|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 21, 2016 11:21:45 GMT -5
This was proclaimed in another thread today.
I have a question: Does this mean that nobody is allowed to quote ancient Catholic magisterial documents where "heretical" did refer to other than actual heresy?
|
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 21, 2016 13:00:14 GMT -5
This was proclaimed in another thread today. I have a question: Does this mean that nobody is allowed to quote ancient Catholic magisterial documents where "heretical" did refer to other than actual heresy? Well, lets actually show the entire quote, shall we?... Quote Me: It seems this as degenerated into stubborn vocabulary turf war. I proclaim hereto for...the descriptor "heretical" at this forum shall and only refer to actual heresies. This settles it here. I grant pardon any previous possible
Mistakes made on the matter from either party in the debate. So let us discuss weightier matters. Read more: tradcath.proboards.com/thread/305/tc-guilty-opinionism#ixzz4HzO1Yq20As you can see in context I am obviously referring to the member's commentary here and now. I also am reacting to the obvious intransigence that is surfacing (on both sides) and I find it: - Counterproductive
- Not keeping in the decorum I try to keep at Trad Cath (albeit ever imperfectly and as autocrat I violate the rule my self...but meh...my forum)
a derail of the thread
- unnecessary and argumentative... to no valuable benefit.
Is that clearer for you CC?
Also I see now you are employing some snark as well: tradcath.proboards.com/post/3049Which is fine with me to a point as it adds some edge and color to the forum HOWEVER I hope you dont keep doing this every time because it comes across as a butthurt reaction which I find to be below your abilities. So can we move on? Bring me some content of your own...start threads about interesting and controversial things...lets keep it interesting... don't be  |
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Aug 21, 2016 15:22:19 GMT -5
A debate over terms can be boring, but clearly defined and properly used terms are necessary. This guy is making the case that it's better to just be an ignoramus and use terms in an imprecise manner even when you know better.
The modernists were also experts at playing with terms, while carefully evading detection from the authorities of the Church. It seems to me that he has an agenda at play here in conflating heresy with error.
Anyone that waters down or changes the use of terms from commonly understood meanings as used by the pre-Vatican II Popes, theologians and canonists should cause Catholics to stand back and put up their guard.
Let him cite a single use of the term, "heresy," being applied to doctrinal error by any Catholic source for the last 500 years, which is not referring to ancient general usage of the term. I can save the time, he can't, and the reason is that he is espousing a novelty.
It appears to me that what he is really up to is this: if he is able to conflate heresy with lessor doctrinal error, he thinks his case will be strengthened against the SSPX, who could then be labeled as heretical in the "general" sense. Are not Catholics duty bound to avoid heretics?
Did you also take note of how he also uses a generic meaning of "sermon," conflating approved sermon preaching with general religious talks which could be given by a Protestant, a Catholic laymen, etc.?
|
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 21, 2016 16:01:11 GMT -5
Well hopefully the issue is resolved |
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Creedwater on Aug 21, 2016 16:49:24 GMT -5
A debate over terms can be boring, but clearly defined and properly used terms are necessary. This guy is making the case that it's better to just be an ignoramus and use terms in an imprecise manner even when you know better. The modernists were also experts at playing with terms, while carefully evading detection from the authorities of the Church. It seems to me that he has an agenda at play here in conflating heresy with error. Anyone that waters down or changes the use of terms from commonly understood meanings as used by the pre-Vatican II Popes, theologians and canonists should cause Catholics to stand back and put up their guard. Let him cite a single use of the term, "heresy," being applied to doctrinal error by any Catholic source for the last 500 years, which is not referring to ancient general usage of the term. I can save the time, he can't, and the reason is that he is espousing a novelty. It appears to me that what he is really up to is this: if he is able to conflate heresy with lessor doctrinal error, he thinks his case will be strengthened against the SSPX, who could then be labeled as heretical in the "general" sense. Are not Catholics duty bound to avoid heretics? Did you also take note of how he also uses a generic meaning of "sermon," conflating approved sermon preaching with general religious talks which could be given by a Protestant, a Catholic laymen, etc.? Now you throw in modernist and ignoramus. But you know, avoiding arguments and points is more a modernist move, which you seem to keep doing. I don't. But we are shut down by Voxx from discussing it. I have no problem with using heretical just as the Church officially does. It was a valuable discussion to at least let Catholics know of the old usage. You know, officially, the Church uses the term "schism" only one way, but She allows the laity to imprecisely say "Western schism" when it strictly was not a schism. As well, the Church uses the term "Christian" in her official documents to be equal to "Catholic" yet allows the laity to use it to refer to Protestants. You really are over-reacting on this. I can fully address the SSPX and opinionism without using the term heretical. That was merely a side issue that arose. |
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Aug 21, 2016 17:32:14 GMT -5
pacelli is no modernist...chillax |
|
