Saturday, July 15, 2017

A GOOD LUMP OF CLOTTED NONSENSE

Philistine must have originally meant, in the mind of those who invented the nickname, a strong, dogged, unenlightened opponent of the chosen people, of the children of light. M. Arnold

Big Don appears to be intent on showing TradWorld exactly how barbarously uncouth he is.

In the August 2016 pesthouse newsletter, he gave us a revolting example of his extreme boorishness with his lowbrow pan of Wagnerian music drama (click here and read the EPILOGUE at the end). In the just released June 2017 issue, he's back at it again, only this time babbling malarkey about scholarly language. On page 2, you'll find this astonishing display of anti-intellectualism (we've highlighted the lines we'll discuss):
The second path to reconciliation with the Modernists is to adopt yet another of Ratzinger’s slogans: the hermeneutic of continuity. This term comes from Ratzinger’s 2005 speech to the Curia, in which he distinguished three possible interpretations of Vatican II and its reforms: (1) the hermeneutic of rupture; (2) the hermeneutic of continuity; and (3) the hermeneutic of reform. The term “hermeneutic,” by the way, simply means “interpretation.” Modernists, and especially Ratzinger, commonly use long and obscure words, usually coming from Greek or Hebrew, to label ideas which could easily be expressed by more common words. To do so is a form of fallacy — faulty reasoning — since the purpose of it is to impress upon your listener the idea that you are deeply intelligent and extremely learned. The result is that you convince your listener not by the clarity of your arguments, but by impressing him so much that he feels ignorant and out-classed in comparison to your towering intellectual acumen. One of Ratzinger’s favorite words is the cosmos. Cosmos is merely the Greek word for the physical world. Why not just say, “the physical world?” Because it does not impress. Cosmos really impresses. 

The benighted Tradzilla, who's never known the academy, is wrong in everything he alleges here. A gloomy alien to higher education, it's par for the course that he'd lash out at intimidating collegiate terms-of-art that confirm his shadowy, outsider status. Instead of experiencing delight at learning something new, albeit from an adversary, he's enraged at the stark reminder of his intellectual inferiority. He therefore imputes to others, who are confident in their achievements, a lifelong mediocrity's manic need to impress.

Hermeneutic and cosmos are not "obscure" to those women and men thoroughly trained in the humanities who read deeply. The two words may not belong to the average person's workaday vocabulary, but they are common to the undergraduate, graduate, and post-graduate registers. (Why, even high-school physics teachers in the suburbs tell us their college-prep students are at home with cosmos and use it in their homework, thanks perhaps to PBS.)

Both words have a very specific denotation among the educated; moreover, they possess the added virtue of expressing in a lexeme a complex notion, thereby promoting economy of expression. We'll move on to that in a minute, but let's first get straight the not-so-simple meaning of hermeneutic, a word over which both the unilluminated Tradzilla and the lightless Erroneous Antonius obsess.

In its original sense, the noun hermeneutics means the science as well as the art of clarifying or interpreting normative texts, particularly Biblical texts, by way of commentary and explanation. Its adjective form is either hermeneutic or hermeneutical (= "pertaining to theories of interpretation"). Nowadays in the modern scholarly discipline of discourse analysis, hermeneutics is used metaphorically: Each of the manifold paradigms of clarification human beings invoke may be called a hermeneutic, the adjective now become a noun, meaning a "conceptual framework for interpreting information" or, more succinctly, an "interpretive framework."

As we all have experienced, mankind attempts to understand the phenomena of life from divergent points of view. In other words, we have multiple approaches to formally making meaning out of the same set of data. In a Christian hermeneutic, we might interpret God's and Man's activity in history through the lens of the Incarnation. A sede hermeneutic interprets ecclesiology through the filter of a vacant See of Peter. The Readers at Pistrina Liturgica interpret everything the cult masters do and say through a hermeneutic of suspicion, which the literary theorist Rita Felski described as "a technique of reading texts against the grain and between the lines, of cataloguing their omissions and laying bare their contradictions, of rubbing in what they fail to know and cannot represent."

Thus hermeneutic, as Ratzinger employed it, is a very handy term to have. At a minimum, it saves a careful writer one to four words, but in practice many more. Big Don and Checkie, embittered at their terminal malformation, pillory a highly educated man for speaking in the specialist language of the intelligentsia, to which they don't and can't belong. B16 has been, after all, a professor at the universities of Bonn and Tübingen as well as at other notable German institutions of higher learning. The dim cult masters haven't even taught at a small-town community college.

Bennie wasn't trying to impress or bamboozle anyone in his sophisticated, curial audience. Well educated themselves, they already knew the term hermeneutic: it's meaning is clear to anyone who's had the right training or read extensively. In addition, Ratzi had nothing to prove: everybody acknolwdges his sterling academic credentials, even if some abhor his theology. Tradzilla and Cheesy just can't get over the galling truth that their boogieman is vastly superior to them intellectually and culturally. To their murky noggins, an opponent's high-status vocabulary is a taunt, painfully calling attention to the lexical bar that prevents them from ever advancing beyond the sub-amateur level.

The lumpen Donster's comment about cosmos exposes the alarming depth of his ignorance.  The word does not mean "merely ... the physical world." That's sheer bunkum. It means "the world or universe as perfectly arranged and ordered" (Runes' Dictionary of Philosophy). Or as one vocabulary list for college-bound high schoolers preparing for the SAT defines it, "the world or universe considered as a system, perfect in order and arrangement."* 

Had the rector troubled himself to consult the easy-to-use Liddell-Scott Intermediate Greek Lexicon (the complete edition may be too difficult for him), he would've learned κόσμος ("cosmos") means "order; ornament, decoration, embellishment; the world or universe, from its perfect order." In Plutarch's opinion, the last signification stretches back to the Pythagoreans, and it's certainly present in Plato  (e.g., Socrates to Calllicles in Jowett's translation of the dialogue Gorgias [508a]: "... this universe is therefore called  Cosmos or order...").  According to Pierre Chantraine's Dictionnaire Étymologique de la Langue Greque, the word's original sense expresses the notion of "ordre, mise en ordre" (order, ordering/arrangement). Don's observation, then, is naught but humbug.

Consequently, any schoolgirl or -boy recognizes that Tradzilla's crudely reductionist definition "physical world" is not only grossly overly simplistic but also impiously misleading. It erases an important nuance attached to cosmos since the early days of Western thought, a truth that lies at the heart of one of the Scholastic proofs for the existence of God: The beauty and order of existent things implies a Master Designer directing all things to their natural end.

You know what really doesn't impress?

It's Big Don's unfamiliarity with academic language and his crass simple mindedness, that's what doesn't impress. All his poppycock suggests very convincingly that he is not conversant in the basic language of philosophy, that he's a stranger to the fundamental underpinnings of the West's intellectual and spiritual heritage.

But we haven't yet sounded the full depth of his confused ignorance. Tradzilla unloads another crock of ... of... of ... horsefeathers when he charges that using "long and obscure words, usually coming from Greek or Hebrew, to label ideas which could easily be expressed by more common words ... is a form of fallacy — faulty reasoning ...."

As anybody with a solid university education will tell you, the affected use of so-called inkhorn terms is a rhetorical abuse, known by the Greek term cacozelia, "unhappy imitation."  It is absolutely not a logical fallacy, as Big Don nonsensically affirms.  A writer can be guilty of pedantry yet still reason correctly. However, in B16's case, hermeneutic and cosmos were the most writerly terms available, and hence the apropos choice. It's not his fault that trad "clergy" are so undereducated.

Contained in both hermeneutic and cosmos is an enormous amount of information, which couldn't otherwise be expressed except through wordy circumlocutions. Additionally, as terms of art, the two words are discipline-specific: not to employ them would diminish communicative effectiveness. For instance, allthough "interpretive framework" may be a satisfactory working definition of hermeneutic, it cannot be replaced in academic writing and speech without a loss of precision. Thus, had the old heresiarch not uttered hermeneutic, he would have been guilty of acyrologia (Gk. "incorrect phraseology"), inexact or improper use of language.
M E M O to Big Don: The technical vocabulary of academia is made up of many, many words borrowed from the Greek language — just as in Catholic theology. One of your and Tony Baloney's favorite words, epikeia, comes from the Greek ἐπιείκεια. 
You two meatballs must realize the word's simple dictionary definitions, viz., "reasonableness, equity, fairness, gentleness," wouldn't convey the same meaning as the learnèd form based on the Greek (in any of its conventional English spellings). 
Were the Donster but your run-of-the-mill Flushing-Rat vulgarian on Facebook or Twitter, savaging his legions of betters and loathing all "innaleckshuls" on account of their privileged formation, we'd let him vent his spleen in foggy solitude without making public his fatuity. However, the Tradistani propaganda machine portrays him as some kind of prodigy of learning, a Bellarmine redivivus, compared to whom the Novus Ordites and SSPXers are primitives. PL cannot allow that fiction to stand without protest. It's too dangerous to the unschooled faithful who might fall for all the rubbish littering his newsletter and website.

If you take away anything from today's post, let it be this: Tradzilla's more to be ridiculed than admired.  Of whatever he writes, you must always be suspicious. If he ventures afar from his absurd hobbyhorses, to wit,  screwball sede-ism, the imaginary una-cum prohibition, loopy dress codes for his cultlings, aggressive attachment to your money, the dead-end boys' club he calls the "Roman Catholic Institute" (about which he's been pregnantly silent since its announcement), ignore him. He's really not prepared to discuss anything other than twaddle.

Face it, folks.

The Donster's a philistine, pure and simple.  Last year he revealed himself as the enemy of serious musical culture, and this year he's taken up arms against the language of the life of the mind.  It's time Traddielandia said goodbye to this loutish, darkling embarrassment. You can bring down the Donster's Temple of Nonsense very simply —

STARVE THE MALFORMED BEAST NOW (AND DON'T LET IT GET THE $60,000 IT CRAVES TO INSTALL A NEW TILE FLOOR)!

●  The universality of the meaning can be seen from the following definitions taken from a popular sources:

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: "The universe as an ordered whole."

American Heritage Dictionary of Science: "Astronomy. The universe, especially as an orderly, harmonious system."

Compact Edition of the OED (1971): "The world or universe as an ordered and harmonious system."

Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary Unabridged: "The universe conceived as an orderly and harmonious system — contrasted with chaos."

Oxford American Dictionary: "The universe seen as a well ordered whole."

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: "The universe regarded as an orderly, harmonious whole."

Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology: "The universe as an ordered system."

Astrophysicist and religious skeptic Carl Sagan: "Cosmos is a Greek word for the order of the universe. It is, in a way, the opposite of Chaos. It implies the deep interconnectedness of all things. It conveys awe for the intricate and subtle way in which the universe is put together.”

You get the picture, don't you? Big Don doesn't know what he's talking about.

60 comments:

  1. I did not know the full meaning of "cosmos" before reading this (and I wonder how many people who use the word know its full meaning). I am still confused about the deeper meaning of "hermeneutic."

    I am not sure if The Readers wrote at such a high academic level in this post to make a point, but at least I did have a good chuckle at the "horsefeathers" joke even though some of the other stuff was over my head.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 7/15 9:20 AM

      Well, we had to write at a more academic level to make the point that Big Don's talking nonsense.

      We agonized a bit over how to convey as simply as possible what a hermeneutic is. We thought that using the notion of a conceptual framework — a lens (or a set of patterns) through which to view the world — might do the trick inasmuch as the phrase is frequently used in aesthetics, criticism, curricular theory, sociology as well as in philosophy (where it's often called a paradigm).

      Perhaps it might help you if we say that a hermeneutic is an interpretation of the meaning of an event or a social action. It's explanation as opposed to understanding or description. We acknowledge that's oversimplified and ignores the close connection of a conceptual framework to a hypothesis, but it might be useful at this stage.

      Delete
    2. I believe one might also metaphorically call it Verständnisschlüssel, a key to understanding a certain subject.
      For example, a key to understand the fine arts of the ancients is a profound knowledge of Greek and Roman mythology as a method of interpreting classical art, the lens through which it is seen. There are many others, of course.

      A principle to Catholic biblical hermeneutics would be the Inerrancy of Sacred Scripure. Even before reading the very Scripture, I am employing this framework, this guideline in my interpretation of Holy Writ. This is why hermeneutics is so important. If I am uncertain in my hermeneutics, the results of my research or even private study will be even more precarious.

      Delete
    3. Excellent, "Simplicius." That's bound to help 9:20 and others.

      And as your last sentence makes clear, the rigor in the system of concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that supports and informs your interpretation is of supreme importance.

      By way, all this richness of signification is what makes hermeneutic such a useful word. Let's not let malformed Tradzilla take it away from us just because he doesn't understand it or is jealous that B16 knows how to use it correctly.

      Delete
  2. Check out the photo of the YAG 2017 on the Gertie homepage. An interesting "visitor" has been photoshopped into the photo. Not sure if this was intentional or if the photo missed the "online censor" but still kind of amusing!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a cardboard cutout that played an important rôle at YAG. You'll be able to read more about it in a couple of weeks.

      Delete
  3. This is my legal name. I am the one who's been posting from Hawaii.

    How do those associated with the FSSP reconcile the ordinations protocol given by Paul VI with the desire for genuine sacraments. No, this is not an attempt to start an argument. I was raised Episcopalian; the only part I liked was the Book of Common Prayer.

    I'm an introspective sort and value all contributions. The kind from those who know the facts, accept them, and still assist.

    Forgive me for bringing up an old topic.

    Mahalo nui loa!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm going to have to say that Sanborn is the biggest bunch of Bologna that I have ever met. He is full of himself and his private proclamations and rules go far and beyond the truth of catholicism. His followers worship him, not necessarily the faith itself. You can tell because they repeat everything they have heard him say as if the Church itself made the proclamation. I can't tell you how many times I have heard his parishioners repeat that he is the only one that hold the truth of Catholic teachings. They also say people must not like him because he is the only one willing to take a stand for the faith. No, I'm sorry. People don't like him because he is a blowhard on a financial and publicity campaign to make a name for himself and money in the process. Where he goes, he leaves a path of ruin.

    Wake up, people. I have to question the stability of anyone who defends this man or his main priests. By giving him all your money, it doesn't guarantee you heaven. What is does guarantee is the your niavity and willingness to trust man instead of the true Catholic Faith.

    ReplyDelete
  5. July 17 at 4:44 PM

    "Where he goes, he leaves a path of ruin".

    Might I add, this is what Australia has to expect.

    ReplyDelete
  6. July 17 at 4:44 PM

    "Where he goes, he leaves a path of ruin".

    Might I add, this is what Australia has to expect.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Any new info about the new mission of Big Don Down Under in Australia.Just wondering why CMRI was given the door there?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reader/PL

      Any info regarding the above question re-Australia?

      We too would be very interested to know why CMRI was shown the door down there in Melbourne.

      Delete
    2. July 17 at 11:57 PM

      Have you read his May 2017 newsletter?

      Delete
    3. A reason that Big Don might have gotten a “welcome” in Australia is that he is (nominally) allied with Dannie and SGG, where of the Omlors is a “prominent” parishioner (and super loyal to Dannie and the Cheese-ball). Also, the rest of the Omlors are primarily in Australia (in the Perth area, on the west coast), and they might be putting in a good word for the Donster Monster as well. Someone in Aussie-land needs to tell these people that an Omlor “good housekeeping seal of approval” is no guarantee that having Big Don’s creature there is good for them -- because it’s definitely not.

      Delete
    4. There's still an Omlor in SGG? I thought that had been Theresa O years ago. She's now back in Australia with a husband and kiddies, and is on the TRR board as well.

      Delete
    5. The Omlor at SGG is Patrick Omlor Jr. (Patrick Omlor Sr. is deceased.). He’s married and has one son (also named Patrick).

      Delete
  8. Anon. 4:44 PM, you hit the nail on the head – several times. Very eloquently said! Sanborn is just a big bag of fecal methane. He, Dannie, and Tony are a bunch of carnival con men consumed with their own self-importance (and the desire for la dolce vita – at the expense of others, of course). I echo your thoughts exactly: when are these their followers going to wake up?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said Watcher.Yes,when are their followers going to wake up.

      Delete
  9. God bless Fr. Desposito.

    During the time was TRRadio subscriber listening avidly for several years... as wound up a demanding job, rising at 1:00 am in order to prepare for the day and commute by bike, listening all the way.. partly in order to focus on forex.

    Fr. Deposito before I objectively learned of the pathological greed of Tradzilla struck me as the replacement.

    Fr. Deposito was my contact.

    1. He is obedient.

    The following are reasons why I commend him as a decent soul and at the same time understand his agony in the current situation. I am sure he has it.

    2. Discrete, patient in a few brief contacts had with him.

    3. Has a monastic temperament in my opinion. This coupled with his intelligence makes it painful for me to contemplate how he sizes up his current situation.

    All this will force worthy souls into paths of destiny.

    I could speculate in his case but I have said enough about him, almost.

    He is gentle, humble, upright, principled, and works very, very hard.

    ***

    It is my opinion that Stephen Heiner, who I do not fault has a symbiotic relationship with Tradzilla having to do with monetizing.

    The same is true of course of those at SGG re Tza but in the case of SH, in my opinion, it is more rooted and is beginning to sprout - but for the chaos.

    I see this relationship as a problem for SH. He is a consummate entrepreneur who takes his spiritual life seriously and in my opinion he too will be thrown to the winds for the better.

    Abp. Lefebvre and his character flaws were mentioned in several podcasts by those who knew him and their sense of where their future could lie.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See post of January 23, 2011, for another view.

      Delete
    2. As a former member of crazyville, I think you are very confused on your take of Fr. Desposito. The place is very uncharitable, and it starts with the priests.

      Delete
    3. Anon. 5:02 PM is absolutely right about Desposito (and MHT) – and he (Desposito) is the epitome of that “Crazyville” to which Anon. was referring. .On TRR, perhaps (and that’s a BIG “perhaps”) Desposito might have come off as “obedient” and/or “gentle, humble, upright, principled.” – but we’ve never seen any of that. Our first reaction to hearing those words from “Nanderani33” was, “Gag me with a spoon!” No way! Nandarani, if you are sincere in your beliefs about Desposito, then we BEG you to do a little more “research.” We think that you’ll find the exact opposite to be true.

      Delete
  10. Hello the Reader.You might be interested to know this info.Just been to the website of Bishop Terrence Fulham at www.olfatima.com.He is looking for a priest to help there.The odd thing is he or the parish will not accept a priest who has orders from the Old Catholic,Old Roman Catholic or the Thuc-line.Bishop Fulham was ordained by Pivarunas(Thuc) and made a bishop by a bishop of the Duarte Costa line.Maybe he can make a comment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why don't you check out the penultimate paragraph? It makes things much clearer:

      "The ideal profile of a priest we are looking for would be a current priest of the Society of St. Pius X
      who is considering his options in the event of an eventual regularization but is not attracted to the so-called "Resistance Movement"."

      Delete
  11. For those of you who doubt that Sanborn and their group say that they are exclusively the ones who hold the faith, let me quote Bishop Daniel Dolan on one of his many newsletters," Of late, Father has been living at Most Holy Trinity Seminary (Support it! It is our only hope for the future!)"
    http://www.sgg.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Newsletter112.pdf

    The quote was not that it is the only hope for Saint Gertrude's future or even "our" future (meaning SGG). What it says is that MHT seminary is the ONLY hope for THE future. So, I guess that MHT is the ONLY place who can train priests. It is the ONLY place that will provide for the future.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If Sanborn was not the one who completed all of junior's religious steps, and Dolan is questionable with the one hand, would that make junior's orders questionable?

    http://mostholytrinityseminary.org/July_2015_Newsletter.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  13. http://stas.org/sites/sspx/files/v007_sum1982.pdf

    Way back when, Sanborn was discussing how fanilies need to give more to the seminary. Instead of pleading for families to come together and give more, he tells the "head of the household" to give more. Is it not all who have to sacrifice to give more money to anything? Even years ago, he is telling people he realizes they are contributing to the building fund and their parish, but the heads of household need to give him even more to make up for all their expenses.

    At the end of the newsletter, it is interesting to note that it was Sanborn who was in charge of the women's retreats. I would love for any of your readers to come forward and tell if he was a known misogynist then too (this misogynist term is not in reference to above, but to the many chauvinist things he has said and done over the years).

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous, July 18, 2017 at 10:51 PM

    No, no news yet. The Beanpole's on the MHT schedule through Jul 23, so he probably won't be in Australia until sometime after that.

    As for why the the Aussies gave CMRI the ol' heave-ho, we have nothing solid. Maybe Tradzilla was reading PL and noted all those negative comments about JG, and decided he could get revenge for losing AZ by offering to take over in Melbourne.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Reader July 19 at 6:41 PM

    Not all Aussies gave CMRI the ol' heave-ho. I understand some of them still have family members with SSPX. They may have preferred to hear from the horse's mouth "stop going to the SSPX".

    CMRI is still there in Australia.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We were referring to the Melbourne group. We should have made that clearer.

      JG was only servicing them once a month anyway, according to the pesthouse newsletter, so the group was easy pickings for the Donster.

      We don't think CMRI cares too much about the loss, when you consider what they gained in AZ, which was huge. And as you say, they're still in Australia, while Don's out of AZ.

      Delete
    2. Thank you Reader.
      Goodnight & God bless.

      Delete
  16. To take the direction of the conversation on a different path, I remember Professor Larry Trask (an American) lecturing in Linguistics. He mentioned one time that dictionaries do not supply meanings or definitions merely current usages - i.e words as they are currently held in general estimation since language is after all a convention, as a point of reference but words are merely arbitrary except for words which are homophonous and based in practice on the sound an animal makes as in Dannie's feline friends who probably miaow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 9:42

      That may hold true in practice and design for many dictionaries, but certainly not for those based on historical principles, such as the OED. (And even some desk dictionaries provide obsolete definitions.) It also ignores fact that the meaning(s) of many, though not all, words is (are) fairly stable over time, within and across languages.

      Nevertheless, apart from any linguistic theory about the conventionality of definitions (and there are a number of them), our footnote demonstrates that Big Don is clearly ignorant of the current usage of cosmos. That's pretty bad.

      Delete
    2. It's funny that you should mention the O.E.D. because that was precisely the dictionary I had in mind - it does give historical usages (I have the compact edition on my shelf and I delight in following word usages through the ages). True, Don is woefully deficient but that is because he attended a Novus Ordo seminary (yes the seminarians kissed their girlfriends good night on the steps of the seminary - he might regale you with these stories if you get to know him a little) that's why his claims to "seminary education" are sadly deficient - he didn't go through during the so-called (according to him) 1950s heyday system neither did Dan or Cheese - they were part of the new breed of seminatrian pioneering the path of destruction until they "wised-up" and headed to Econe (which was in the initial stages of formation and had a sadly super-deficient formation in the 1970s). I recall Cheese having problems with Ratzinger's "cosmological dimension to the Mass" in the Spirit of the Liturgy - but he would have problems if Ratzinger said "Dominus vobiscum" to him.

      Delete
    3. We've remarked beforehand on the terrible conditions of US seminaries when Big Don and Cheesy were in attendance as well as on the chaotic conditions at Écône in its initial years. We're a little older, and we recall how quickly things changed between the early '60s and the very late '60s when Checkie was in St. Francis. Both men experienced nothing of the old formation, and in the intervening years they've done very little to remedy their deficits.

      What we find strange is that they have so much trouble with Ratzinger's vocabulary, which they should have mastered during those years as a matter of course. In the mid '60s, we were exposed to all the buzz words, naturally, but still we had profs who were able to expound them. Nevertheless, in apologetics they insisted we learn those terms the better to combat those who used them. Tradzilla and the Blunderer apparently didn't get the message that one must learn the enemy's vocabulary in order to defeat him.

      Delete
  17. Tell us, what living bishop today would you recommend that Catholics move to his location, if they could, and put themselves under his spiritual guidance and care?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ordinarily a good priest is all that you require - why the fixation on a bishop - sounds like a cultish mentality to me. Before the Council residency was determined by the Bishop of the Diocese just a location for employment and a family and one's local parish church.

      Delete
    2. As you'll see later today with this week's post, we can't do as you request because no sede has the brief to guide (oversee) and care for a flock as a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church.

      If you're unwilling to go to the SSPX or convert to the Eastern rite, then our best recommendation is to find an independent who is offering valid sacraments. Whether or not the man possesses episcopal consecration is of no import. Just do your research first to make sure you're not getting into a cult.

      Delete
    3. Wow, promoting the SSPX and their doctrinal errors! Give it up. You shouldn't try to make yourself a superior judge when you don't even know the rudiment of moral obligation that says to separate completely from what is against the Faith. And if you don't know the SSPX has doctrinal errors...boy are you ignorant! Not to mention you are supporting a group that is starting already to merge with the Novus Ordo, and has many doubtfully valid priests.

      Delete
    4. There's nothing in our remark about promoting or supporting anything (although some of us at PL are SSPXers). Boy, you need to learn how to read.

      This blog attracts a wide readership from every traditional viewpoint, so we frame our answers as best we can to match their conscience-informed preferences. Besides, not everyone believes the cult masters' lies about the ecclesiology of their competition.

      Delete
  18. I read very well. You are promoting the SSPX over independent by preference. And you spend full-time on perceived quirks and perceived lack of virtue when the SSPX is heretical and have doubtful priests in the veins, and you don't criticize them! Regardless of your conviction, priority should be for what is MORE serious and MORE prevalent, and you should be warning people to stay away from a danger to Faith.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hogwash! You can't discern phrasal nuances.

      We'll stick with criticizing all the Tradistani doubtful priests ordained by "One-Hand Dan." That's "more serious" and "more prevalent." People need to stay away from them more than they need to avoid the SSPX.

      But you can help us out here. What are the specific heresies and doctrinal errors of the SSPX? We hope you're not referring to the una-cum hypothesis dreamed up by men who don't even possess an STL.

      Delete
    2. I'll help you out. Go to a level playing field. Sign-up for traditionalcatholicsclub at groups.yahoo.com and we can discuss these things without any moderation.

      Delete
    3. Well, we see we stumped you. Not even one itty-bitty instance of SSPX's denying a truth proposed by the Church as revealed?

      Apart from the time delay, moderation is no obstacle to a discussion here. We only started it because culties violated the basic norms of civilized communication.

      Delete
  19. I said that I will help you, I didn't say the help would be in my last message. By the way, heresy is the denial, etc., but there are lesser errors against the faith that are mortal sins, and seriously endanger the faith. These we must avoid also. Sorry, but your blog here is so putrid, that if you sincerely want my help, you will go to the forum I suggested.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At 12:37 you assured us you could read. How, then, did you miss our word "denying"?

      Remember you were the one who used the word "heretical" and the phrase "doctrinal errors." Now you're introducing different terms. Are you walking back your accusations now?

      BTW, we'll set you straight. We really didn't want your "help." You're the one in need. Our phrase was a manner of speaking sardonically.

      Delete
  20. Your use of the sardonic was dishonest, since I had no way of knowing you meant the very opposite of what your words meant. Charity requires us to do the yeah, neah, and you violate that all over the place.

    No, I didn't miss the "denying" at all. I can read, and I know that "heretical" can apply to BOTH denial, and lesser things that are dangerous to the faith. Your exclusively looking for just the denial aspect shows you don't know you theology about doctrine, nor moral theology about the necessity of avoiding danger to the Faith, even when they are not denials. Yes, you have just learned something, and it is pretty late you are learning such simple things.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The art of reading requires the intelligent person to be aware of tone. The phrase "help us out here" is commonly used ironically and sardonically and may be used when no help is really being requested.

      What we have learned from you is that you constantly back away from what you previously averred. In your failed attempt to correct, you affirmed heresy was "denial etc." Now you're waffling.

      By way of a little education for you, we cite canon 1325.2, on what constitutes a heretic:

      Post receptum baptismum si quis, nomen retinens christianum, pertinaciter aliquam ex veritatibus fide divina et catholica credendis denegat aut de ea dubitat, haereticus.

      Delete
  21. Interesting that the guy writing this website doesn't seem to want to have a discussion in a venue he doesn't control.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. We don't want to have a discussion with idiots.

      Delete
    2. Rather, interesting that when "The Reader" said that his forum is sufficient for it, I decided to stay and do it here...did you realize that, or you just love to criticize when it is unnecessary?

      Delete
  22. The greatest virtue, Charity, requires us to take people's words at face value. There was NOTHING in you message that indicated you were being sardonic. That is definitively dishonest.

    There is no waffling. I have been consistent in what I have said. Now you are confusing "heretic" with "heretical" and it's not what I said. I solely used the latter, and the latter, historically means just what I wrote in my previous post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In Latin, haereticus means both "heretic" and "heretical." You're making a cognate distinction that doesn't apply in Catholic theology.

      Delete
  23. I have already said that historically, earlier Church documents have been written where heretical meant that which was a denial of proposed doctrine as well as being applied to lesser dangers to the faith. Did you see that I said that? You said nothing to it. Though centuries went by before the Church started to use it in official condemnations only for outright denial. The point being (and you know very well how words have multiple denotations), the Church reads those older documents with the second denotation, and the Church has never forbidden its use from common Catholic parlance. Thus, yes, the SSPX are heretical, and I mean they have doctrinal errors gravely dangerous to the faith.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Is that a serious, sincere question, or a mocking question?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon., is your reply a sincere reply, or a mocking one? (And, oh BTW, we’re all waiting for your answer.)

      Delete
    2. It's a sincere reply. I would like to take it at face value, but since "The Reader" has already shown he likes to play dishonest games with words, my question to him stands, and I am waiting.

      Delete
  25. Hogwash, Anonymous! The Reader did answer your question(s) -- actually, several times. But you just ignored his answers; and, like the greased pig that you are, you slithered off to another corner to take the argument in a different direction (and waste everyone’s time in the process) – a cheap debater’s “parlor trick.” And now, you’ve come full circle to accuse the Reader of what you are guilty of: not responding. Your logic is circular, and your heart is insincere; you are the “poster child” for hypocrisy. It is you sir, who are the game-player.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You seem to be beside yourself for some reason. It's simply a pertinent question for The Reader. I ask whether he/she asked that last question mockingly or not. No answer yet.

      Nevertheless, I did answer his/her question, in a comment to a more recent blog here. And the response was one of knee-jerk denial/dismissal because of ignorance of the SSPX claims.

      Delete