On Papal Dissent, Argumentation Fallacies, Etc.
(Aka "Dogmatic Theology Five Cents, The Doctor Is In" Dept.")

My words will be in regular font.

I'm afraid your understanding of both Protestantism and of Catholic doctrine concerning magisterial authority is but evidence of lack of good catechesis in your upbringing.

You mean I do not engage in trad fantasyland. Actually, it is your profound misunderstanding of Catholic teaching that is the issue.

What makes Protestantism "Protestant" is not mere disagreement with the pope, nor mere disobedience to him or to another bishop, but the theological rationale for doing so.

You have set up a strawman here as what makes Protestantism "Protestant."

Luther, Calvin, Zwinglic, Cramner, Latimer, Ridley, and co. were not merely disagreeing with the popes of their day, they were dissenting from the traditional, common faith of all Christendom

I am sure the Orthodox will love to see you write them out of the common faith of Christendom as you have here.

and inventing new doctrines in the process.

Yes, they invented new doctrines but they also claimed they were restoring the Church from the corruptions of their period (both real and imagined) to a more ideal period in time. Gee, what groups make that claim today?

Papal primacy does not mean that a pope's heretical teaching is subscribed to,

You make the fundamental error of presuming that a pope could teach heresy. The Doctors of the Church were pretty firmly unanimous that what you are claiming could not happen and indeed the First Vatican Council accepted this interpretation. More on this in a moment.

nor does it mean that everything a pope says is always believed to be true,

Again, strawman. If you actually read what I wrote you would know I did not say this.

nor does it mean a pope has to be obeyed in whatever he commands.

Again, strawman. Assent is required in matters of faith and morals. Obedience is required in church discipline and church government. You need not agree with the latter but your agreement or lack thereof is not the basis for whether assent is or is not required. And of course matters of the prudential order allow a wider degree of possible viewpoints.

In just the same way that any legitimate superior -- from one's parents to civil authority, from the local parish priest to the local bishop -- may be criticized and may even be disobeyed when his commands are either intrinsically immoral or will imperil the very life of the community, so with the bishop of Rome.

Actually, your position above is not that of the Catholic Church:

"[T]heir Apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers, and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples: ‘I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren’ [Lk 22:32]. 

This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.”{1} 

Those who claim a pope can teach heresy, be in schism, or apostasize flatly contradict the teaching of the First Vatican Council and are proximate to heresy. This does not of course mean the pope cannot err. However, he cannot err to the extent of heresy, schism, or apostasy if the words of the First Vatican Council have any real meaning to them and are not just pious slogans.

He's no different in this respect. He's not the Catholic religion's version of the Dalai Lama or the Mormon Prophet. He's an ordinary man, like any other, and we have no divine assurance that he will always be orthodox, or that he will always govern or teach rightly.

Actually, we have divine assurance that the pope will always be orthodox in his teaching -see the citation from above. While it is true that popes are not protected from lesser errors as well as defects in prudence; at the same time, prudence is to a certain extent subjective insofar as people of good will can differ on whether something is or is not imprudent.

Accusing us of resisting Pope Francis and his agenda

Your words betray you. Furthermore, they would not meet with the favour of Pope St. Pius X:

"The Pope is the guardian of dogma and of morals; he is the custodian of the principles that make families sound, nations great, souls holy; he is the counsellor of princes and of peoples; he is the head under whom no one feels tyrannized because he represents God Himself; he is the supreme father who unites in himself all that may exist that is loving, tender, divine... 

When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, 'si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit,' [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him. 

Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt... 

This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many...who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls."{2}

And far from a mere opinion, the above is a papal allocution which means it is part of Pope Pius X's papal magisterium to which religious assent is owed.

simply because we do not "like" it is not an argument: It's a conclusory accusation that does not bother to engage the substance of our criticisms. It's intellectually and spiritually lazy.

I have engaged the substance (to the extent there is any) of the criticisms of many of those in trad fantasyland over more than two decades. I have found almost all the arguments pathetic and self-serving as well as doctrinally and morally deficient. The mirrors many of these purveyors have with historical heresies and schisms is quite startling actually for anyone who takes time to study church history. But that is a matter for another time.

The bishop of Rome is not the sole recipient, within the Church, of the grace of the Holy Spirit.

I never said he was.

He is not sole priest, prophet, and king:

See my prior comments. Boy, an army of scarecrows could be made from the straw you are supplying in your reply ;)

All baptized and confirmed Catholics enjoy the assistance of the Holy Spirit in discerning truth from falsehood and His assistance in prophetically resisting obstinately errant persons, both inside and outside the Church.

That is what I have been doing with you and your ilk.

This is not "protestant" in the least: I'm not starting my own rival sect, and I don't claim the authority to juridically depose an errant cleric. I remain firmly within the Church, as do all the other distinguished prelates and theologians who have taken Pope Francis to task for his many errors

Actually, the extent of your communion with the Church is debatable. There is a difference between someone who commits material error and those who are more obstinate in error. And the way you took it upon yourself to impute modernist heresy to a pope and canonized saint, I am not so sure we are dealing with innocent material error here.

Notes:

{1} First Vatican Council: Excerpt from the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus (circa July 18, 1870)

{2} Pope Saint Pius X: Allocution (circa November 18, 1912)

Points to Ponder:

[T]o the liturgical prayer of the Christian Church, it is very evident that standing, not kneeling, is the correct posture for those taking part in it. A glance at the attitude of a priest officiating at Mass or Vespers, or using the Roman Ritual, will be sufficient proof. The clergy in attendance also, and even the laity assisting, are, by the rubrics, assumed to be standing. The Canon of the Mass designates them as "circumstantes". The practice of kneeling during the Consecration was introduced during the Middle Ages, and is in relation with the Elevation which originated in the same period. The rubric directing that while the celebrant and his ministers recite the Psalm "Judica", and make the Confession, those present who are not prelates should kneel, is a mere reminiscence of the fact that these introductory devotions were originally private prayers of preparation, and therefore outside the liturgy properly so called. It must not, in this connexion escape attention that, in proportion as the faithful have ceased to follow the liturgy, replacing its formulae by private devotions, the standing attitude has fallen more and more into disuse among them. In our own time it is quite usual for the congregation at a high Mass to stand for the Gospel and Creed; and, at all other times either to remain seated (when this is permitted) or to kneel. [Catholic Encyclopedia: Article on Kneeling and Genuflection (c. 1913)]

Points to Ponder:

 "Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ Who is speaking. Does he teach? It is Jesus Christ Who teaches. Does he confer grace or pronounce an anathema? It is Jesus Christ Himself Who is pronouncing the anathema and conferring the grace. Hence consequently, when one speaks of the Pope, it is not necessary to examine, but to obey: there must be no limiting the bounds of the command, in order to suit the purpose of the individual whose obedience is demanded: there must be no cavilling at the declared will of the Pope, and so invest it with quite another than that which he has put upon it: no preconceived opinions must be brought to bear upon it: no rights must be set up against the rights of the Holy Father  to teach and command; his decisions are not to be criticized, or his ordinances disputed. Therefore by Divine ordination, all, no matter how august the person may be — whether he wear a crown or be invested with the purple, or be clothed in the sacred vestments: all must be subject to Him Who has had all things put under Him." [Cardinal Giuseppe Sarto (circa 1894)]

Maybe its part of getting older but I find myself thinking more and more about people and places that are gone now, places such as The Last Exit which was a haunt of mine from roughly 1990/1-1995. Considering how society has become in recent years, we need more places like The Last Exit was: places where folks of every viewpoint imaginable could hang out, eat, drink, squabble about stuff, play games like chess/backgammon/go, listen to folks on open mic, etc. A sense of community that seems to be lacking more and more in this increasingly distant and digital age.

Points to Ponder:

"The promises made by God to the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to give them the land of Palestine were realized when the land of Canaan was invaded by Joshua, son of Nun and his successors as leaders of Israel until the time of David and Solomon, that is, from the 12th to the 10th centuries before Jesus Christ. Similarly, the prophecies relative to the return of the Jews to Palestine after the Babylonian exile were realized when they were brought back home by Cyrus, King of Persia, in the 7th century BC. Consequently, these promises and these prophecies are today deprived of any reality, having been realized many centuries ago. It is not necessary to believe that they are valid forever and that they confer on the Jews an eternal right to possess the Promised Land." [Melkite Bishops Synod in Damascus: Note to the Central Commission (circa June 5, 1962)]

Rivera, Halladay, Martinez seem set for Hall election

When Abortion Suddenly Stopped Making Sense

#Facepalm
#Headdesk

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Says She’s Going to ‘Run Train on the Progressive Agenda

Cats Who Have Access to Cardboard Boxes Are Less Stressed Out and Heal Faster Than Cats Who Don’t

Briefly...

Not having a State of the Union (SOTU)delivered in speech form is not the end of the world. For those who do not know, presidents have a variety of ways they have met this constitutional requirement. However, the manner of delivery was not uniform historically.

President Washington delivered his addresses at the old Federal Hall building in NYC from 1790-1796. President Adams followed suit for his addresses which were done in the Senate portion of the building from 1797-1800. President Thomas Jefferson who was a poor public speaker and also shy opted to write his and deliver it to the papers in 1801. That established a precedent for all subsequent presidents from 1802-1912.

President Wilson reintroduced the oral speech delivery in 1913. However, from 1918-1920, he was too ill to give it orally so he submitted it in writing to the press. President Harding returned to oral delivery of the speech in 1921 and 1922 and President Coolidge followed suit in 1923. Starting in 1924 though, Coolidge eschewed the oral delivery and submitted a text to the papers instead: something President Hoover did for all four of his SOTU's from 1929-1932. Then President Roosevelt in 1933 cemented the oral delivery of his addresses in 1933 in the House chamber before a joint session of Congress and all his successors followed suit through to 2018 with the time of said speeches being fixed to late January-early February in 1934.

Hundreds of People Are Saving Feral Felines From Death in NYC By Adopting Them as ‘Worker Cats’

Happy "New York Values Day" Folks!

(Also known as the anniversary of #TedECruzyote being pwned by Donald Trump in front of the whole country and his campaign ship being gashed with an irreparable tear below the proverbial waterline.)

Briefly...

For those wondering about all the huffing and puffing about President Trump's AG appointee's Catholicism and why the Democrats are doing that right now, its a trial balloon for SCOTUS. In a nutshell:

Chief Justice Roberts is Catholic
Justice Thomas is Catholic
Justice Alito is Catholic
Justice Kavanaugh is Catholic
Justice Gorsuch is Episcopalian but was raised Catholic
Amy Coney Barrett the likely next court justice to be appointed by Trump is Catholic

This is why they are field testing that kind of argument now.

Points to Ponder:
(This is a continuation of the series started HERE. Without further ado...)

"...I have been trying for decades to get my fellow Democrats to realize how unchecked bureaucracy, in government or academe, is inherently authoritarian and illiberal. A persistent characteristic of civilizations in decline throughout history has been their self-strangling by slow, swollen, and stupid bureaucracies. The current atrocity of crippling student debt in the US is a direct product of an unholy alliance between college administrations and federal bureaucrats — a scandal that ballooned over two decades with barely a word of protest from our putative academic leftists, lost in their post-structuralist fantasies. Political correctness was not created by administrators, but it is ever-expanding campus bureaucracies that have constructed and currently enforce the oppressively rule-ridden regime of college life.

In the modern world, so wondrously but perilously interconnected, a principle of periodic reduction of bureaucracy should be built into every social organism. Freedom cannot survive otherwise." [Camille Paglia]

Points to Ponder:
(This is a continuation of the series started HERE. Without further ado...)

"...The deep state is no myth but a sodden, intertwined mass of bloated, self-replicating bureaucracy that constitutes the real power in Washington and that stubbornly outlasts every administration. As government programs have incrementally multiplied, so has their regulatory apparatus, with its intrusive byzantine minutiae. Recently tagged as a source of anti-Trump conspiracy among embedded Democrats, the deep state is probably equally populated by Republicans and apolitical functionaries of Bartleby the Scrivener blandness. Its spreading sclerotic mass is wasteful, redundant, and ultimately tyrannical..."

To Be Continued...

Report: Kamala Harris Expected to Enter 2020 Presidential Run Around MLK Day

Washington Post Columnist: The Networks Need To De-Platform Trump

Aristotle call your office!

"...Wasn’t it just a few weeks ago that the media rallied around Jim Acosta to ensure he wouldn’t lose his press access to shout things at the President? Now the same people want to take the public microphone away from the President himself. And they expect us to believe partisanship has nothing to do with it."

When The Shelter Sues To Take Your Pet Away 

I am sure this shelter has gotten all those pets in their care adopted to good forever homes before wasting their time and that of others on this nonsense, right?

#FatChance

Points to Ponder:
(This is a continuation of the series started HERE. Without further ado...)

"...As for Hillary, she’s pretty much damaged goods, but her perpetual, sniping, pity-me tour shows no signs of abating. She still has a rabidly loyal following, but it’s hard to imagine her winning the nomination again, with her iron grip on the Democratic National Committee now gone. Still, it’s in her best interest to keep the speculation fires burning. Given how thoroughly she has already sabotaged the rising candidates by hogging the media spotlight, I suspect she wants Trump to win again. I don’t see our stumbling, hacking, shop-worn Evita yielding the spotlight willingly to any younger gal.

Most Democrats have wildly underestimated Trump from the get-go. I was certainly surprised at how easily he mowed down 17 other candidates in the GOP primaries. He represents widespread popular dissatisfaction with politics as usual. Both major US parties are in turmoil and metamorphosis, as their various factions war and realign. The mainstream media’s nonstop assault on Trump has certainly backfired by cementing his outsider status. He is basically a pragmatic deal-maker, indifferent to ideology. As with Bolsonaro in Brazil, Trump rose because of decades of failure by the political establishment to address urgent systemic problems, including corruption at high levels. Democrats must hammer out their own image and agenda and stop self-destructively insulting half the electorate by treating Trump like Satan..."

To be Continued...

Points to Ponder:

"If the economy continues strong, Trump will be reelected. The Democrats (my party) have been in chaos since the 2016 election and have no coherent message except Trump hatred. Despite the vast pack of potential candidates, no one yet seems to have the edge. I had high hopes for Kamala Harris, but she missed a huge opportunity to play a moderating, statesmanlike role and has already imprinted an image of herself as a ruthless inquisitor that will make it hard for her to pull voters across party lines.

Screechy Elizabeth Warren has never had a snowball’s chance in hell to appeal beyond upper-middle-class professionals of her glossy stripe. Kirsten Gillibrand is a wobbly mediocrity. Cory Booker has all the gravitas of a cork. Andrew Cuomo is a yapping puppy with a long, muddy bullyboy tail. Both Bernie Sanders (for whom I voted in the 2016 primaries) and Joe Biden (who would have won the election had Obama not cut him off at the knees) are way too old and creaky..."

To be Continued...