That's a good question.  He starts a thread calumniating me as a calumniator ... with the title standing out there for all to see.

So, for instance, one of his accusations of "calumny" is that I calumniated Msgr. Fenton.  How does pasting a quote FROM HIS OWN DIARIES, a direct quote, without any comment on my part, constitute CALUMNY?  Fenton stated in his diaries that Vatican II ecclesiology does not change Traditional ecclesiology but even improves upon it.  FACT.  How is this calumny?  In fact, LoT commits calumny by declaring me guilty of calumny for this.

I state the facts and you imply I think Aquinas is an idiot.  

In attacking Stubborn I preserve the integrity of Aquinas who clearly teaches BOD and had a far better grasp of scripture than he does or anyone who posts here by far.  

You'll never admit your fault.  You are the most incredibly arrogant person I have ever encountered.

You act as if I disagree with Church teaching which I do not. 

You absolutely do.  You promote Pelagianism at every turn.  Last time I checked, the Church did not teach Pelagianism.

I've told you 100 times that I have no problem with a Catholic believing in BoD.  But you need to articulate BoD in a CATHOLIC and not a heretical way.  You have chosen the latter path.  In charity, I've even given you the SOLUTION, about how you can maintain BoD WITHOUT at the same time promoting various heretical propositions.  But you REFUSE to go that route ... because you LIKE the heretical propositions you promote, the feel-good Pelagianism that "sincerity saves" and that "nice, sincere" people are rewarded supernaturally with the beatific vision as if they have a right to it by nature and only active mortal sin can take away that right.  Every bit of this is almost verbatim the doctrine of Pelagius.  You are a lover of Pelagius.  You would have been one of his most zealous followers and the most bitter enemy of St. Augustine if you were alive during their time.  I've ready every one of St. Augustine's works in the original Latin and I know what Pelagianism is.

You absolutely do.  You promote Pelagianism at every turn.  Last time I checked, the Church did not teach Pelagianism.

I've told you 100 times that I have no problem with a Catholic believing in BoD.  But you need to articulate BoD in a CATHOLIC and not a heretical way.  You have chosen the latter path.  In charity, I've even given you the SOLUTION, about how you can maintain BoD WITHOUT at the same time promoting various heretical propositions.  But you REFUSE to go that route ... because you LIKE the heretical propositions you promote, the feel-good Pelagianism that "sincerity saves" and that "nice, sincere" people are rewarded supernaturally with the beatific vision as if they have a right to it by nature and only active mortal sin can take away that right.  Every bit of this is almost verbatim the doctrine of Pelagius.  You are a lover of Pelagius.  You would have been one of his most zealous followers and the most bitter enemy of St. Augustine if you were alive during their time.  I've ready every one of St. Augustine's works in the original Latin and I know what Pelagianism is.

Give us a quote you underhanded lying dingbat.  

You try to make it seem like he is a liberal you professional idiot when true Catholics take him for what he was.  A highly respected Catholic theologian who taught other theologians theology.  

Yes, he was "highly respected" in the era that BROUGHT US VATICAN II.  His ecclesiology was IDENTICAL to that of Vatican II.  He ATTESTS TO THIS HIMSELF when he states that V2 ecclesiology did not change pre-V2 ecclesiology but improved upon it.  I'm pointing out the contradiction of you citing him as an authority on ecclesiology when YOU consider the ecclesiology of Vatican II to be heretical and Fenton endorsed that ecclesiology.

That's why you got so ticked off.  I pointed out your hypocrisy.

Is it because I say that as far as I know the Church hasn't settled whether all four beliefs are intrinsically necessary in all instances for all individuals?

That by itself is not Pelagianism.  That doctrine HAS been settled definitively by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, and even more solemnly by the Athanasian Creed.  Whether you want to see that or not is personal preference ... because you don't LIKE that particular teaching.  That's the same reason it was thrown out there by a few heterodox Jesuit innovators in the first place.

Yes, he was "highly respected" in the era that BROUGHT US VATICAN II.  His ecclesiology was IDENTICAL to that of Vatican II.  He ATTESTS TO THIS HIMSELF when he states that V2 ecclesiology did not change pre-V2 ecclesiology but improved upon it.  I'm pointing out the contradiction of you citing him as an authority on ecclesiology when YOU consider the ecclesiology of Vatican II to be heretical and Fenton endorsed that ecclesiology.

That's why you got so ticked off.  I pointed out your hypocrisy.

Detraction plain and simple.  I guess John Daly is a V2 liber as well.  Right Ladislaus.  He respects Fenton and his theology on BOD and quotes him at length on the issue.  

He fought tooth and nail to keep the V2 ecclesiology out of it.  He and the minority who fought this fight clearly lost.  And you act like he is a V2 liber.  You are incredibly dishonest because Fenton refutes your modern "theology" invented by Feeney in the 40's. 
 
Fenton, whose diaries I read myself in Washington DC.  Never thought the stuff would go through a V2 because he was convinced that a valid Pope could not approve it.  When it got approved he figured the problem was with him and not the "Pope".

That is humility.  Something you are not familiar with.