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

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9]

Author Topic: Non Una cuм and the Resistance  (Read 7933 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 10312
  • Reputation: +6220/-1742
  • Gender: Male
Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
« Reply #120 on: April 23, 2018, 05:10:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
    • Infallibility doesn’t apply to legal matters, only faith and morals.  Law is law and stays in force until changed. 
    Logged

    Online Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 41910
    • Reputation: +23946/-4345
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
    « Reply #121 on: April 23, 2018, 06:01:08 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!2
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on April 23, 2018, 05:10:10 PM
    Infallibility doesn’t apply to legal matters, only faith and morals.  Law is law and stays in force until changed.

    Ah, yes, Pax once again pulling things out of his posterior.  What, is this now the 4th or 5th time you've been caught and exposed for doing this on this thread alone?  Garbage.  It's held by all theologians to be theologically certain that the Church's Universal Law (e.g. Canon Law) are protected by the Church's disciplinary infallibility.
    Logged

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 10312
    • Reputation: +6220/-1742
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
    « Reply #122 on: April 23, 2018, 06:51:16 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
    • A strict discipline (i.e. law) is not a matter of faith and morals, i.e. the communion fast, or rules for excommunication, or rules for when feast days are celebrated.  These are human laws, which St Peter has the power to 'bind and loose'.  Divine Law and Divine Truth cannot change and infallibility's purpose is to guard and protect that which is unchangeable, which no pope can change.  Again, a lack of distinctions is your problem.
    Logged

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13825
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
    « Reply #123 on: April 24, 2018, 04:39:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on April 23, 2018, 06:01:08 PM
    Ah, yes, Pax once again pulling things out of his posterior.  What, is this now the 4th or 5th time you've been caught and exposed for doing this on this thread alone?  Garbage.  It's held by all theologians to be theologically certain that the Church's Universal Law (e.g. Canon Law) are protected by the Church's disciplinary infallibility.
    Where exactly do you come up with this stuff?  "Disciplinary infallibility".  :facepalm:

    Talk about pulling things out of ones posterior.
    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline Stubborn

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 13825
    • Reputation: +5568/-865
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
    « Reply #124 on: April 24, 2018, 05:30:39 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on April 23, 2018, 06:01:08 PM
    Ah, yes, Pax once again pulling things out of his posterior.  What, is this now the 4th or 5th time you've been caught and exposed for doing this on this thread alone?  Garbage.  It's held by all theologians to be theologically certain that the Church's Universal Law (e.g. Canon Law) are protected by the Church's disciplinary infallibility.
    I had to look this ladism up -  just as I thought, not only is such a thing *not* "held by all theologians" at all, it was never even discussed by any of them. This means Disciplinary infallibility is a new term and like all things NO, has multiple, novel meanings.  It did not even exist prior to 19th/20th century. "Disciplinary infallibility" is another NO innovation, a product of the unanimous vote of NO authors that poor Lad is promoting again as if it is something traditionally Catholic.


    Quote
    From the CE:
    "What connexion is there between the discipline of the Church and her infallibility? Is there a certain disciplinary infallibility?

    It does not appear that the question was ever discussed in the past by theologians unless apropos of the canonization of saints and the approbation of religious orders. It has, however, found a place in all recent [NO] treatises on the Church.

    The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favor of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility blah blah blah..."

    Logged
    "But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men." - Acts 5:29

    The Highest Principle in the Church: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

    Offline manilavanilla

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 6
    • Reputation: +5/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Non Una cuм and the Resistance
    « Reply #125 on: April 24, 2018, 11:09:41 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Samuel on April 21, 2018, 05:42:42 PM
    "Slightly tedious comment", especially considering that yet another new member jumps straight in with fostering enmities and divisions within the Resistance.

    1. Every single Traditional Catholic is a self appointed theologian, and must be so in order to remain Traditional. If some people put more effort in this than others, is that something we should be deriding them for?

    2. Mr Johnson has already explained his reason for the time he did not post here under his own name, and that reason had nothing to do with a lack of courage, on the contrary. By the way, where's your courage in anonymously attacking those who unlike you have the courage and integrity to speak in their own name?

    3. The history of the SSPX is full of troubles caused by two seemingly opposite sides, based on the same underlying error: those who left to join the Conciliar Church, and those who left to become sedevacantists. Your comments about sedes not being "as much a threat" is just plain ignorant. You should learn to think before you speak.

    4. Your accusations about Mr Johnson's "disguising his own liberalism" is a gratuitous accusation and further proof of your malice.

    You should take a lesson from Mr Johnson and learn to research the issues you like to comment on, to think before you speak, and to speak like a Catholic. You are the type of person that sows divisions, spreads falsehoods, repulses honest and serious Catholics and is able to ruin a forum.

    Who do you think is the one causing enmities and division? Is it not you with your bizarre attitude, attacking Bishop Williamson for sitting at home listening to Mozart?

    Just take some deep breaths and do a good examination of conscience which is not based on emotions.

    We can't force artificial structures on tradition. There is a crises in the Church which gives a liberty which can be dangerous, but it is a liberty which is necessary for the survival of the faith in these times. This is why Bishop Williamsons "small pockets" analysis is so good.

    The person who is supposed to be in charge of the Church is Pope Francis. Not Bishop Faure, or Bishop Z, as you might want.

    Logged
    Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9]
    « previous next »