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

Author Topic: The Human Mind’s Ability To Apprehend Reality W/O The Intervention of Authority  (Read 1283 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

This is, what many Trads don't want to understand. Another translation goes:

That's how things look like, by divine law. It's the will of the Lord that we reject, shun, and fight heretics.

Indeed.

Many people fixate on the canonical legal distinctions between the material and formal aspects of heresy and extrapolate from this jargonistic distinction faulty conclusions necessarily at odds with the more essential elements of faith intrinsically tied with the entirety of what it means to be Catholic. This is impossible and intellectually disingenuous.

Thankfully, the era of Bergoglio has made this much more difficult. The man in white today is a pertinaciously feisty heretic who burns with zeal for spreading his apostasy.

Jupiter,

since you didn't quote the article in the OP, I assume you're the author on wmreview.co.uk, S.D. Wright, correct?


Offline Mark 79

  • Supporter
I've noticed a pattern in that sedevacantists will, at times, post a hypothetical, such as the above, and then procede to posit a thesis based on the hypothetical, as if it were indeed "fact."

But a hypothetical is not necessarily a fact, so it seems odd to base a thesis on it. Did Aquinas ever do this? I don't recall that he had ever done so.

Did your grammar school teach about QUESTION MARKS?

A QUESTION MARK is not a "thesis."

Next time quote the declarative sentences of the thesis.  :facepalm:

Ok, thanks! Want to tell which one?


Certain of my views, such as those on Communicatio in Sacris, “dogmatic” Sedevacantism, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and the Jєωιѕн Question would be viewed as extreme and would limit my abilities to contribute in the future to numerous publications and would also negatively impact my current job position so I would rather not indulge this detail. My apologies in advance.


Certain of my views, such as those on Communicatio in Sacris, “dogmatic” Sedevacantism, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and the Jєωιѕн Question would be viewed as extreme and would limit my abilities to contribute in the future to numerous publications and would also negatively impact my current job position so I would rather not indulge this detail. My apologies in advance.

I see. Thanks!