CathInfo.com

I wish they would submit to St. Alphonsus Liguori on the matter. His writings were declared safe from the slightest error against Faith or morals, and he gives a wonderful explanation in his commentary on the Council of Trent.

I say this as someone who used to reject BOD and BOB.

... and here's another example of why it's a waste of time, stupidity like this that's frustrating to no end.  St. Alphonsus and others Doctors and other theologians disagree on NUMEROUS points, and that's why St. Robert Bellarmine, for instance, had to discuss "5 Opinions" on that infamous subject.  There's no requirement to submit to anything other than to the Magisterium, and when a St. Alphonsus contradicts the teaching of Trent in claiming that temporal punishment can remain after initial jutification by "BoD", then, yeah, I submit to Trent, and not to St. Alphonsus.  But people engage in nothing but this type of fallacious gaslighting, "muh safe from the [SLIGHTEST, no less] error".  This absurd exaggeration of papal infallibility that came as the result of rejecting the errors of R&R has resulted in so much nonsense.

You'll notice that there's zero substance in the post above, but this pretense to somehow have greater authority because this poster allegedly "USED TO" reject BoD and BoB, and then claiming that St. Alphonsus Liguori is practically, for all intents and purposes, a rule of faith.

I do love it how many of the same people who argue this way, like "muh St. Thomas" ... suddenly go silent when you point out to them that St. Thomas taught that infidels could not be saved, i.e. that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation, but then go on to claim that Muslims, Jews, and various "Hindus in Tibet" can be saved.  They'll elevate "Suprema Haec" to practically the level of dogma ... but then when you ask them what say they about the ruling of the Holy Office that rejected "Rewarder God" theory, insisting that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation, you hear crickets.  How many of those dogmatic SV types who assert (exagerate the authority of Suprema Fake ... it never appeared in AAS, just in the "Irish Ecclesiastical Review" controlled by Cushing) ... but then when you ask them if they consider the denial of geocentrism an error proximate to heresy as the Holy Office declared, again crickets.  It's SELECTIVE "appeals to authority", where ... when one of these authorities happens to agree with them on something, then, "oh, wow, this greatest of all saintly theologians and light of the Church", but when this same light teaches something else they don't hold ... silence and crickets.

But ... this post here, yeah ... it reminds me quite clearly about why I stopped posting here, as this here that I just wrote is a complete waste of my time.

So, that was the final straw, rather than a single incident.  For years, there had been a drumbeat of slander being tolerated here on CI, some examples listed in my previous post.  Then, after I had rejected the gaslight slander that those of us who hold a strict definition of EENS relish the loss of souls, and pointed it out ... when Matthew made the same accusation a couple days later, after I had already rejected it once, that was the final straw.

Lots of time wasting, and lots of slander.  I checked back in because someone had asked about Father Carley, and so I wanted to give an update.  But I'll be gone again.  I don't think my years of posting accomplished all that much besides waste my time.


BTW, that "Tisas" account referring to the "keto" diet, that's Croix ... back for the 50th time or so.

Nothing is wasted, if you do it for God.

You gave a good solid voice on many topics.  Please reconsider leaving.

Quote from: Maria Dolorosa on Today at 07:40:35 PM

I wish they would submit to St. Alphonsus Liguori on the matter. His writings were declared safe from the slightest error against Faith or morals, and he gives a wonderful explanation in his commentary on the Council of Trent.

I say this as someone who used to reject BOD and BOB.

Response by Ladislaus

... and here's another example of why it's a waste of time, stupidity like this that's frustrating to no end.  St. Alphonsus and others Doctors and other theologians disagree on NUMEROUS points, and that's why St. Robert Bellarmine, for instance, had to discuss "5 Opinions" on that infamous subject.  There's no requirement to submit to anything other than to the Magisterium, and when a St. Alphonsus contradicts the teaching of Trent in claiming that temporal punishment can remain after initial jutification by "BoD", then, yeah, I submit to Trent, and not to St. Alphonsus.  But people engage in nothing but this type of fallacious gaslighting, "muh safe from the [SLIGHTEST, no less] error".  This absurd exaggeration of papal infallibility that came as the result of rejecting the errors of R&R has resulted in so much nonsense.

You'll notice that there's zero substance in the post above, but this pretense to somehow have greater authority because this poster allegedly "USED TO" reject BoD and BoB, and then claiming that St. Alphonsus Liguori is practically, for all intents and purposes, a rule of faith.

I do love it how many of the same people who argue this way, like "muh St. Thomas" ... suddenly go silent when you point out to them that St. Thomas taught that infidels could not be saved, i.e. that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation, but then go on to claim that Muslims, Jews, and various "Hindus in Tibet" can be saved.  They'll elevate "Suprema Haec" to practically the level of dogma ... but then when you ask them what say they about the ruling of the Holy Office that rejected "Rewarder God" theory, insisting that explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are necessary for salvation, you hear crickets.  How many of those dogmatic SV types who assert (exagerate the authority of Suprema Fake ... it never appeared in AAS, just in the "Irish Ecclesiastical Review" controlled by Cushing) ... but then when you ask them if they consider the denial of geocentrism an error proximate to heresy as the Holy Office declared, again crickets.  It's SELECTIVE "appeals to authority", where ... when one of these authorities happens to agree with them on something, then, "oh, wow, this greatest of all saintly theologians and light of the Church", but when this same light teaches something else they don't hold ... silence and crickets.

But ... this post here, yeah ... it reminds me quite clearly about why I stopped posting here, as this here that I just wrote is a complete waste of my time.

Of all the times I've disagreed with Lad, I agree completely with the above as it expresses my feelings exactly.