Author Topic: Syllabus of Errors... for Traditionalists by Dave Armstrong  (Read 3683 times)

SPB

  • Guest
Syllabus of Errors for Traditionalists - 60 errors! I must say, there are some things here, many things, I do agree with. Others seem to be laughable and outright fallacies. Others again I am on the fence about, and others I agree with one sentence and the next I disagree. Overall, this man has done a huge amount of work - not only in this whole document but also in other areas. I will post the page he has dedicated to trads. He basically has around 40 essays dedicated to the traditionalists.

One thing I do find... odd, I guess, is that he constantly berates traditionalists for using "rhetoric" by calling themselves traditionalists... and then he goes on to constantly point out that he is a positively "orthodox" Catholic. Oh, and prepare yourself for a few straw-men and red-herrings along the way; the most prominent being the accusation that no traditionalists have ever pointed out any examples of the difficulties they have trouble with, and only moan about things [though, I take this to be half true, as I also tend to agree that most trads that aren't scholars/clergy moan a lot].

I found this interesting, and it has given me a lot to think about. Overall, I found myself to be more and more sure that I personally must disengage with these arguments. Some are called to the fight, as it were. I believe such people are the clergy and lay theologians. Not me. I found this and I thanked God after reading it. I am not at all qualified enough, or in any position, to start talking about most of these things. Which is not to say I don't hold some of the same positions that I have always held.

Anyway, here are the articles for your perusal.

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/09/syllabus-of-60-traditionalist-errors.html

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/traditionalists-catholic-quasi.html

CollegeCatholic

  • Banned for snarking meanness, disrespect toward the Holy Father, twisting what others say in order to mock them, etc.
  • Member
  • Posts: 8,996
  • Gender: Male
  • Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Re: Syllabus of Errors... for Traditionalists by Dave Armstrong
« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2012, 03:36:PM »
Absolutely useless and a waste of my time.

Piss off Dave Armstrong, and, by the way, this:
Quote
47. That Archbishop Lefebvre "made a noble act of conscience" when he disobeyed papal orders.

More hero-worship, and compromise with schism. How is this distinguishable from the alleged compromise of us so-called "conservatives" with the modernists to our left? We supposedly ally ourselves with modernist heretics (which is untrue), and that (fictional scenario) is abominable in "traditionalist" eyes, yet at the same time they kow-tow, idealize, and practically idolize the formal schismatic Abp. Lefebvre? More hypocrisy; more tunnel-vision; more self-contradiction and equivocation, according to the self-satisfying needs of the moment.

Is.  Not.  Schism. 

No, instead, let's just all pray alongside heretics like St. Pope John Paul the Great the Beloved and the Bestest Ever did.

SPB

  • Guest
Re: Syllabus of Errors... for Traditionalists by Dave Armstrong
« Reply #2 on: January 15, 2012, 04:17:PM »
Absolutely useless and a waste of my time.

I apologize for wasting your time. I only post what I myself find interesting, I can't cover everybody else unfortunately. I also post what I hope will help people become better Catholics in some way or another. This has helped me. I am sorry it didn't do the same for you!

Quote
No, instead, let's just all pray alongside heretics like St. Pope John Paul the Great the Beloved and the Bestest Ever did.

I know that he's got a soft spot for Blessed JP II, and this is evident in his writing, but look past your clear dislike for Bl. JPII and his supporters and pay attention to what he says. To brush him off because he liked Bl. JP II is just as fallacious as some of the arguments he gives. He brushes you off for hero worship of Archbishop Lefebvre.. and you brush him off for hero worship of Bl. JPII! Stalemate. In any case, what I take from that paragraph I have always held to be true: that among trads there is a cult of personality, and hero worship of Archbishop Lefebvre. This is only my observation, but I see it a lot, and it mirrors a lot of what trads accuse neocons of doing.

If the things he says do nothing for you, give you nothing to ponder over, that is perfectly fine. God bless you on your way :)

CrusaderKing

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,699
  • Gender: Male
Re: Syllabus of Errors... for Traditionalists by Dave Armstrong
« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2012, 04:42:PM »
Armstrong bashed this site a few years ago, and he usually gives the same old worn out, tired canards that the neo Caths are noted for. I wish I'd have saved on my Notepad  the exchange between him and Ryan Grant, who used to blog under the name of athanasiuscontramundum, as Grant schooled him big time, albeit politely.

CollegeCatholic

  • Banned for snarking meanness, disrespect toward the Holy Father, twisting what others say in order to mock them, etc.
  • Member
  • Posts: 8,996
  • Gender: Male
  • Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Re: Syllabus of Errors... for Traditionalists by Dave Armstrong
« Reply #4 on: January 15, 2012, 04:51:PM »
I don't worship ABL.  I've only recently begun attending an sspx chapel. 

Lol


Tim

  • Tim
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 14,934
  • Gender: Male
Re: Syllabus of Errors... for Traditionalists by Dave Armstrong
« Reply #5 on: January 15, 2012, 05:22:PM »
I miss Ryan's stuff. I used to get missing Monastic Office stuff from him for Laszlo.

tim

Jesusbrea

  • Member
  • Posts: 423
  • Gender: Male
Re: Syllabus of Errors... for Traditionalists by Dave Armstrong
« Reply #6 on: January 15, 2012, 05:49:PM »
I don't worship ABL.  I've only recently begun attending an sspx chapel. 

Lol

While I do admire ABL's zeal, I don't necessarily agree he was prudential in some of his decisions. But then again, if it weren't for Archbishop Lefebvre, Traditional Catholicism would probably had gone to waste; he was God's instrument at that point in time, and I do believe he's in Heaven, but my admiration hardly constitutes hero-worship.

Silouan

  • Member
  • Posts: 542
  • Gender: Male
Re: Syllabus of Errors... for Traditionalists by Dave Armstrong
« Reply #7 on: January 15, 2012, 06:05:PM »
Quote
7. That Vatican II changed defined doctrines.


As an outside observer this has been a fascinating question for me. It seems to me plain as day that the modern Catholic Church holds different beliefs on a number of subjects compared to the Church in history. I've encountered it many times in discussions with Catholics around the internet.

The only evidence I have for Catholic teachings are the various documents the Church has produced, conciliar decisions, papal bulls etc. I couldn't tell you how many times I've quoted documents on questions such as salvation outside the Church and Original Sin only to be told they don't mean what I think they mean. Imagine my surprise when I come here and you all tell me they do mean exactly what they say! There is obviously a disconnect somewhere.


We will not remove the age-old landmarks which our fathers have set, but we shall keep the tradition we have received. For if we begin to erode the foundations of  the Church even a little, in no time at all the whole edifice will fall to the ground.

St John of Damascus

Micawber

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
Re: Syllabus of Errors... for Traditionalists by Dave Armstrong
« Reply #8 on: January 15, 2012, 06:15:PM »

Not sure how you could be even remotely familiar with the work of Rev. Anthony Cekada and not see Vat II as a decisive and purposeful (and long in coming) change at the doctrinal level. 

TrentCath

  • Banned for name-calling, rudeness, and general smartassery
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,553
  • Gender: Male
    • Traditional Vocations info
Re: Syllabus of Errors... for Traditionalists by Dave Armstrong
« Reply #9 on: January 15, 2012, 07:48:PM »
Syllabus of Errors for Traditionalists - 60 errors! I must say, there are some things here, many things, I do agree with. Others seem to be laughable and outright fallacies. Others again I am on the fence about, and others I agree with one sentence and the next I disagree. Overall, this man has done a huge amount of work - not only in this whole document but also in other areas. I will post the page he has dedicated to trads. He basically has around 40 essays dedicated to the traditionalists.

One thing I do find... odd, I guess, is that he constantly berates traditionalists for using "rhetoric" by calling themselves traditionalists... and then he goes on to constantly point out that he is a positively "orthodox" Catholic. Oh, and prepare yourself for a few straw-men and red-herrings along the way; the most prominent being the accusation that no traditionalists have ever pointed out any examples of the difficulties they have trouble with, and only moan about things [though, I take this to be half true, as I also tend to agree that most trads that aren't scholars/clergy moan a lot].

I found this interesting, and it has given me a lot to think about. Overall, I found myself to be more and more sure that I personally must disengage with these arguments. Some are called to the fight, as it were. I believe such people are the clergy and lay theologians. Not me. I found this and I thanked God after reading it. I am not at all qualified enough, or in any position, to start talking about most of these things. Which is not to say I don't hold some of the same positions that I have always held.

Anyway, here are the articles for your perusal.

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/09/syllabus-of-60-traditionalist-errors.html

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/traditionalists-catholic-quasi.html


What a load of rubbish, particularly laughable is his attempt at quoting Ludwig Ott to prove Vatican 2 was infallible. It goes without saying that the idea of a deliberately non infallible council did not even enter into the mind of Ludwig Ott as such an idea was unheard of but unlike Ludwig Ott we have the benefit of hindsight vis a vis the testimonies of several popes and cardinals who state the council was not infallible. Ludwig Ott's statement is no more evidence that Vatican 2 is infallible than the statement 'The Pope is Gods representative on earth' means that everything a pope does and says is God's will.

No 48 is equally bad
Quote
'48. That the propriety and permissibility of Archbishop Lefebvre's actions has been vindicated by canon lawyers.

There is always an appeal to canon lawyers, isn't there? But this is the whole point. They will contradict each other. The authority of the Church resides in the Magisterium of Pope, Councils, and Bishops. "Traditionalists" disagree on this point. Like the false witnesses against Jesus (Mark 14:55-59), they are divided amongst themselves, and contradict each other - a sure sign of error (and the mark of sectarianism and schism). But in another sense, the same schismatic spirit dominates and rules all of the species of "traditionalism" and creates many affinities and similarities. They are united in their disdain for the Church, after all; the actual Church, warts (and tares) and all (but who in their right mind would ever naively expect it to be perfect on earth?). '


Instead of actually dealing with the argument he just says 'Canon Lawyers disagree' and pray tell, what does that prove?

No 49 is just plain rubbish
Quote
'49. That conscience has supreme authority over the magisterium of the Church and the infallible papacy.

More Lutheranism. The Catholic, Newmanian view of a properly informed conscience, on the other hand, is that it must be formulated and grounded within the mind and guidance of the Church, and can never be opposed to it, which of course "traditionalist" dissent and disobedience violates right and left, having adopted the Protestant principle of authority (private judgment) and also the modernist principle (arbitrary selectivity). See my paper, Conscience: the Catholic Church's (and Newman's) View. "Traditionalists" wrongly disobey the Church (falsely believing that it is in error, when it is not), and accept the faith-destroying notion of defectibility. This is an utter perversion of the Catholic notion of conscience. 


Ummm who says this?  ???  Certainly not any traditionalist I know, on the other hand liberals...

Quote
'34. That modern ecumenism cannot be squared with organic development of doctrine as taught by Cardinal Newman.

Why don't "traditionalists" prove this, then, with some real facts and argumentation, for a change (consider that a challenge), if it is so elementary? I am assuming that "traditionalists" equate "modern ecumenism" with "Vatican II ecumenism." Writings of mine about Newman have been published in three Catholic periodicals (including The Latin Mass magazine). I have undoubtedly the largest Newman website on the Internet, and probably the most extensive collection of articles and links concerning development. I have some 45 books by or about him in my library. Reading his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine was a key factor in my conversion. I always love debating anything having to do with Cardinal Newman - especially regarding development. 

Which is exactly what several traditionalists have done, on the down side for him it seems he won't be able to plead invincible ignorance what with his expert knowledge on Bl Cardinal Newman and all...

Quote
'36. That "conservative Catholics" fail to look for the root causes of the present crisis, and delude themselves in thinking that a revival is in the germinating stage.

The heretical tendency has always been with us. I contend that it has never subverted or perverted any Catholic doctrine, because God wouldn't allow that to happen. "Traditionalists" disagree. Then they should take up their argument with God Himself, and Holy Scripture. There are a host of causes for the present crisis in the Church, going back to Protestantism (even elements of the Renaissance and the earlier nominalism), the Enlightenment, materialistic evolutionism, the utopian ideal of Progress, massive secularization, Marxism, philosophical relativism, political and theological liberalism, the Sexual and Feminist and Unisex Revolutions, idolatrous wealth and all the myriad temptations of modern American life, the disintegration of the family, the incessant propaganda and brainwashing of TV and movies and advertising, lack of education and catechesis, etc.

All these cultural and intellectual fads and fashions infiltrate Catholics as individuals, but they cannot penetrate the fortress of Catholic dogma or ecclesiological structure. If such were possible, it is obvious to me that certainly we would have had by now (at the very least) permitted contraception and abortion and divorce, female priests, married priests in the Latin Rites, openly homosexual priests (as with the Anglicans), a denial of the dogma of Transubstantiation, process theology, liberation theology, a demotion of the papacy, etc.

"Traditionalists" contend with a straight face that the Church has collapsed, apparently mainly because of the New Mass, ecumenism, and religious liberty. If they want to see a real collapse, they should go look at the various liberalized Protestant denominations, such as the Episcopalians, United Church of Christ, or most Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians (even some Baptists - look at Bill Clinton and Al Gore) these days. Even the Orthodox (who pride themselves on their strict traditionalism and immunity from modernism) accept contraception and divorce! One can't fail to note the striking contrast. All these groups have institutionalized theological errors and various forms of immorality, and now call evil good, and heresy, orthodoxy.

We, on the other hand, have not done so. We have resisted, with God's supernatural help. The most recent battle for the Church is already over. Have "traditionalists" missed it? The liberal/modernist/"progressive" buffoons have lost, and they know it full well. If only "traditionalists" could realize this fact. We are like Europe after World War II. It would take a while to rebuild, but it was inevitable, and the nightmare was over.

In 1990, I was amazed at the preservation - in the Catholic Church alone - of the traditional morality which I had increasingly come to espouse as an evangelical Protestant missionary and pro-life activist. I viewed it as the very last bastion against modernism and the secular humanist onslaught, and the glorious fullness of apostolic Christianity. I was, therefore, compelled to join such a wonderful Church, the Church, and was delighted to discover that it actually existed (I had had the usual invisible church conception of evangelicalism, but I was far less ahistorical than most). And now "traditionalists" come around and tell me that all this was an illusion. Poppycock! The beliefs have not changed! We call this development. Obviously, we are operating from two completely polarized views of reality, when it comes to the Church. Someone must be wrong here.


So about those priests and lay people persecuted for taking a pro-life stance... by the bishops. Or those clown masses, priests with dogs, priests in lay clothing, the pedophilia scandal, Assisi 1-3, the collapse of the religious orders, the irreverence for the mass and the eucharist, The atrocious sermons, The blurring of the line between the priesthood and the lay people (Which St Joseph Cafasso wisely said would be devastating to the Church and the priesthood), what pray tell me does he make of all these things?... Oh thats right he doesn't even address them  :eyeroll: Perhaps he'd like to pretend they dont exist, well so would we, but they do exist  >:(

« Last Edit: January 15, 2012, 08:01:PM by TrentCath »