Zone1 I need to clarify my views on the Novus Ordo sect v the Sedevacantist (both claim to be Catholic)

[ding]

I'll be happy to take your word on that over Ding's on that much at least.

I think what you meant to say is that you are inclined to believe the worst and agree with an apostate of Catholicism over the John Jay Criminal Law College.

 

[notmyfault2020]

I see Ignored Member has a point to make
must be Ding...

Ok, time to jump over to Politics and irritate some liberals

 

[ding]

I see Ignored Member has a point to make
must be Ding...

Ok, time to jump over to Politics and irritate some liberals

The truth usually hurts before it helps. Here is the truth.

1. Any statement not protected by the charism of infallibility carries the possibility of error.
2. "The ordinary and usual form of papal teaching activity is not infallible.
3. The decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible.
4. There are various levels of assent owed by Catholics to the body of statements put forth by the Magisterium.
5. Vatican II did not define any Catholic doctrine.
6. None of the documents of Vatican II proclaim any new doctrine binding upon Catholics.
7. So... Vatican II does not demand any assent to its teaching.
8. Therefore, Novusordowatch insistence that assent is required is false and the Sedevacantist's belief that anything the Pope says must be accepted by the members is false.
9. Sedevacantists believe that any churchman (or at least any pontiff) who has made a materially heretical statement as evidence that he has lost his office.
10. It is clear, defined Catholic teaching that it is possible for a true pope to make statements which contain error as long as those statements are not presented as infallible teaching.
11. In summary... not commenting on any of your bullshit allegations specifically... A pope making a fallible statement doesn't make him a false pope it just makes him wrong.

 

[Donald H]

The truth usually hurts before it helps. Here is the truth.

1. Any statement not protected by the charism of infallibility carries the possibility of error.
2. "The ordinary and usual form of papal teaching activity is not infallible.
3. The decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible.
4. There are various levels of assent owed by Catholics to the body of statements put forth by the Magisterium.
5. Vatican II did not define any Catholic doctrine.
6. None of the documents of Vatican II proclaim any new doctrine binding upon Catholics.
7. So... Vatican II does not demand any assent to its teaching.
8. Therefore, Novusordowatch insistence that assent is required is false and the Sedevacantist's belief that anything the Pope says must be accepted by the members is false.
9. Sedevacantists believe that any churchman (or at least any pontiff) who has made a materially heretical statement as evidence that he has lost his office.
10. It is clear, defined Catholic teaching that it is possible for a true pope to make statements which contain error as long as those statements are not presented as infallible teaching.
11. In summary... not commenting on any of your bullshit allegations specifically... A pope making a fallible statement doesn't make him a false pope it just makes him wrong.

As long as the pope colludes to hide his pedophiles then his actions regarding buggery, etc. are infallible.

It's no different from when the popes supported burning witches and were still considered infallible. Times change but traditions on child abuse by Catholic priests change a little more slowly.

To the popes' credit, they're now accepting Darwinian evolution over the creation myth.
And to their credit, the Catholic church leads the charge on that!

Does the Catholic church still believe in exorcism?Exorcism in the Catholic Church - Wikipedia

Yup that too, but only for those who are possessed by demons!

 

[ding]

As long as the pope colludes to hide his pedophiles then his actions regarding buggery, etc. are infallible.

Can't help you until you read the report and you probably meant to say fallible.

 

[ding]

It's no different from when the popes supported burning witches and were still considered infallible.

Do you know why they stopped burning/drowning/hanging witches (Europe burned, America hung)?

But the doctrine on infallibility was never what you are claiming it was. You literally responded to a post that explained it. So there's really no excuse. So please educate yourself on it and stop making stupid comments that waste my time.

 

[ding]

To the popes' credit, they're now accepting Darwinian evolution over the creation myth.
And to their credit, the Catholic church leads the charge on that!

That's nice. Many great thinkers have always believed in honoring truth no matter where it came from or what it showed. After all... God is truth, among other things.

 

[ding]

Does the Catholic church still believe in exorcism?

No idea. Do I look like google to you?

 

[ding]

Times change but traditions on child abuse by Catholic priests change a little more slowly.

If you read the report you wouldn't keep making stupid statements like this. Stop wasting my time.

 

[Donald H]

Can't help you until you read the report and you probably meant to say fallible.

No, I meant 'infallible'.
At least in their own minds the pedophile priests and the popes who aided them in escaping from being punished, must be thinking that they have done no harm to the children.

Or at least think that they can sin with little children and then be forgiven by the god. I think that's the gist of the link you keep asking me to read.

In any case, the point is that you are intent on making excuses for the priests' and the pope's behaviour.

 

[notmyfault2020]

As long as the pope colludes to hide his pedophiles then his actions regarding buggery, etc. are infallible.

It's no different from when the popes supported burning witches and were still considered infallible.

I stopped reading at the first sign of an UNTRUTH.

It was the PROTESTANTS in the early years of the US who burned witches. Maybe some Catholics joined them, I don't know.. but it was NOT the Catholic Church who burned anyone. There was St Joan of Arc but again, the Church, or the clergy at the Inquisition court, would simply declare someone a heretic, and then the secular authorities.. kings, etc.. meted out the punishment or lack of it. And usually, the Church, when dealing with an obstinate heretic, intervened and asked for mercy from the secular powers..

 

[Donald H]

I stopped reading at the first sign of an UNTRUTH.

It was the PROTESTANTS in the early years of the US who burned witches. Maybe some Catholics joined them, I don't know..

Now you know that Catholics did too. But your comment above shows that you were lying about not knowing. Maybe?

but it was NOT the Catholic Church who burned anyone. There was St Joan of Arc but again, the Church, or the clergy at the Inquisition court, would simply declare someone a heretic, and then the secular authorities.. kings, etc.. meted out the punishment or lack of it. And usually, the Church, when dealing with an obstinate heretic, intervened and asked for mercy from the secular powers..

Find your own truths and you'll grow by doing it.

 

[notmyfault2020]

Now you know that Catholics did too. But your comment above shows that you were lying about not knowing. Maybe?

Find your own truths and you'll grow by doing it.

your responses don't make much sense.

And as much as you'd like to call me a liar, I am not a liar.

 

[ding]

No, I meant 'infallible'.
At least in their own minds the pedophile priests and the popes who aided them in escaping from being punished, must be thinking that they have done no harm to the children.

Or at least think that they can sin with little children and then be forgiven by the god. I think that's the gist of the link you keep asking me to read.

In any case, the point is that you are intent on making excuses for the priests' and the pope's behaviour.

If you care so much, why haven't you read the John Jay report yet?

 

[ding]

In any case, the point is that you are intent on making excuses for the priests' and the pope's behaviour.

Saying something doesn't make it true. Can you quote the post where I made excuses for the priests' and the pope's behavior? If you are going to accuse me of something the least you can do is present your evidence, right?

 

[Donald H]

Saying something doesn't make it true. Can you quote the post where I made excuses for the priests' and the pope's behavior? If you are going to accuse me of something the least you can do is present your evidence, right?

If you don't agree that your link is intended to make excuses for the priests and the popes, then you're going to have to explain in your own words what it's purpose is.

Or just continue to harp on about me not reading it? My terms are not negotiable, due to me reading enough of it to tell me that it's intent was to justify the Catholic churches behaviour. regarding it not stopping priest pedophilia.
I suggest you take the opportunity I've offered to read your own explanation, before it's withdrawn!

 

[ding]

the popes who aided them in escaping from being punished

How many were convicted and sent to prison? How many should have been sent to prison?

 

[ding]

If you don't agree that your link is intended to make excuses for the priests and the popes, then you're going to have to explain in your own words what it's purpose is.

Or just continue to harp on about me not reading it? My terms are not negotiable, due to me reading enough of it to tell me that it's intent was to justify the Catholic churches behaviour. regarding it not stopping priest pedophilia.
I suggest you take the opportunity I've offered to read your own explanation, before it's withdrawn!

I can't argue against accusations that don't provide any factual evidence. I can't debate rhetoric.

 

[ding]

Or just continue to harp on about me not reading it?

I'm harping on it because you keep making rhetorical statements which have no basis in fact. If you want to have an adult conversation then you have to have a factual basis for your beliefs rather than rhetoric that has no basis in fact.

 

[ding]

If you don't agree that your link is intended to make excuses for the priests and the popes, then you're going to have to explain in your own words what it's purpose is.

I haven't made any excuses for anyone. The purpose for you to read the report is so that you will have a factual understanding of the scandal and we can have an intelligent conversation rather than a conversation based on innuendo and rhetoric.