|
Post by Pacelli on May 11, 2017 6:38:50 GMT -5
I posted the section on cooperation the same night that you requested it. It can be found HERE
You should carefully read the section and reconsider your views. It does not say that such persons are heretics, it says that they are then under the suspicion of heresy. Yes... this works for the clergy and the laity. But keep right on posting the next several pages and we get to the GUILT MORE SPECIFIC OF THE CLERGY in "teaching condemned doctrines". I "suspect" they are not JUST suspected of heresy! I bet the next few pages will be even more interesting yet! But even if they are not... (more interesting that is) Is it your stance that a person in our times can be in a perpetual state of "suspected of heresy" and can NEVER become a heretic because there's no proper authority to warn them? (drum roll to absurdity) The CLERGY are the SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM HERE NOT THE LAITY. Which is the CRUX of the argument. No, that is not my position. My position is to believe and follow the law of the Church, so it really isn't my position, it's what the Church teaches and binds us to adhere to. If a person is suspected of heresy, but has not taken actions which give us moral certainty that he is a heretic, then, we cannot presume that he is a heretic. That's why the Code specifies the acts mentioned as causing a suspicion of heresy as the cause of one being suspect, not grounds in themselves to conclude that one is a heretic. These acts do not in and of themselves make the case that the person is a heretic, but they certainly make the person suspect. We cannot just presume that someone is a heretic, if we cannot make a case against such a person. If an accusation lacks substance, it is rash. You can also read Augustine, the whole set is online and I had already recommended to you to read all of it a few times.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 11, 2017 10:15:41 GMT -5
I have a thick skin, and this does not trouble me. My motive in pressing this with you was to help you, this is really the root of your problem in other matters, you assume things as a fact, but you lack the evidence and (or) authoritative sources that specifically support your views. This was very obvious to me in how you reacted in this case, and I see it in your thinking on countless other matters. You are not the first person that I have dealt with that has this problem and will not be the last. With that said, seeing that you are not seeing this in yourself, and it is not drawing any good fruit, I will end this part of the discussion. I will keep working with you so long as you want on the other matters, but realize that we will keep revisiting this same problem until you are willing to reflect on yourself and work on it. Oh man... I couldn't resist responding to self generated fiction, created in story time, by yourself... IN REAL TIME no less... throwing snarky comments out there to set the stage for pushing this issue as if I've somehow misrepresented you, and then pushing this issue onto all my "thought". Well played sir... your "disingenuous" debate style is clever... evil, but clever. Cut the crap and stick to the facts. First off, I hardly see this as a debate, all it has been so far is me educating you in regards to your unsubstantiated ideas that have no support in canon law or theology. Evil is a strong word. If one doesn't agree with your ideas and private interpretation of Catholicism, that is somehow evil? I have been giving you the benefit of the doubt of your good will, but statements like this are only harming your reputation.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 11, 2017 11:06:33 GMT -5
Thank You Pacelli for answering. But M is no longer with us...I left the pm open to him. Feel free to finish up any points that you would like to add...but in fairnesss M will not be able to respond further.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on May 11, 2017 11:14:18 GMT -5
Thank You Pacelli for answering. But M is no longer with us...I left the pm open to him. Feel free to finish up any points that you would like to add...but in fairnesss M will not be able to respond further. Thank you Vox, but I finished saying what I had to say to him. I will, hoverver keep dealing with the subjects he has brought up for the benefit of everyone else here. I will be adding more sources on non-Catholic sects, and also dealing with the matter of Ad Evintanda Scandala that did not get resolved. Michael is one among many that gravely misunderstands these matters, so I will try to help them, and at the very least, vaccinate others so they won't fall into this trap.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 11, 2017 11:20:23 GMT -5
Yes and the Una Cum issue.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 13, 2017 17:08:09 GMT -5
No, I am not an authority nor am I the one relying on myself. I look to the authorites to teach me, not make it up as I go along. Just can't cut the underhanded comments can you? LOL. Whatever. Do what you have to do smart guy. Thanks for the link... we idiots have it hard in life. Your source says the following... (and it DOES say you can go to a schismatic WELL DONE... but there is still a problem here that is dreadfully obvious... allow me to help.) "Answer to the question: “Whether it is permitted to demand absolution of a schismatic priest in danger of death if no Catholic priest is at hand,” as follows: Yes, provided no scandal is given to the faithful, no danger of perversion threatens the sick person, and, finally, provided that it may be reasonably presumed that the schismatic minister will absolve according to the rite of the Church." When would this ever be the case? 1. No scandal given to the faithful? 2. No danger of perversion to the sick person? 3. Reasonably presumed the schismatic will absolve according to the rite of the Church? (Three alone can be assumed with most schismatics I'll give you that!) And who is competent enough to make this judgement? Does it fall on the discretion of the individual laity? Does one request permission from the Bishop in advance of the emergency... a sort of local policy perhaps? Who has the authority to make such a life and death (eternal life & death) judgement in this very dangerous matter? Then... how is this decision made?
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 13, 2017 17:21:50 GMT -5
Thank You Pacelli for answering. But M is no longer with us...I left the pm open to him. Feel free to finish up any points that you would like to add...but in fairnesss M will not be able to respond further. Cowards block the truth. SHOCKING!!!! Not really. More emotionalism. If a person is suspected of heresy, but has not taken actions which give us moral certainty that he is a heretic, then, we cannot presume that he is a heretic. That's why the Code specifies the acts mentioned as causing a suspicion of heresy as the cause of one being suspect, not grounds in themselves to conclude that one is a heretic. These acts do not in and of themselves make the case that the person is a heretic, but they certainly make the person suspect. St. Robert Bellarmine disagrees with you. "(Saint Belarmine in De Romano Pontiface II, 30) “... for men are not able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works they may judge him to be a heretic pure and simple and condemn him as a heretic.” EXTERNAL WORKS... works such as worshipping in common with heretics... or recognizing a heretic as your pope. Saying heretical things, supporting heretical events, pushing error and novelty. The code is not designed for how you are using it. Canon law is not meant to be dug through by the laity such as yourself and used as a gauge to what you can and cannot do without being punished. It is designed for the use of those in authority... how to try and punish criminals. YOU ARE ABUSING CANON LAW. You ignore the truth at your own risk. Block away poor deluded souls. I'll pray for your conversion and your salvation. That is all.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 13, 2017 17:24:03 GMT -5
Is it lawful to receive sacraments from "orthodox" clergy or Anglicans then "full stop", if all the Catholic clergy in your region suddenly died, as long as you "resist their errors" on your website? Anyway... Yes, or NO... why or why NOT? Question never answered as of yet. Why not?
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 13, 2017 17:26:34 GMT -5
Thank You Pacelli for answering. But M is no longer with us...I left the pm open to him. Feel free to finish up any points that you would like to add...but in fairnesss M will not be able to respond further. Thank you Vox, but I finished saying what I had to say to him. I will, hoverver keep dealing with the subjects he has brought up for the benefit of everyone else here. I will be adding more sources on non-Catholic sects, and also dealing with the matter of Ad Evintanda Scandala that did not get resolved. Michael is one among many that gravely misunderstands these matters, so I will try to help them, and at the very least, vaccinate others so they won't fall into this trap. Anathematizing heretics is a "trap"? You people have lost your minds. You'll twist anything you can so that you can make it ok to receive sacraments from those who are a part of the Novus Ordo sect. Unbelievable! You're as bad, if not worse than Mr. Daly. Similar sophistry. Whatever. I tried to shake you out of your nonsense... It was worth a shot.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 13, 2017 17:27:47 GMT -5
Yes and the Una Cum issue. Its about time we got it established that this is NOT the una cum issue. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 13, 2017 17:34:30 GMT -5
First off, I hardly see this as a debate, You hardly see... yes... I agree. You have decided what you want to do (receive sacraments from those in union with HERETICS) and have done a tremendous amount of research to push the horrible idea that it is lawful to do so. This is not only sinful in an of itself, but you are leading OTHERS into sin with your terrible advice. You hardly see, because you are BLINDED BY WHAT YOU WANT, blind to what is TRUE. That is all.
|
|
|
Post by Banned snake on May 13, 2017 17:51:47 GMT -5
but in fairnesss M will not be able to respond further Your first ban? This is sort of an honor I guess. If you ever WAKE UP and realize the terrible error you and your cohort Pacelli are spreading to the detriment of souls... send me an email. The setup of this site is nice. I can't remain a member in good conscience anyway seeing that you are spreading dangerous errors. I did what I could to shed light on them and hopefully someone will see the light. Obviously this is not the case with you and sadly not with Pacelli either. Good day. Thank you for allowing me to get my point across, even though you don't agree... it was allowed to be argued before my being banned. May the Almighty God lead us to conversion and save us in this time of unspeakable chaos.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on May 14, 2017 6:46:38 GMT -5
Thank you Vox, but I finished saying what I had to say to him. I will, hoverver keep dealing with the subjects he has brought up for the benefit of everyone else here. I will be adding more sources on non-Catholic sects, and also dealing with the matter of Ad Evintanda Scandala that did not get resolved. Michael is one among many that gravely misunderstands these matters, so I will try to help them, and at the very least, vaccinate others so they won't fall into this trap. Anathematizing heretics is a "trap"? You people have lost your minds. You'll twist anything you can so that you can make it ok to receive sacraments from those who are a part of the Novus Ordo sect. Unbelievable! You're as bad, if not worse than Mr. Daly. Similar sophistry. Whatever. I tried to shake you out of your nonsense... It was worth a shot. but in fairnesss M will not be able to respond further Your first ban? This is sort of an honor I guess. If you ever WAKE UP and realize the terrible error you and your cohort Pacelli are spreading to the detriment of souls... send me an email. The setup of this site is nice. I can't remain a member in good conscience anyway seeing that you are spreading dangerous errors. I did what I could to shed light on them and hopefully someone will see the light. Obviously this is not the case with you and sadly not with Pacelli either. Good day. Thank you for allowing me to get my point across, even though you don't agree... it was allowed to be argued before my being banned. May the Almighty God lead us to conversion and save us in this time of unspeakable chaos. Umm you're not the first ban...we dont memorialize or explain bans here...normally its just pfffft...youre gone. But your crowing pride and lack of Charity makes explaining youre ban to the forum unnecessary...in fact I already banned your IP but YOU went out and sneaked a new IP to continue posting. This just proves what a disingenuous snake you are...not the heroic truth teller...snake who has forked tounge.
|
|