How Traditional is Pope Benedict XVI?

I was reading that other thread about how conservative the Pope is, and I had this question, but I didn’t want to change the topic over there. So, how traditional is Benedict?

too much according to many, not enough according to some. That probably means the Holy Spirit chose well.

too much according to many, not enough according to some. That probably means the Holy Spirit chose well.

MAJOR** logical fallacy**, right there. The Middle Ground Fallacy.

[FONT=arial][size=3]Also Known as: Golden Mean Fallacy, Fallacy of Moderation [/size][/FONT]
[FONT=arial][size=3]Description of Middle Ground[/size][/FONT]

[FONT=arial][size=3]This fallacy is committed when it is assumed that the middle position between two extremes must be correct simply because it is the middle position. this sort of “reasoning” has the following form: [/size][/FONT][LIST=1]
*][FONT=arial][size=3][/size][/FONT][FONT=arial][size=3]
*]Position A and B are two extreme positions.
*]C is a position that rests in the middle between A and B.
*]Therefore C is the correct position.[/size][/FONT][/LIST][FONT=arial][size=3]This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because it does not follow that a position is correct just because it lies in the middle of two extremes. This is shown by the following example. Suppose that a person is selling his computer. He wants to sell it for the current market value, which is $800 and someone offers him $1 for it. It would hardly follow that $400.50 is the proper price. [/size][/FONT]
[FONT=arial][size=3]This fallacy draws its power from the fact that a moderate or middle position is often the correct one. For example, a moderate amount of exercise is better than too much exercise or too little exercise. However, this is not simply because it lies in the middle ground between two extremes. It is because too much exercise is harmful and too little exercise is all but useless. The basic idea behind many cases in which moderation is correct is that the extremes are typically “too much” and “not enough” and the middle position is “enough.” In such cases the middle position is correct almost by definition. [/size][/FONT]
[FONT=arial][size=3]It should be kept in mind that while uncritically assuming that the middle position must be correct because it is the middle position is poor reasoning it does not follow that accepting a middle position is always fallacious. As was just mentioned, many times a moderate position is correct. However, the claim that the moderate or middle position is correct must be supported by legitimate reasoning. [/size][/FONT]
[FONT=arial][size=3]Examples of Middle Ground[/size][/FONT]
[LIST=1]
*][FONT=arial][size=3][/size][/FONT]
*]Some people claim that God is all powerful, all knowing, and all good. Other people claim that God does not exist at all. Now, it seems reasonable to accept a position somewhere in the middle. So, it is likely that God exists, but that he is only very powerful, very knowing, and very good. That seems right to me.[FONT=arial][size=3]
*]Congressman Jones has proposed cutting welfare payments by 50% while Congresswoman Shender has proposed increasing welfare payments by 10% to keep up with inflation and cost of living increases. I think that the best proposal is the one made by Congressman Trumple. He says that a 30% decrease in welfare payments is a good middle ground, so I think that is what we should support.
*]A month ago, a tree in Bill’s yard was damaged in a storm. His neighbor, Joe, asked him to have the tree cut down so it would not fall on Joes new shed. Bill refused to do this. Two days ago another storm blew the tree onto Joe’s new shed. Joe demanded that Joe pay the cost of repairs, which was $250. Bill said that he wasn’t going to pay a cent. Obviously, the best solution is to reach a compromise between the two extremes, so Bill should pay Joe $125 dollars.[/size][/FONT][/LIST]

nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html

[LEFT]

That probably means the Holy Spirit chose well.

[LEFT]Perhaps the final word on the subject should belong to the Dean of the College of Cardinals, Joseph Ratzinger. He was asked on Bavarian television in 1997 if the Holy Spirit is responsible for who gets elected pope, and this was his response:

[/LEFT]
[LEFT]“I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the pope…I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.”

[/LEFT]
[LEFT]Then the clincher: “There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit would obviously not have picked.” [/LEFT]

nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/conclave/pt041505c.htm

Or at least, would not have picked in a direct sense. God’s Providence arranges everything in history, obviously, because sometimes a bad candidate is part of his larger plan. That doesnt make the candidate a good pope, however…

Now, Benedict *is *a good Pope, but not traditional enough. And just because some people say the opposite, does NOT mean that the truth lies “in the middle”…
[/LEFT]

Hold on, Bat Teddy. What was offered was an opinion, not a logical argument. IOW the poster probably believes that the best thing for the Church is to have a Pope who is not on either extreme.

I think it is a good opinion. If we had an ultraliberal Pope, then things would get worse from a Traditionalist perspective. If we had an ultraconservative Pope, then the strife caused could be too great. This Pope is easing us back into more Tradition, hopefully cleaning up some of the post-conciliar nuttiness, and in the process healing some wounds. That is a good thing. :thumbsup:

He seems to be liturgically on the conservative side but theologically open to contemporary thinking. I would definitely not call him a “modernist” but he seems to have represent a philosophical/theological position that is open to something other than bedrock conservatism/traditionalism.

I would guess that he was moved in that direction by the horror of the War. The reality of killing 12,000,000 people in gas chambers and first-hand climbing around the bombed-out rubble of Europe’s most advanced country might have given him the idea that Protestants and Catholics, as Christians, have bigger fish to fry than worrying about theological nuances – although B-16 can nuance with the best of 'em!

Hmm, why do you say that?

batteddy,

http://aycu34.webshots.com/image/22073/2003563495636839325_rs.jpg

:smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.