back out of the garage tomorrow morning you won't in fact crash forward into the garage wall, or even go anywhere at all, no matter how much we claim we "know" we will move backward.  In fact, philosophy hasn't even been able to formulate a coherent and satisfactory definition of "knowledge" at all, if you have followed contemporary debates on epistemology.  Everything founders upon the question: how do you know that you know?  It enters an infinite regress.

Enter the Thomists, who will try to tell me how inept modern philosophy is and how stupid and ignorant I am for listening to it, for St. Thomas solved these problems centuries ago.  Unfortunately, he did not.  (And usually, opponents who begin with an argument to ridicule only reveal that they know, deep down, their case to be quite weak.)  What he essentially did was say, if I think we know something or appear to know something we do in fact know it, because it is the nature of the intellect to know.  That is a very weak argument.  The fact that a very intelligent man made it does not change that fact.

And religious types don't want to admit this because it is a threat to their authority: to admit that "accepted truth" may be open to revision, and that their "objective truth" is not so objective after all.  Just like Communists who want to ban all "subversive Capitalist propaganda".

If that was credible, no one would've become a traditional Catholic in the first place. 

That is a non sequitur, since there is a difference between "credible" and "believed by all".  The right syllogism is: If that were not credible, no one would have stayed in the Novus Ordo.  Yet obviously many did, in fact a far greater number than left for traditionalism.

But we are all fallible in the end. 

Yep, we are.

[Quaremerepulisti]

Well, I suspect QMR is not that well versed in most matters orthodox.  It is no shame....we can't be masters at everything!

There was a poster, named Saint_Augustine, who used to post here.  You might remember him.  I would like to see him lock horns and colloquy with livenotonevil.

QMR rejects Orthodoxy out of hand because it lacks the epistemological perfection of having a supreme arbiter: which at present is Francisco el Magno.  But you are right, it would be interesting to see Livenotonevil be confronted with someone who can give him a serious challenge. 

The Orthodox cannot answer the question of what is the final epistemological authority in matters of faith.  Now you might not consider it a "serious challenge" to point out that Orthodox epistemology is therefore viciously circular, and you might consider the existence or absence of a supreme arbiter a mere accessory, like tinted windows on a car.  Whereas I consider that to be a conclusive argument, for no matter how fervently you claim to "know" the truth of Orthodoxy, you can't in reality.  Which makes it essentially subjectivism, and therefore, ironically, just another version of Modernism, no matter how attached to "Tradition" they claim to be.

Be careful that you do not conflate a clever argument with a sound one (or, put another way, rhetoric with dialectic).  It's
true that the Orthodox have had lots and lots more time to refine their polemic as compared to traditionalism (almost a millennium more).  And livenotevil is a skilled debater and knows well how to steer the discussion away from the points he can't answer.  And, too often, Catholic counter-apologists have fallen into the trap the Orthodox have set for them, by implicitly accepting the Orthodox framework.  I readily concede some points made by livenotevil but you only see it as a "losing battle" because you have a priori accepted his framework (without justification) and not mine.  It's true, I can't defeat the claims of Orthodoxy given the Orthodox framework.  And I'm not even going to try.  I reject the Orthodox framework because it is a circular epistemology.  You can only know the Orthodox framework to be true given that Orthodoxy is true, and you can only know that Orthodoxy is true given that the Orthodox framework is true.

It's true, I don't have at my fingers several gazillion quotes from Fathers, etc., which "prove" that Catholicism and not Orthodoxy is faithful to "Tradition".  I'm not going to go there because I reject that that is the way to determine the truth.  It is in principle no different from Protestants thumping the Bible against the Church.  You take some written documents and you determine which Church does or doesn't follow them.  And why are these documents important?  Because the Church says they are.

It's true, the Catholic Church now teaches things of faith that were formerly questioned or even condemned by some (e.g. the Immaculate Conception for instance) and certainly in any case not believed by all.  I'm not going to go there (even though the same charge can be made against Orthodoxy wrt Palamism) because again I reject that that is the way to determine the truth.  The Orthodox Church also teaches things of faith that were questioned or denied by some (like Arius for example).  Ah, but that's different because Arius was a heretic and outside the Church, the Orthodox will reply.  But this is just after-the-fact redefinition of "all".  More to the point, there's no intrinsic reason why understanding and knowledge of what is actually contained in the deposit faith cannot develop over time.

[abc123]

QMR-

Try as I may I simply cannot see how your position is anything more than appeal to authority, therefore also circular. The pope is the head of the Church because the popes have historically claimed supremacy as the head of the Church therefore the pope is the head of the Church. I also don't see how this argument is fundamentally different than the Orthodox position which invests ultimate authority in the dogmatic decisions of Ecumenical Councils. In both cases we are taking for granted an epistemological starting point: papal supremacy vs collegial proclamation. Why should papal supremacy be the obvious choice, especially considering that collegiality seems to enjoy more favor in the earliest experiences of the Church? Whenever someone points out what appear to be obvious contradictions between certain pre vs post Vatican II teachings we are basically told not to believe our lying eyes and that all such contradictions are only so in appearance.

Perhaps I'm dense but I just don't find your argument very convincing(if I am in fact understanding the essentials of it). I've tried to follow your reasoning throughout your time here but that is my own personal conclusion.

[St. Columba]

..and perhaps I am back to give it one last attempt to get that one, coveted, thank you for a post from Quare, at which point, with that badge of honor, I can consider my life duly meaningful and a resounding success!

Please excuse the playful ribbings ya'all! 

Alert, Alert!  I got the thank you from Quare!  I am now in the, oh so private, club!

....as I scramble to take a screen print before he withdraws it.... 

[Quaremerepulisti]

QMR-

Try as I may I simply cannot see how your position is anything more than appeal to authority, therefore also circular. The pope is the head of the Church because the popes have historically claimed supremacy as the head of the Church therefore the pope is the head of the Church. I also don't see how this argument is fundamentally different than the Orthodox position which invests ultimate authority in the dogmatic decisions of Ecumenical Councils.

OK, so you admit then that at least, whether or not Catholicism does any better, Orthodox epistemology is circular.  So, therefore, Orthodoxy is essentially subjectivism.

Now let's see if the same charge holds for Catholicism.  And if it does, then the conclusion is that Modernism is the truth - that religious belief is essentially subjective in nature.

It is not my argument that "The pope is the head of the Church because the popes have historically claimed supremacy as the head of the Church therefore the pope is the head of the Church."  If it were, that would indeed be circular.

The starting point is that some type of human final authority in matters of faith is logically necessary for a true Church to have so that the believer can distinguish orthodoxy from heresy (and it assumes that this authority can be found prior to such distinguishing).  Why is this?  Because otherwise if something else (e.g. a written text) is the final authority you will have a gazillion different groups sprouting up, claiming that they, and only they, have the true interpretation, as we see in Protestantism (and everyone else is a "heretic" bound for hell).

In both cases we are taking for granted an epistemological starting point: papal supremacy vs collegial proclamation. Why should papal supremacy be the obvious choice, especially considering that collegiality seems to enjoy more favor in the earliest experiences of the Church? Whenever someone points out what appear to be obvious contradictions between certain pre vs post Vatican II teachings we are basically told not to believe our lying eyes and that all such contradictions are only so in appearance.

Perhaps I'm dense but I just don't find your argument very convincing(if I am in fact understanding the essentials of it). I've tried to follow your reasoning throughout your time here but that is my own personal conclusion.

That's because I haven't actually yet made the case for Catholicism, but only the case against Orthodoxy.

But the case is that your epistemological starting point is empirically falsified (by the existence of the schism) whereas mine is not.  First the logical possibilities:

1) Orthodoxy is right and Rome is wrong.
2) Rome is right and Orthodoxy is wrong.
3) Rome is right and Orthodoxy is right.
4) Rome is wrong and Orthodoxy is wrong.

3) is not logically possible.  If Rome is right, Orthodoxy is wrong; and if Orthodoxy is right, Rome is wrong.  It cannot be the case that e.g. Papal Infallibility is orthodoxy and heresy at the same time.  4) we reject because the true Church must be at least able to make a credible historical claim to have existed (concretely as well as abstractly) since Apostolic times, and Rome and Orthodoxy are the only ones that qualify.  Therefore it's between 1) and 2).  If 1) is falsified, then 2) must be correct.  It could be argued prior to the schism that collegial proclamation is the final authority, but the schism empirically falsifies it, since the very authority needed to resolve the dispute no longer exists by definition.

So let's assume 1) arguendo.  And therefore let's assume that "Collegial proclamation" is the epistemological starting point, or if you will, the final authority in matters of faith.  Then by what right do the Orthodox accuse Rome of "heresy"?  There is no "collegial proclamation" that created grace, original (not ancestral) sin, absolute Divine simplicity, purgatory, unleavened bread, or any of the other issues raised are heresy.  Nor can you say that there was a "collegial proclamation" by the Orthodox patriarchies (without Rome present) because that is begging the question that they are the true patriarchies and not Rome (it's a viciously circular epistemology - we know the true Patriarchies because they have the truth faith, and we know the true faith because that is what is taught by the true Patriarchies).  IOW, in the event of a dispute between patriarchies there is (by definition) no way to resolve it, no way for the believer to distinguish heresy from orthodoxy.  If you appeal to "Tradition" what that means is that individual believer must determine for himself what is part of Tradition and what is not, in reality making him the final authority, contrary to your stated assertion collegial proclamation is the final authority. 

So, if it is true that collegial proclamation is the starting point, it might very well be the case that you are wrong, dead wrong, in your rejection of purgatory and the Immaculate Conception.

Obviously these difficulties don't apply if Papal supremacy is the starting point.  Rome accuses Orthodoxy of heresy because it has defined the doctrines of purgatory, Immaculate Conception, etc.

[Mono no aware]

I'm always open to helpful criticism.  But there's an important distinction.  Truth itself isn't relative.  However, our knowledge of the truth (at least contingent truth) is relative.  This, no matter how "indefensible" you might believe it to be, is in fact the case.

It's a distinction without a difference, I'm afraid.  Saying "our knowledge of the truth is relative" doesn't cut it.  In that case, our "knowledge" of the Resurrection could change from that of a bodily resurrection to an appreciation of how Christ's disciples encountered "a resurrection experience," where the profundity of His teachings and His example were so powerful that they were inspired to share them with others, and so Christ "lived anew" by the keeping of His memory alive.  And why not?  The Church has already given up on a literal reading of Genesis, so there's no reason why the gospels, too, shouldn't be given a "richer and deeper understanding" for the modern age, where Catholics don't have to believe in all that "literal and unscientific hocus-pocus," and instead can finally realize that it was all a wonderful metaphor to inspire us to live lives of goodness and compassion.  I'm sorry, but this is relativism.  There would be nothing to prevent a Pope Joan Chittister or a Vatican III—or anything, really, for that matter, because you could just chalk it up to "our knowledge of the truth being relative."  That was then, this is now.  Our knowledge of the truth has changed.

Well, few people with the capacity for critical thought are going to buy that.  You may claim that many people have stayed in the Novus Ordo and therefore it must be credible, but those that do stay (even those who can be said to have a modicum of intelligence) are selectively turning off their critical faculty, either out of a perverse loyalty to the shepherd, or because they actually enjoy the freedom of the new theology and the communal buzz of the New Mass.  But there is no Novus Ordo apologist who makes an ounce of sense.  Who are their brightest lights?  Jimmy Akin, Mark Shea, and Scott Hahn?  I think my personal favorite would have to be the twinkle-eyed and limp-wristed Dominican friar who suggested that gay sex could be "eucharistic" and "expressive of Christ's self-gift," and subsequently received a promotion from Pope Francis to some pontifical council or other.  I mean, that's funny.  You can't make this stuff up.  No, the fact that the Novus Ordo has retained ninety-nine Catholics to every one that traditional Catholicism attracts is no evidence of its credibility.  I don't want to pull too much of a Jayne here, but we should be honest, a lot of people are pretty stupid.  Of Catholics, traditional Catholics are those with whom less intelligent persons "cannot keep up with mentally," as anyone who does not see the relativism is either willfully ignorant or simply ignorant.  Say what you want about traditional Catholics (and you and I have both said a lot), but one thing that's for certain is that all of us arrived at traditional Catholicism at some point because we perceived the fatal contradictions.  (Unless, I suppose, we were taught traditional Catholicism as children.  I myself was not.  Such traditional Catholics are now known as "cradle trads"—a term that I will let stand without comment).

Anyway, that's about the extent of my constructive criticism.  It's why I think you personify the Catch-22: your justification of the Novus Ordo is quite wanting, while your evisceration of traditional Catholicism is scorching.  I recognize that there are philosophical rabbit holes to journey down in determining "how can you know what you know?"  I myself am enjoying Hume, who excelled at that sort of thing.  I just don't know if it's applicable to religion, and I wonder if you may be over-thinking that part.  Essentially it all comes down to having "faith by grace," which is something that can be claimed by anyone: that subjective inmost light—the "mystical experience" that can point to the revealed truth of any religion, whether the religion in question involves beheading children or lighting little bowls of ghee aflame as offerings to the six-armed elephant-headed goddess.  Christianity has the benefit of comparable sanity, but if you ask me which version of Christianity makes the most coherent sense it's Eastern Orthodoxy.  (Which is not to say that it makes perfect coherent sense.  It makes more sense than Vatican I and II, though: an easy hurdle IMO for the Byzantines to surmount).

[Mono no aware]

Alert, Alert!  I got the thank you from Quare!  I am now in the, oh so private, club!

Congratulations, amigo.  And you're not kidding; it really is a private club.  If you go to his "posts thanked by user" page, he has only given out thirty-one.  I clicked on another user at random (mikemac, who has the first post at the top of this page) and he has given out 1,930 thanks in comparison.  So QMR does not dole them out liberally.  (I'll admit, I was somewhat honored to find one of my own posts in your elite company).

[St. Columba]

Alert, Alert!  I got the thank you from Quare!  I am now in the, oh so private, club!

Congratulations, amigo.  And you're not kidding; it really is a private club.  If you go to his "posts thanked by user" page, he has only given out thirty-one.  I clicked on another user at random (mikemac, who has the first post at the top of this page) and he has given out 1,930 thanks in comparison.  So QMR does not dole them out liberally.  (I'll admit, I was somewhat honored to find one of my own posts in your elite company).

Which makes it all the more irrational why QMR hangs out here....makes about 100 times more posts than thank yous? (And his posts are not, on average, terse).  QMR is not here to learn.  He is hear to roll up his sleeves, and kick some you-know-what, against pure little naïve traditionalists that he often berates. Why, I say, why?

QMR invested, what, let us guess....about 2000 hours of posting here on SD?  To what end?  Hone his debating skills?  He needs to go to a knowledgeable atheist forum or something and defend his faith there. Then he might not be wasting his time.

[St. Columba]

It could be argued prior to the schism that collegial proclamation is the final authority, but the schism empirically falsifies it, since the very authority needed to resolve the dispute no longer exists by definition.

Ya, but remember (a while back, when discussing sedevacantism) you dismissed the possibility of disproving a religious system on the basis of a posteriori effects...