Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]

Author Topic: Bergolio to change rules on “papal” conclave  (Read 4668 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Soubirous

Re: Bergolio to change rules on “papal” conclave
« Reply #10 on: November 06, 2023, 04:37:19 PM »
Quote from: 2Vermont on November 06, 2023, 11:06:56 AM
Why should anyone believe what a Vatican II "prelate" says?

No one said we should "believe" what Ghirlanda said, much less ascribe any worth to his saying it. But are we not even to believe that he did say it at all? :confused:

It's the latest volley in another shameful episode from a shameful "papacy", granted. For that reason, the paper trail is of note. (As if hardly any of the threads on CI ever revolve around disputing whether some public figure did or didn't say/sign/attest to/agree with/disagree with/etc. whatever at some previous time....)

We have this thread, I saw a news item updating the subject line, I added it to the thread.
Logged

Offline 2Vermont

Re: Bergolio to change rules on “papal” conclave
« Reply #11 on: November 06, 2023, 04:58:27 PM »
Quote from: Soubirous on November 06, 2023, 04:37:19 PM
No one said we should "believe" what Ghirlanda said, much less ascribe any worth to his saying it. But are we not even to believe that he did say it at all? :confused:

It's the latest volley in another shameful episode from a shameful "papacy", granted. For that reason, the paper trail is of note. (As if hardly any of the threads on CI ever revolve around disputing whether some public figure did or didn't say/sign/attest to/agree with/disagree with/etc. whatever at some previous time....)

We have this thread, I saw a news item updating the subject line, I added it to the thread.
But your post didn't appear to be just an update.  It seemed more like an opportunity to take a jab at those who reported the earlier version of the story.  If not, why the anti-"Trad Inc" comments and the popcorn emoji?

Perhaps I just don't understand your posts.  Something similar happened when you posted in the Vigano thread.
Logged

Offline Soubirous

Re: Bergolio to change rules on “papal” conclave
« Reply #12 on: November 06, 2023, 05:48:30 PM »
Quote from: 2Vermont on November 06, 2023, 04:58:27 PM
But your post didn't appear to be just an update.  It seemed more like an opportunity to take a jab at those who reported the earlier version of the story.  If not, why the anti-"Trad Inc" comments and the popcorn emoji?

Perhaps I just don't understand your posts.  Something similar happened when you posted in the Vigano thread.

"Trad Inc." as in the full spectrum media machine from NO all the way to SV and everyone in between that makes a living off of reporting on these things, as well as all the prolific social media freelancers. Hence the popcorn emoji. Hence my comment to begin with at 8:41 A.M. that this episode might have been a Vatican inside job distraction to root out their own leak issues.

I don't understand how reposting in full something that was published this morning on a well-known news site was in any way "taking a jab" at anyone, other than the Vatican and all those journalists. I like unredacted things to read. I like to think that maybe others here, both members and guests, like to see relevant information too.
Logged

Offline 2Vermont

Re: Bergolio to change rules on “papal” conclave
« Reply #13 on: November 06, 2023, 07:23:13 PM »
Quote from: Soubirous on November 06, 2023, 05:48:30 PM
"Trad Inc." as in the full spectrum media machine from NO all the way to SV and everyone in between that makes a living off of reporting on these things, as well as all the prolific social media freelancers. Hence the popcorn emoji. Hence my comment to begin with at 8:41 A.M. that this episode might have been a Vatican inside job distraction to root out their own leak issues.

I don't understand how reposting in full something that was published this morning on a well-known news site was in any way "taking a jab" at anyone, other than the Vatican and all those journalists. I like unredacted things to read. I like to think that maybe others here, both members and guests, like to see relevant information too.
Ok so I was correct.  It was a jab at the reporters. Except we really don't know if the story is untrue.
Logged

Offline Univocity

Re: Bergolio to change rules on “papal” conclave
« Reply #14 on: December 02, 2023, 08:44:55 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on November 06, 2023, 11:33:28 AM
 Bishop Guerard was only arguably the top theologian in the Church prior to Vatican II.  
I'm curious: what would qualify Des Lauriers as a contender for top theologian prior to Vatican 2?  I've heard similar things before, but it seems quite exaggerated.  His greatest theological achievement that I know of was participating in the Ponfitical Commison in preparation for the dogma of the Assumption.  But it was Fr Charles Balic who headed this commision, and also the International Scotistic Commission  in addition to founding the Pontifical Academy of Mary.

I dont mean to belittle Des Lauriers here, but it seems difficult to imagine his name even appearing alongside names like Balic, Roschini, Ciappi, Lagrange, Bonnefoy, etc prior to the council.  I could see arguing thay he was the most eminent theologian AFTER the council since so few rejected vatican 2...  but I've only personally seen his name once in an obscure footnote in any pre-Vatican 2 theological text. if you have some further knowledge on his works and publications prior to Vatican 2 I would love to look into them. Thanks 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]
« previous next »