Our Lord Jesus Christ entrusted the deposit of faith to the Church, that under the constant guidance and assistance of the Holy Spirit, she might sacredly guard and faithfully explain this divine revelation. The Church has therefore the right and the duty, independently of any civil power, to teach all nations the full evangelical doctrine; and all men are bound by the law of God to learn this doctrine properly and to embrace the true Church of God (c. 1322).
    The Church guards and explains this deposit of faith. She does not add to it, for it was completed and closed with the death of the last Apostle, Saint John. To guard means to keep and defend; in doing this the Church must sometimes declare truths which are not contained in revelation but which are necessary to keep revealed truth. To explain means to make clear what is obscure. The so-called developments of doctrine through dogmatic definitions may be compared to the sharpening of the focus on a film which is projected on a screen. The details which become discernible with clear focus are not new; they were all in the original picture, but they are now brought out more clearly.
    All those truths must be believed fide divina et catholica, which are contained in the written word of God or in tradition and which the Church proposes for acceptance as revealed by God, either by solemn definition or through her ordinary and universal teaching. To pronounce a solemn definition is the part of an Ecuмenical Council or of the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra. No doctrine is to be considered as dogmatically defined unless this is evidently proved (c. 1323).
    It is not enough to avoid heresy, but one must also carefully shun all errors which more or less approach it; hence all must observe the constitutions and decrees by which the Holy See has proscribed and forbidden opinions of that sort (c. 1324).
    The faithful are bound to profess their faith openly whenever under the circuмstances silence, evasion, or their manner of acting would otherwise implicitly amount to a denial of the faith, or would involve contempt of religion, an offense to God, or scandal to the neighbor (c. 1325, §1).
    One who after baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously (that is, with conscious and intentional resistance to the authority of God and the Church) denies or doubts any one of the truths which must be believed de fide divina et catholica, is a heretic; if he falls away entirely from the Christian faith, he is an apostate; finally if he rejects the authority of the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the Church who are subject to him, he is a schismatic (c. 1325, §2).
    Catholics are to avoid disputations or conferences about matters of faith with non-Catholics, especially in public, unless the Holy See, or in case of emergency the Ordinary of the place, has given permission (c. 1325, §3).

I don't see a problem with people posting their opinions on theological matters according to their understanding.  The problem is when another member posts a refutation using authoritative references (which, actually, I don't often see on the forum) and the original poster refutes this with feelings or a completely idiotic "interpretation" of the theological references or an improper use of other theological references.

The problem is not when members don't know what they don't know but refuse to learn when corrected and will actually contradict themselves in multiple posts and sometimes in just one post while criticizing other members who are consistent in their arguments for being inconsistent.  

This is when I stop reading the topic altogether.  Frankly, there is only one stubborn member on the forum that I can think of who is a constant irritant in this regard, but I won't mention who it is.

I also do not think anyone should ask another member about his "qualifications" to discuss matters unless he provides his own qualifications at the same time.  So let's all make sure we identify which seminary we've attended, if any.  I have not attended seminary.

Quote from: McCork

Never mind the word "seminary", your lingo indicates you had some training intended for those who aspire to be priests.

I studied philosophy if that is what you mean by "lingo", completely unrelated to religion in any way, hence why I say I am not sure even about the basics of the Catholic religion (I am trying to determine them), past my Novus Ordo catechism (which amounts to nothing).

If someone suddenly asked me what seminary I went to, I would be flattered by the compliment and answer yes or no about it.[....]   It is not difficult to see what is happening here.

I don't see a problem with people posting their opinions on theological matters according to their understanding. [....] I have not attended seminary.

McCork, I think your question is totally irrelevant.  Should not any serious Catholic study their religion without the assumption that they must have attended a seminary to learn it?   Seminaries are for the training of priests.  Not only priests are expected to know the faith.

I am well aware that philosophy is not religion, but you just avoided answering my question. I asked about whether you took courses designed for Catholic men aspiring to the priesthood, including courses pertaining to Catholicism.

Quote

of the fact that, though you say you are "not sure even about the basics of the Catholic religion",

In hindsight, it was a mistake to present myself in such a manner.
It is true I am utterly ignorant about many aspects of the Faith, esp. Liturgy.

And it is true I am not sure about what actually is orthodox and what is novelty, nor I am able to grasp some theological concepts.

However, I have realised people take my introductory comment as to mean I am literally unknowledgeable about Catholicism, or anyway ignorant about most things.

None of us knows the totality of the Faith and after all, we are here to share it, no? I don't see why it is a disadvantage for a person who is questioning to premise his questions with what he already knows. But that is not the issue. You have made (what I find to be) offensive statements about the intentions of other persons here (not me).

Quote

you still post in quite a dogmatic manner and seem either not to listen to what somebody is trying to say to you, or you leave the thread behind without acknowledging what you have received from the posters who have attempted to answer your questions.

Is this related to the Med. thread still?

The Med thread was the one which I first noticed your strange expression and your seeming arrogance. But since then I have observed your manner on other threads in which my only interest was reading.

Quote

Also, you do pull people into line, by telling them to not to derail, when that are not derailing (in my opinion)

It's a matter of basic philosophical argumentation, and logical course of discussion.
From what I remember I mainly ask politely people to avoid introducing Sedevacantism, or anyway unrelated topics in order to avoid the thread derailing into the usual mess (I read the forum extensively before signing up).
In fact, it's the norm for most forums.

I too am against derailments. If it's a threaad I'm involved in, I will try to get back on track. But there are times when an aside is important.  

Quote

and you tend to confuse issues, esp. in the OCAC thread.

Oh, I see. Why not commenting yourself on the topic then?
You could help the discussion move forward.

I have made a couple/few comments on that thread but I just found the argumentation  to be too convoluted for my simple mind, and really I have little to offer on this topic. Besides, in the last few days I have had altogether too much to say here.

 

Quote

Is your first language English? The reason I ask is that, although you are quite gifted in your expression at times, at other times you seem to use the language in a way I find difficult to follow. It could be me of course...  But the question holds. Are you a native English speaker?

I admitted from the get go I am semi illiterate. I can speak and write the rudimentaries of a handful of different languages, yet technically none.

I understand if you do not wish to answer my question.

You can hardly be included among the semi-literate, though I see you have  used American jargon here (picked up on CathInfo).  

I see now sharing anything about myself was an ever graver mistake than I previously thought.
Well, you are anonymous, are you not? Every word you write here you share something of yourself. I hope you don't think I am attacking you. I am not. But I just thought that in view of McCork strange question I would put in my 2 cents. I found your introduction very interesting and decided at that time to pray for you. Simple as that.