Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 10:44:41 GMT -5
I am allowed to ask questions on my thread that help me know how to proceed in helping someone better understand my OP. My question wasn't directed to you or posed to the whole world; it was directed to Voxx to help clarify his particular difficulty. That would work if you and Voxx were having a private email discussion. As it is, this forum is on the web and can be read by anyone. Note, there are normally more "guests" on here than members. Who knows who they are, but you need to assume anyone can read this forum post. So while it appears to be a one on one between you and Voxx, imagine you are having it in front of a very large audience.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 10:46:41 GMT -5
I never got a chance to explain the fallacy's relation to the thread because we didn't get past the introductory question to that explanation, which question pertained to how much he knew about it so I would know how much of it I would need to explain. Then assume, if you never got past it, you will never get to it because someone either does not want to discuss it or assumes they do not need to (for whatever reason.) I do not want to derail your thread. I am just making some observations.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 20, 2018 11:28:44 GMT -5
Vinny just discuss the topic. Dont drag complaints or try to fix how the forums run. If you have any complaints or suggestions simply pm me, Pacelli, Clotilde. Its very hard to get banned at TC...but its not impossible.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 16:35:20 GMT -5
I am allowed to ask questions on my thread that help me know how to proceed in helping someone better understand my OP. My question wasn't directed to you or posed to the whole world; it was directed to Voxx to help clarify his particular difficulty. That would work if you and Voxx were having a private email discussion. As it is, this forum is on the web and can be read by anyone. Note, there are normally more "guests" on here than members. Who knows who they are, but you need to assume anyone can read this forum post. So while it appears to be a one on one between you and Voxx, imagine you are having it in front of a very large audience. This really is unreasonable. Even public interviews, discussions, and debates feature individual questions tailored to the participants. "When did you first become a Sedevacantist" would be an invalid question because maybe someone reading doesn't know what that is, doesn't know he is one to begin with, or doesn't know there's a crisis to begin with. This is a discussion forum. Discussions happen between individuals. Questions between those individuals are tailored to the progress of that discussion between those individuals. We don't need to write a book surrounding each question just in case a third party isn't willing to wait for the next question of the participants.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 15:56:04 GMT -5
That would work if you and Voxx were having a private email discussion. As it is, this forum is on the web and can be read by anyone. Note, there are normally more "guests" on here than members. Who knows who they are, but you need to assume anyone can read this forum post. So while it appears to be a one on one between you and Voxx, imagine you are having it in front of a very large audience. This really is unreasonable. Even public interviews, discussions, and debates feature individual questions tailored to the participants. "When did you first become a Sedevacantist" would be an invalid question because maybe someone reading doesn't know what that is, doesn't know he is one to begin with, or doesn't know there's a crisis to begin with. This is a discussion forum. Discussions happen between individuals. Questions between those individuals are tailored to the progress of that discussion between those individuals. We don't need to write a book surrounding each question just in case a third party isn't willing to wait for the next question of the participants. I had no issues with your op, and I thought the argument was very well laid out. I am enjoying the conversation and will listen to the interview if/when it’s made available. I was only making an observation about the No True Scotman fallacy question, because it threw me for a loop and I couldn’t follow why it was asked. All I suggested was a more thorough reason for why it was posed when it was. Maybe Voxx completely understood it? I hope you two will continue the thread (when time permits.)
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 21, 2018 16:11:07 GMT -5
Im working on processing the audio discussion. My biggest problem is finding a host whereby folks can listen. I cant afford to pay and most sites want money to host large files. I may use youtube and just put a single image to upload the audio.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 20:31:31 GMT -5
This really is unreasonable. Even public interviews, discussions, and debates feature individual questions tailored to the participants. "When did you first become a Sedevacantist" would be an invalid question because maybe someone reading doesn't know what that is, doesn't know he is one to begin with, or doesn't know there's a crisis to begin with. This is a discussion forum. Discussions happen between individuals. Questions between those individuals are tailored to the progress of that discussion between those individuals. We don't need to write a book surrounding each question just in case a third party isn't willing to wait for the next question of the participants. I had no issues with your op, and I thought the argument was very well laid out. I am enjoying the conversation and will listen to the interview if/when it’s made available. I was only making an observation about the No True Scotman fallacy question, because it threw me for a loop and I couldn’t follow why it was asked. All I suggested was a more thorough reason for why it was posed when it was. Maybe Voxx completely understood it? I hope you two will continue the thread (when time permits.) All of my attempts to explain the paradox had failed, so I decided to try a new method that approaches it from that logic fallacy. But but because it would have been a waste of time to spend an hour explaining it if he already knew what it was, and since I didn't have time at the present to devote to explaining the fallacy and providing examples, let alone how this is an example of it, I asked if he knew what it was first to save myself some time. But like what usually happens on forums you end up spending the same amount of time explaining to someone else why you said what you said. I don't think this is appropriate. It makes forum conversation much more stressful than necessary. I like to assume there is a good reason people do what they do, unless they give me no alternative.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 21, 2018 21:01:51 GMT -5
Heres the discussion audio between myself and INPeFESS
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2018 22:13:31 GMT -5
Heres the discussion audio between myself and INPeFESS I get video unavailable even if I put it directly into you tube. I’ll try again later.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 22, 2018 5:54:02 GMT -5
Sorry your right...I had the viewing settings wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2018 18:10:52 GMT -5
I enjoyed the conversation. I have some notes and some questions, mainly just for points of clarity.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 22, 2018 19:22:53 GMT -5
I enjoyed the conversation. I have some notes and some questions, mainly just for points of clarity. well whatre you waiting for?
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2018 21:56:07 GMT -5
I enjoyed the conversation. I have some notes and some questions, mainly just for points of clarity. well whatre you waiting for? To start, again I enjoyed the conversation. It made this thread much simpler. Normally a reader wouldn't get treated to actually hearing the audible of the one advocating the point, so it clarified a lot (for me at least.) Ok, just some thoughts: Around 2:39 Fess argued there was a compromised authority, who can't actually tell us who the pope is. Around 5:24, Voxx argued the hierarchical nature of the church has dissolved. I've drawn no small amount of enemies for trying to figure out exactly what to call this "compromised authority" and "dissolved hierarchy," but I found the rest of the conversation helpful and fruitful to some issues I've been trying to resolve or consider. Between 7:11-9:15, Fess made an interesting point in that one was obliged to withhold or withdraw from communion with such a person as Francis in the absence of a final decision as to whether one is the pope or not for the sake of one's own soul or based on certain Catholic principles. However, I think it was a questionable rebuttal from Voxx that seemed to suggest an actual judgment of whether one was the pope or not. I know it is like splitting hairs here, but I think it is one thing to think one's understanding of a Catholic principle requires a withdrawal of communion from the one we question based on the understand of Catholic teaching, while leaving a judgment on their authority intact. I think it is another thing to say, "I just can't accept this person as pope" please forgive me. Here Fess' opinion seems to leave the authority in tact, without a final judgment. Voxx seemed to suggest a refusal to accept the questionable one being in authority at all. I listened to this section several times. I would not have drawn this distinction if the debate today was only over Francis. I draw this distinction because sedes say there has been no pope, despite elections, since 1958. In the totality then, the sede position refuses to acknowledge anyone in the position for 60 years and it goes beyond a mere refusal of withholding communion from Francis. There were too many interruptions every time it seemed we were going to hear a careful explanation of what the paradox was. I have it written down several times, several ways because of how the conversation developed. Before that, there apparently are 3 ways in which one can come to the sede position: A. The best way B. The proper way C. The dangerous way; i.e. to argue against a text from the N.O. magisterium and work back and argue against the one who gave it to you. Therefore, the paradox is also the dangerous way of coming to the sede position. Here is how I understand the paradox from what I heard: If the teaching comes from a true authority it is safe. The paradox breaks the rule to redefine the standard and uses (private judgment) to question the authority and using the rule against itself. Basically, the paradox judges the pope who was the one claimed to be the authority. Here is how the paradox does this. John Q. Catholic discovers a perceived error through private judgment (religious liberty) that what was allegedly promulgated was not safe and was promulgated by the one he actually perceived to be the authority (Paul VI) prior to his discovery of it. He then judges that because the document was not safe it was not given by a true pope and thus he is not pope. The question is, "what is the point of the rule if it can be violated and one can use private judgment to judge the infallible teaching magisterium, i.e. the Pope?" Basically, you have a rule that tells you what you can do, but if one doesn't like the outcome received from the rule, they redefine it (use it against itself) to come to a different conclusion. Around 38:55, Fess argued people plug facts into the rule and if they get a result that didn't equal what it should equal, they change the rule. Around 41:45 it appeared a little clearer. Fess argued the rule is that it is always safe. What one can't do is apply the rule to traditional teaching to declare they are safe and apply the same rule to N.O. teaching and when a different result is received, they question the rule. If this is what they do, they're selectively applying the rule and one can't do that. If I don't have the paradox down, please feel free to correct it. Voxx tried to ask a question around 47:50, that either wasn't understood or wasn't clear for the discussion. I think I understand what you were trying to ask, but I will save my thoughts on that for now for another post.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Feb 22, 2018 22:44:17 GMT -5
Thank you Vinny...nice questions and observations. 2 things...I never said or implied the hierarchal NATURE of the Church dissolved...such a thing is impossible. In a practical sense MOST of the hierarchy dissolved themselves by placing themselves OUTSIDE the Church...tha NATURE or essence of the Church has not nor can it Change. 2nd thing...many times I was playing "devils advocate" so some things Ive said are not my view...but the view I imagined a victim of the paradoxical thinking would have. Ive always been passionate about getting to all sides of the debate.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2018 6:32:16 GMT -5
Thank you Vinny...nice questions and observations. 2 things...I never said or implied the hierarchal NATURE of the Church dissolved...such a thing is impossible. In a practical sense MOST of the hierarchy dissolved themselves by placing themselves OUTSIDE the Church...tha NATURE or essence of the Church has not nor can it Change. 2nd thing...many times I was playing "devils advocate" so some things Ive said are not my view...but the view I imagined a victim of the paradoxical thinking would have. Ive always been passionate about getting to all sides of the debate. Ok, just to be clear then, as I have no issue for you to clear it up here. At 5:08 you stated "they forget they are laity," which I assume meant sedevacantists/traditionalists? At 5:10-5:21, in essence you stated, "what has been lost in all these years is the hierarchical nature of our church has dissolved." However, you went on to say the sedes and trads have embraced the egalitarian attitude, i.e it is the people's church. So just to clarify 2 points: 1. You are saying the arguments of some sedevacantists is that the hierarchy is all gone as well as the seat being vacant, i.e. the hierarchy is gone? 2. It is not your position the hierarchy is gone, only that the seat is vacant? Above when you say the Nature of the hierarchy is still intact, then you say despite who is there the structure still remains? I just want to make sure I understand that when you are saying these things cannot dissolve, you mean the chair and the structure around it (i.e. the magisterium or the curia) still remain, even if there is no pope in the chair or a magisterium/curia we can trust or turn to who fill the hierarchy? I think I have a clear idea of what you are saying. However, I will reiterate, I have drawn no small amount of enemies for trying to figure out what to call, "most of the hierarchy dissolving themselves and placing themselves outside the church." I think it was clear in the call when you played devil's advocate. You normally usually clarified it when you were doing it.
|
|