This is the post that did it:
The teachings of Christ cannot be compromised; what can be compromised is our understanding of those teachings. Can you guarentee me that you have a direct link to the brain, mind and heart of Jesus of Nazareth when he walked among us or when he functions as the Christ?
what needs compromise or conversion is our understanding (which we are all limited in), fundamentalist interpretation of church teaching and then imposing that understanding on the world is the real problem or crisis in the church. You seem to confuse integrity with humility and charity at least in the posts that I have seen written by you.
I will let others answer this post (it saves me some time!)
A damnable Modernist lie. Anathema sit.
14. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.
First Vatican Council, Session III, Chapter IV, 24 April, 1870
and
Yep, Modernism on a stick. No, I can guarantee you nothing. But the Church can.
Sure, it's all "understanding". Given the right "understanding", I can maintain that BBs are cannonballs. Well, I'm not buying what you are selling. If you are proclaiming that there is no truth that is not compromised by interpretation then you seem to have absorbed your Kant, Hegel, and the other German idealists rather deeply.
There are clear cut facts that the Church presents. You just don't hear them, and have given up to the thought that everything is subjective.
"Functioning as the Christ..." No. Church teaching and His proclamation is that He IS Christ.
"..its all good" statement referred to my comfort with the poster disagreeing with me.
Well no, I did catch that part of it. When truth challenges lie, you have no concern with which one wins?
Would you care to define what arguements in the video that I make can be applied to pornography? Where am I being obnoxious, wrongheaded, etc. In short where is my thinking "the weed". You make pretty broad statements that are more labels than authentic critical analysis.
You would prefer to think they are "labels" because you think everything is a "label". I'm sure your "authentic critical analysis" revolves around who is best able to handle an explanation for the labeling.
And just to remind you, you have never answered the question as to why you believe in cross-dressing and have a welcome ad for homos on your website.
If trickster can be wrong about something so cut-and-dried like a textbook utterance of Modernism (as condemned by Pope St. Pius X), and not admit his error, then what else is he in error about?
The long and short of it is that trickster doesn't belong here. He has described himself as "liberal Novus Ordo" which really says it all. Even conservative Novus Ordo Catholics don't stick around here long, even though I don't ban them or anything they usually find the door on their own; Where does that leave the
liberal ones?
But most important of all -- he pays occasional lip service while being 0% docile and 100% incorrigible, mixed with a healthy dose of "I'm old enough to be your father" Baby Boomer pride. He's not ready to take the position he ought to take: "silent student".
But to do that, he'd first have to admit he's in error and I don't think he's reached that point yet either!
So until he A) admits his error and B) takes on a docile "teach me and correct my errors" position, he can only serve to cause confusion and spread error on CathInfo. Therefore he is not welcome here.
Topic: Farewell Trickster (Read 2541 times)