.
Okay, now I'm getting somewhere.................
Source =
http://www.su scipe do mi ne. com/forum/index.php?topic=2739.msg47894#msg47894 [w/o spaces]

Offline tmw89
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2253
Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: SSPX: Branded!
« Reply #113 on: June 12, 2013, 07:00:06 AM »
Quote from: trentcath on June 12, 2013, 06:39:10 AM
b) a person could speak of a parliament legitimately promulgating a law, as in the right procedures were taken to promulgate it, but still say the law was illicit, for example contrary to international obligations or to God's law. That's one illustration of the reality that legitimately promulgating and licit do not mean the same thing.
The only problem is - based on the definitions - it looks like you think you're an higher authority to define words than the OED.
Because if that wasn't the case, you'd see that the two words (at least in English) are equivalent.
Can you cite any source to support your understanding of the distinction between the terms, to show your position is more than private opinion?
Logged
Quote from: Bishop Williamson
The "promise to respect" as Church law the New Code of Canon Law is to respect a number of supposed laws directly contrary to Church doctrine.
---
COMING SOON: A new Trad forum featuring Catholic books, information, and discussion!