On Old, Tired, and Often Refuted Trad Nonsense:
My words will be in regular font. Without further ado...
A tremendous TV segment on Vatican II...its not just the Mass...this is in Spanish with English subtitles and it absolutely worth the time to listen to. I found that the English subtitles sufficiently and accurately translate the words spoken.
If by "tremendous" you mean essentially the same boring trad iterations that have been addressed and rebutted not a few times except this time they are in Spanish with English subtitles, then yeah its "tremendous." 🙄
Shawn McElhinney someone responded and that means it was adequately addressed got it...dominus Jesus was literally written to address deficiencies in the conciliar texts lol
--------
MTK,
someone responded and that means it was adequately addressed got it
I could rebut with "trads whining about yet something else and that means their whining has merit...got it" but I will refrain from such things 😉
As for the Dominus Iesus retort, you act as if the Church has never had to clarify misunderstandings of Magisterial texts before. If you actually think that, I have (with apologies to George Strait) some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you and if you buy that, I will throw the Golden Gate in free 🙂
--------
Someone didn’t listen to the interview and is critical of a strawman of his own creation.
So, my doctoral work was in patristics and maybe they didn’t teach this in Rome or maybe there’s a medieval example of which I’m ignorant: when were things going so well on the exterior, with no grave magisterial misunderstandings but after a “pastoral” (John xxiii and Paul vi used the term. Not new with me) council, both mass confusion, mass exodus and - for good measure - a new mass show up ...just in case the aggiornamento wasn’t yet thorough enough?
I know. That’s a tall order. What’s the closest historical example you can think of - since you seem to be mocking Michael’s supposed ignorance of past examples. You know, ceteris paribus and all that.
I’d double your offer ;)
JA,
I saw the video and I stand by what I said: it is mostly an unoriginal rehash of the same trad drivel that has been making the rounds for eons. And no matter how often this stuff is rebutted in detail, the Usual Suspects just post it anew ad infinitum and act as if it is some profound new revelation. That tactic might fool folks with little to no familiarity with the Trad Shuffle but not those who have been around the block more times than we can count.
Also, for someone accusing me of "a strawman creation", your comment contains some not insignificant argumentation fallacies. I will note them briefly now in sequential order.
First, you begin by playing the credentials fallacy as if somehow your lack of a substantive rebuttal can be compensated for by references to supposed doctoral studies. At least if you had not shared that information (presuming it is accurate for a moment), one could charitably conclude that you simply did not know, and thus no harm no foul as everyone makes mistakes. But instead, by tut tutting about higher education studies at the outset of your reply, you open yourself up to tougher scrutiny. You can apply all the doctoral lipstick you want but it will not rescue a poor argument. If anything, it makes the bad argument look worse because one has to wonder how someone so presumably lettered could botch things so badly 🤣 But enough on that point.
Second, you utilized the standard (and ignorant) trad "pastoral council" shtick which involves an either/or fallacy so elementary that it calls into question the quality of your supposed doctoral studies. (Basically I could reiterate verbatim the paragraph from the first point here.) Seriously, this is like going to court with a lawyer who does not know what discovery is or how to voire dire a witness 🙄
Third, you utilized the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc (contrary to your protestations otherwise elsewhere) with the claims of mass confusion and mass exodus being because of Vatican II and the revised Roman Missal. This one is a bit more complicated so I will address each point separately.
To start with the former, historically there is almost always some unsettling (call it confusion if you like) after general councils that lasts for some time. (I did the math once and 40-60 years is hardly irregular, sometimes longer.) It is the rule. For every Vatican I that went off almost without incident (emphasis on almost), there were at least five to six other general councils that took some time to sort out. This is such elementary church history knowledge that once again, I cannot imagine how someone who presumably went so deep into doctoral studies and patristics (and in Roma no less!) could possibly miss it 🤔
As for the "mass exodus" argument, there were actually studies done on the matter and the reasons for the mass exodus were not because of either Vatican II or the revised Roman Missal. There were a few key reasons (incidentally to be fair, the guy in the video briefly noted one of them!) but the biggest one is almost always never acknowledged by trads. If I was uncharitable, I would say they deliberately ignore it because it really wrecks their entire line of argumentation and exposes the utter waste that their fifty odd years of ecclesial masturbation has been. But truthfully, it is not an obvious one until it is pointed out so I will in charity presume it has simply not been sufficiently pointed out to them yet 🙂
I could continue to respond to the rest of your comment but nothing of substance really remains when you built your argumentation house on the sand of argumentation fallacies and historical obtuseness instead of the solid rock of factually sound and rational discourse (cf. Matthew vii,24-27; Luke vi,46-49).
