|
Post by Banned snake on May 6, 2017 17:07:43 GMT -5
You have the healthy spirit of a Roman, looking to the commissioned representatives of Christ to authoritatively rule over you. This spirit is not common in our days, 50 years of crisis have warped it in many. For some, matters such as this are easy to grasp, others need rigorous proofs to recover this spirit. Ouch... the underhanded comments just keep a flying!
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 6, 2017 17:11:23 GMT -5
is from an earlier post...M...please clearly define HOW I am in in union with a heretic when I nether subscribe to nor support said heretic. When in fact I openly reject the heresys publically and actively (as the forum I host shows) attempt as best a layperson can, oppose said heresys... This is a fair and honest question. I will ask you a fair and honest question in return, not to be absurd or sarcastic, but seriously for perspective. Do you think it would be lawful to attend "orthodox" or "anglican" services... receive their "sacraments" then "full stop", as long as you have a web site where you openly refute their heresies and schism? If not... why not?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 6, 2017 17:14:18 GMT -5
You have the healthy spirit of a Roman, looking to the commissioned representatives of Christ to authoritatively rule over you. This spirit is not common in our days, 50 years of crisis have warped it in many. For some, matters such as this are easy to grasp, others need rigorous proofs to recover this spirit. Ouch... the underhanded comments just keep a flying! Why are you interpreting the comment as a dig towards yourself?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 6, 2017 17:48:41 GMT -5
The fact that there is no one to warn is a critical fact. The automatic effect of determining one a heretic, following the procedure, cannot happen until this (the warning given by one authorized to give it) happens. The canon is clear on the process. I do not measure moral certitude from this alone, I said it can be part of the case, not make the case. It reinforces certitude in a case that would otherwise be in the gray area.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 6, 2017 17:48:43 GMT -5
I think it has now been WELL established that it is NOT required to be named PERSONALLY to be condemned as a HERETIC.
Moving right along.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 6, 2017 17:51:32 GMT -5
Ouch... the underhanded comments just keep a flying! Why are you interpreting the comment as a dig towards yourself? Context. You wouldn't have said it HERE if you didn't want to apply it to your debate adversary (me). Cute and underhanded. How about we stick to the facts moving forward yes?
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 6, 2017 17:58:21 GMT -5
The fact that there is no one to warn is a critical fact. The automatic effect of determining one a heretic, following the procedure, cannot happen until this (the warning given by one authorized to give it) happens. The canon is clear on the process. This is still a lingering side issue. It's only partially relevant. Judicial proceedings in the absence of a judge require personal judgement. When there are no courts in civil law, law is enforced by the people via lynch mob. Its lawful in context, but not in any normal time. I can't make a judgement in the way that a court judge does. BUT I can say "that behavior makes one SUSPECT OF HERESY per canon law" and then suspect that person of heresy... even warn them that their behavior is a terrible sin. I can then go on to see that they don't give a fig and after an allotted time (perhaps) name them as a heretic just like an authority figure would do. It is not binding via the law books, but it is binding on myself and all under my authority. This is not the point since it is about the laity. MY POINT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAITY outside of the fact that these laity are worshiping in common with members of a heretical sect who profess an open apostate as their leader. This makes the laity suspect of heresy per canon law. There's no judge to enforce this, but it still true. Your position on this point would lead us to believe that if all the cops die in one state, that state no longer has the ability to deal with criminals... so crime is no longer crime!!! This is anarchy and it is absurd.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 6, 2017 18:01:00 GMT -5
More later, but I'd like to address the real issue first... the crux of the matter being the Novus Ordo is a non-Catholic sect.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 6, 2017 18:02:28 GMT -5
I think it has now been WELL established that it is NOT required to be named PERSONALLY to be condemned as a HERETIC. Moving right along. It depends on how you are using the term, " condemned."
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 6, 2017 18:03:23 GMT -5
Why are you interpreting the comment as a dig towards yourself? Context. You wouldn't have said it HERE if you didn't want to apply it to your debate adversary (me). Cute and underhanded. How about we stick to the facts moving forward yes? Actually, how about you stop rashly judging my intentions. FYI, your judgment on this matter is incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 6, 2017 18:10:13 GMT -5
Michael wrote:
The source I gave to you is clear on this matter, do you dispute the source?
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 6, 2017 18:21:59 GMT -5
Michael wrote:
All of this is not relevant to this discussion, the fact of the existance of a sect is not something we disagree on.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 6, 2017 18:33:19 GMT -5
The fact that there is no one to warn is a critical fact. The automatic effect of determining one a heretic, following the procedure, cannot happen until this (the warning given by one authorized to give it) happens. The canon is clear on the process. This is still a lingering side issue. It's only partially relevant. Judicial proceedings in the absence of a judge require personal judgement. When there are no courts in civil law, law is enforced by the people via lynch mob. Its lawful in context, but not in any normal time. I can't make a judgement in the way that a court judge does. BUT I can say "that behavior makes one SUSPECT OF HERESY per canon law" and then suspect that person of heresy... even warn them that their behavior is a terrible sin. I can then go on to see that they don't give a fig and after an allotted time (perhaps) name them as a heretic just like an authority figure would do. It is not binding via the law books, but it is binding on myself and all under my authority. This is not the point since it is about the laity. MY POINT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAITY outside of the fact that these laity are worshiping in common with members of a heretical sect who profess an open apostate as their leader. This makes the laity suspect of heresy per canon law. There's no judge to enforce this, but it still true. Your position on this point would lead us to believe that if all the cops die in one state, that state no longer has the ability to deal with criminals... so crime is no longer crime!!! This is anarchy and it is absurd. It's apples and oranges, the Church and state cannot be equated here. While we agree that in the Church you can make a judgment that another is a heretic, apostate, schismatic or sectarian, prior to the judgment of authority, your judgment remains just that, your judgment. Your judgment is non-authoritative, meaning it binds no one else. If another disagrees with you, he is not bound to your judgment. The judgment of the laity, or even of most priests on earth, will not be enough to end this crisis. The authorized electors of a Pope must make this judgment to see an end to the crisis, absent direct intervention from God.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 6, 2017 18:44:19 GMT -5
Michael wrote: All of this is not relevant to this discussion, the fact of the existance of a sect is not something we disagree on. The Novus Ordo is a non-Catholic sect. YES/NO
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 6, 2017 18:45:08 GMT -5
I am curious as to where M goes for Mass.
|
|