Dealing with Argumentative Attacks - Sub-title: Answering A Sedevacantist's Objections - Part 1

+

JMJ

Guidelines for Engaging in Discussions

I'm aware of a few guidelines in arguing with a person.

First, at all costs maintain your calm and keep yourself in peace. No matter what verbal or written attacks may be launched against your person or ideas.

Second, if the person is not arguing rationally, then you should 'break contact' because in their irrational state any logical arguments that you may put forward will only cause the person to hold to their irrational beliefs with greater tenacity.

Second, what out for challenges in which there are a number of undeclared assumptions.  If these are not made explicit there is a risk of answering the question but not the assumption.

In face-to-face confrontations, it necessary to move from the 'artifacts' to the 'beliefs' and 'assumptions' in order to determine what motivated the attack or challenge.

In other words a simple and effective response is the ask why the person they attacked your more made the confrontational statement?

In this manner, you can shift from the multitude of challenges that can be brought forward and move to the real issues and beliefs that they are defending when they attack / challenge you.

When confronted with a written attack/challenge, the task is a little easier, as long as you pause to reflect upon the statement made.

In this case, I suggest simply setting aside the statement (email or whatever) for a later review when you can be more objective.

Once you're ready, take the offending statement and pick it apart - piece by piece - examining it first and foremost for undeclared assumptions.

Example Challenge Statement

For example, I was recently presented with the following challenge:

Quote from: tradical on August 27, 2014, 01:07:38 PM

Last point, we must accept the teachings of the Church as the Church understands them.  

So how does the Church understand the teachings of Vatican II on ecumenism?  I assume that She understands them as Karol Wojtyla, ostensibly the supreme interpretive authority, understood them.  And he considered Assisi to be, as it were, the incarnation of Vatican II.  The Church has ostensibly confirmed that this is the case by canonizing Wojtyla.  It follows, then, that one must understand ecumenism as Wojtyla understood and practiced it.

But Pius XI did not understand ecumenism as Wojtyla understood it.  It follows that Pius XI did not understand the teaching of the Church as the Church understands it.  Now, he was so emphatic on the issue that we can hardly suppose good will (see Mortalium animos, throughout-- it's not a long document).  It follows, then, that he and his predecessors (who apparently agreed with him) were in mortal sin against the faith.  In fact, maybe they weren't even Catholic.  After all, Wojtyla said that the Church must practice ecumenism as a policy that can neither be reversed nor ignored.  But if Pius XI-- and all his predecessors-- ignored it, and worse, fought against it, it seems like they were fighting against what the Church now teaches.  It follows that they weren't Catholics.  It follows from that that they weren't popes.

Oops.

You do see the problem, right?  Can you actually resolve it, or are you going to claim that accepting the 'dogmatic fact' that Francis is pope somehow resolves it, without in any way explaining how?  I really don't see how you expect to convince anyone this way.

Look at St. Thomas' articles.  Yes, he gives an answer, but he doesn't just give an answer.  He explains it, and refutes the objections, and explains the refutations.  As an apologist, that's what you need to do, if you mean to convince anyone.

Would that I had the time and expertise to answer your own objections to sedevacantism-- although I don't see how it follows that Bergoglio must still be pope just because the bishops continue to recognize him as such, since that seems to be what you're arguing.  But please, please, please, ignore this last paragraph and answer the rest of my post, if you answer at all.

When I first read this challenge, it set off a bunch of cultural alarm bells, but I didn't know why.

This is not a bad thing.

Our brains have enormous processing capability, only a fraction of which is conscious.  The sub-conscious section is in a section of the brain that is isolated from language, so it communicates through emotions. In other words the next time something/one gives you a bad gut feeling, it is your subconscious alerting you that something has triggered a reaction. (here are more brain facts)

It is important to try to determine if this 'gut feel' was legitimate and the root cause.

So for once I followed my own advice and set the challenge aside for a couple of days. Then it popped out at me that the author had embedded a few undeclared assumptions.

Here's a map of the challenge statement:

Now that it is mapped out, it should be a matter of examining each statement and teasing out the assumptions.

The operative word is 'should' because the 'assumptions' are contained within the mind of the challenger. So at best the assumptions that I identify may be valid in the context of proving or disproving the argument contained within the challenge, but there is no guarantee that the challenger considered these elements.

They may be been at the level of 'cultural assumptions' that are embedded within his or her perceptual window.

Problem Analysis Point By Point

1. Assumed that PSJP2 exercised his supreme interpretive authority in utterances on post-conciliar Ecumenism. The author appears to believe that the utterances in some manner incurred the protection of Infallibility of the Church. 
2. This is a correct statement of fact. PSJP2 did see Assisi 1 as the fulfillment of V2.
3. Assumed that the canonization of PSJP2 is an infallible approval of every action that PSJP2 performed.  This is contradicted by two points of fact. 
1. First that the Vatican made clear that the canonization is about his personal virtue, not about PSJP2's pontificate.
2. Second, that the only part that is covered by the Infallibility of the Church, is that PSJP2 is enjoying the Beatific Vision. The other aspects are peripheral to the canonization (public veneration etc).  
4.  The conclusion rests upon #1 and #3 as being at the level of  De Fide Teachings of the Church.  They are not so the conclusion is unfounded.
5. The author is highlighting the rupture between PSJP2 and his predecessors, most notably Pius XI.  As noted earlier the PSJP2 did not attempt to invoke the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church.
6. The author has inverted his actual argument (see below). This also highlights another issue as to when is the Church "Teaching" Doctine as opposed to simply setting a policy.
7. Here the author has assumed that the Teaching of PSJP2 was at the level of Infallible Magisterium.  
8. The culminates the inverted argument.

Unraveling the Knot

My assumption is that I have correctly guessed at the assumptions made by the author.

Setting his arguments into a time aligned and non-inverted fashion we have the following argument:

1. Pre-conciliar Popes were consistent in affirming various doctrines of the Church that culminated in the encyclical of Pope Pius XI - Mortalium Animos
1. Actually, there are more points in V2 that are consistent with pre-conciliar magisterium. Such as Outside the Church There Is No Salvation.
2. This Teaching reached the point of Ordinary and Universal Magisterium
1. Not necessarily, Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is usually referring to a specific teaching that has been proposed to be held by the Faithful over a long period of time.
3. PSJP2 contradicted this Teaching in his pontificate, most notably with the Assisi meetings (1 &2)
1. Some elements yes, others not.  Generalizations do not a condemnation make. 
4. PB16 contradicted this Teaching in his pontificate, most notably with the Assisi 3 meeting
1. See 3.1
5. PF has performed similar actions.
1. See 3.1
6. These acts constituted sins against the Faith (de fide) resulting in loss of office
1. There are only a certain number of de fide teachings of the Church.  It is necessary to be specific about what is being contradicted.
7. Further PF by canonizing PSJP2, means that the Church must accept every action that PSJP2 performed as exemplary and worthy of imitation.
1. That is obviously false as the only component that is covered in 'full' infallibility of the Church is that PSJP2 is enjoying the beatific vision. 
2. The discipline of the Church does not mean that its discipline is perfect. It is protected from being explicitly bad.  So ambiguous disciplinary law can be implemented (enter the Novus Ordo Missae). 
8. This would breach two elements of pre-conciliar doctrine
1. Canonizations are infallible 
1. See 7.1
2. The Church in her discipline is infallible and cannot implement laws that would be detrimental to the Faith etc.
1. See 7.2

To sum up, in itself, Mortalium Animos is not a de fide teaching of the Church that results in the first degree of heresy by contradicting it - even explicitly.  It would be erroneous etc, but a person does not automatically lose the faith because of it.

So the actions of Pope St. John Paul II contradicted them does not result in the loss of the Papacy. 

What it does do is demonstrate a rupture between the pre and post conciliar teaching. 

That is all.

Answer to Last Point

 although I don't see how it follows that Bergoglio must still be pope just because the bishops continue to recognize him as such, since that seems to be what you're arguing.  But please, please, please, ignore this last paragraph and answer the rest of my post, if you answer at all.

The author has misunderstood the doctrine.

At the moment that he was elected and accepted by the Bishops of the Church the infallible dogmatic fact was established the he was Pope at that moment.  This recognition does not 'maintain' him in the Papacy as it does not confer impeccability.

So, assuming that the author accepts the doctrine of the dogmatic facts as described here, then Pope Francis was Pope at his election.  

In order to start to prove that Pope Francis or of his predecessors have lost their offices, it is necessary to prove that the lapsed into heresy thereafter by denying a de fide teaching of the Church.  

Beyond that, then the author would need to provide evidence that a council of the Church either declared the Pope's heretics and the See of Peter vacant, or that the Pope separated themselves from the Church juridically.

P^3

Abbreviations

PSJP2:Pope St. John Paul II

PB16: Pope Benedict XVI

PF: Pope Francis