Author Topic: Michael Voris banned from liberal diocese.... (Read 8776 times)

SJB · « **Reply #30 on:** April 14, 2011, 12:54:32 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

How do you know that a heretic isn't "occult"?

Because you can only know what is external. You can "know" about a specific occult heretic, because his heresy is hidden.

Maybe somebody else can help you understand this.

Caminus · « **Reply #31 on:** April 14, 2011, 01:03:29 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Caminus
How do you know that a heretic isn't "occult"?

Because you can only know what is external. You can "know" about a specific occult heretic, because his heresy is hidden.

Maybe somebody else can help you understand this.

Spare me the condescension. You evaded the entire point and just made this last point up on your own. The fact of the matter is that you haven't a leg to stand on by restricting occult to mean absolutely secret. Check any canonist you wish, they will contradict you at every turn.

Caminus · « **Reply #32 on:** April 14, 2011, 01:06:46 PM »

Furthermore, you have an entirely protestant concept of authority.

TKGS · « **Reply #33 on:** April 14, 2011, 01:55:42 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Caminus
How do you know that a heretic isn't "occult"?

Because you can only know what is external. You can "know" about a specific occult heretic, because his heresy is hidden.

Maybe somebody else can help you understand this.

Spare me the condescension. You evaded the entire point and just made this last point up on your own. The fact of the matter is that you haven't a leg to stand on by restricting occult to mean absolutely secret. Check any canonist you wish, they will contradict you at every turn.

What? :confused1: The definition of "occult" as used here is "hidden". You're saying that "You haven't a leg to stand on by restricting words to their definitions." Occult heresy is, by definition, hidden.

SJB · « **Reply #34 on:** April 14, 2011, 02:07:29 PM »

Quote from: Bouscaren and Ellis

Not every sin is a crime. The Church, as a visible society, punishes by sanctions only certain external transgressions which disturb the social order. We leave aside the question whether the Church can punish a merely internal act. In fact, she does not.

The publicity of crimes is therefore one of the crucial qualifications according to which they are dealt with by Holy Mother Church. Canon 2197 defines the various degrees of publicity.

"Classification as to Publicity. A crime is:

"1. Public, if it is already commonly known or the circuмstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so;

"2. Notorious in law, after judgment by a competent judge which has become res iudicata (cf. c. 1902), or after confession by the culprit in open court according to canon 1750;

"3. Notorious in fact, if it is publicly known and was committed under such circuмstances that no maneuver can conceal nor any legal defense excuse it;

"4. Occult, if not public; materially occult if the crime itself is hidden, formally occult if its imputability is hidden.

Caminus · « **Reply #35 on:** April 14, 2011, 02:27:51 PM »

Thanks for supporting my case.

Caminus · « **Reply #36 on:** April 14, 2011, 02:32:05 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

Quote from: Caminus
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Caminus
How do you know that a heretic isn't "occult"?

Because you can only know what is external. You can "know" about a specific occult heretic, because his heresy is hidden.

Maybe somebody else can help you understand this.

Spare me the condescension. You evaded the entire point and just made this last point up on your own. The fact of the matter is that you haven't a leg to stand on by restricting occult to mean absolutely secret. Check any canonist you wish, they will contradict you at every turn.

What? :confused1: The definition of "occult" as used here is "hidden". You're saying that "You haven't a leg to stand on by restricting words to their definitions." Occult heresy is, by definition, hidden.

"Hidden" or "occult" in the context of the public jurisprudence of the Church carries with it an entirely different connation. The text cited proves the fact by asserting that purely internal acts cannot by definition be punished. SJB has failed to properly understand both the import of the term "occult" as well as the intervention of authority. On the one hand, the crime must be public, on the other hand, in the case of determing pertinacity which is a key ingredient of formality, the public manifestation of this comes by way of opposition to authority. Thus, the heresy is perfected so to speak and the criminal is entirely cut off from the society of the Church.

Caminus · « **Reply #37 on:** April 14, 2011, 02:35:11 PM »

Consequently, when a good Pope begins to reign and exercise authority and condemning false doctrine, we will see either of two things, those who hold positions of authority will either formalize their heresy and publicly oppose authority or they will submit restoring peace to the Church. I suspect that after that time, the Catholic Church, complete with its juridical structure, will be much smaller after the pruning.

SJB · « **Reply #38 on:** April 14, 2011, 03:31:18 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: TKGS
Quote from: Caminus
Quote from: SJB
Quote from: Caminus
How do you know that a heretic isn't "occult"?

Because you can only know what is external. You can "know" about a specific occult heretic, because his heresy is hidden.

Maybe somebody else can help you understand this.

Spare me the condescension. You evaded the entire point and just made this last point up on your own. The fact of the matter is that you haven't a leg to stand on by restricting occult to mean absolutely secret. Check any canonist you wish, they will contradict you at every turn.

What? :confused1: The definition of "occult" as used here is "hidden". You're saying that "You haven't a leg to stand on by restricting words to their definitions." Occult heresy is, by definition, hidden.

"Hidden" or "occult" in the context of the public jurisprudence of the Church carries with it an entirely different connation. The text cited proves the fact by asserting that purely internal acts cannot by definition be punished. SJB has failed to properly understand both the import of the term "occult" as well as the intervention of authority. On the one hand, the crime must be public, on the other hand, in the case of determing pertinacity which is a key ingredient of formality, the public manifestation of this comes by way of opposition to authority. Thus, the heresy is perfected so to speak and the criminal is entirely cut off from the society of the Church.

Why don't you quote something then? What do you think "the context" of Bouscaren and Ellis is??? Shall I quote Woywod as well?

Caminus · « **Reply #39 on:** April 14, 2011, 03:34:13 PM »

Indeed, please do. He will also demonstrate the absurdity of defining "occult" as absolutely secret. Please also cite their commentaries on how the Church deals with those who begin to profess heretical doctrines.

SJB · « **Reply #40 on:** April 14, 2011, 04:01:13 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Indeed, please do. He will also demonstrate the absurdity of defining "occult" as absolutely secret. Please also cite their commentaries on how the Church deals with those who begin to profess heretical doctrines.

Quote from: Canon 2197

Occult, if not public; materially occult if the crime itself is hidden, formally occult if its imputability is hidden.

I never said "absolutely secret". Hidden, NOT public.

SJB · « **Reply #41 on:** April 14, 2011, 04:25:38 PM »

Quote from: Woywod

The Code calls an offense public when knowledge of it has been spread among the people (divulgatum), or when it was committed under circuмstances which make it practically impossible to keep the offense secret.

Caminus · « **Reply #42 on:** April 14, 2011, 04:56:40 PM »

That is public in an informal sense. The pertinent point is in relation to what constitutes a "public act." The mere knowledge of people doesn't suffice and thus technically the offender is still considered "occult."

And now quote the section of the Code dealing with public manifestation of heresy, strictly so-called, not propositions proximate to heresy, not doctrinal or theological error or some lesser offense. This is in relation to pertinacity. The Code envisions two differing cases, though who begin to profess heresy within the Church and those who are publicly associated with heretical sects in the external forum. You are not appreciating this distinction either. Again, you're only proposing half of the equation.

SJB · « **Reply #43 on:** April 14, 2011, 08:09:21 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

That is public in an informal sense. The pertinent point is in relation to what constitutes a "public act." The mere knowledge of people doesn't suffice and thus technically the offender is still considered "occult."

Source for this please? To date, you've cited NO sources, and saying "occult" is "public" without an ecclesiastical trial.

"Public" including a trial judgment or public confession is "notorious by notoriety of the law."

You're just making things up as you go.

Caminus · « **Reply #44 on:** April 14, 2011, 09:40:08 PM »

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Caminus
How do you know that a heretic isn't "occult"?

Because you can only know what is external. You can "know" about a specific occult heretic, because his heresy is hidden.

Maybe somebody else can help you understand this.

The sources you've cited have contradicted this assertion. Beyond that, until you address my other points, I see no reason to continue.