Granted that Mr. Derksen over reached on some of his points unnecessarily, when his point was made very well with less words rather than more.
That he chose the route of sedevacantism to register his frustration doesn't really take away from his arguments, just calls to mind his rash judgement.
The facts he points out speak for themselves. The Church is literally falling apart, and if we are to give any credence to Derksen at all, John Paul is reliving his liberal college theses, and is imposing on the Church, themes, that only affected college students, and their liberal proffesors would sit around discussing. Themes that have no answers, only questions.
It explains Assisi I and II--which are a scandal to the rest of us and a violation of the First Commandment.
"Humanism" does not explain these phenomena. Disciplinary slackness and overeager eirenicism does."
We don't know that it is a disciplinary slackness. To even think that is to suggest JP is not in charge - or worse - that he is so out of it he doesn't even know.
To me, it seems like a natural extension of every goofy thing he has done, and a logical progresion of his continuing theme of 'humanism'. I'm not qalified to really comment on his scholarship, but I can look at the fruits. (come on now, we all know some of his actions were goofy, and not Catholic)
"This Pontiff's grounding is not in Thomistic realism but in the methodologies of personalism and phenomenology--where truth itself is a shifting thing, according to one's experience of it."
"Phenomenology does not posit that truth is a shifting thing. It posits that our knowledge of a thing or person is always imperfect because our faculties of perception are not infallible."
I don't know what phenomonology posits, but to say that it is not a 'shifting thing' but is imperfect because we are imperfect, (and it depends on how we perceive it) tells me that whatever it expounds should not be an article of faith.
Don't we have real things to iron out, rather than the subjectivity of of something as elusive as quicksilver?
The Pope, if we are to believe his mandate, is to lead everyone that he has been given to salvation, just as Jesus told His Father that he has lost none that he had been given.
If the Pope wants to dabble in this crap in his spare time, fine. But let's not foist it on pilgrims who have a hard enough time finding their own way. Reaffirm in us the basic principles such as Grace, sin, Hell, chastity, reverence, etc. Not examining the lint in our belly buttons looking for Christ.
Or it could be to suggest that the Pope is a human being who sometimes makes prudential errors of judgment and who can be taken advantage of by dishonest people.
I don't know what phenomonology posits, but to say that it is not a 'shifting thing' but is imperfect because we are imperfect, (and it depends on how we perceive it) tells me that whatever it expounds should not be an article of faith.
No one is suggesting making it an article of faith. What is being suggested is making it a tool of speculative theology, as St. Thomas made use of Aristotle and St. Augustine made use of Plotinus.
Don't we have real things to iron out, rather than the subjectivity of of something as elusive as quicksilver?
Christians have minds as well as souls and bodies, and it is an inevitable tragedy that sometimes they will be caught doing things like thinking carefully about philosophical matters.