FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Kingofspades, RE ex cathedra
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
90% of everything that gets posted on this site is a violation of the rules, since most of it is an attempt to assassinate the character of the Vicar of Christ or one of God's priests.

You start this thread calling out a fellow as if he had been dodging you ("more than 24 hours have passed")... that's an implicit slur against this man who is a parish priest. He's trying to save souls while you lot are trying to ruin them.
(09-15-2012, 03:36 PM)tmw89 Wrote: [ -> ]As a clarification of my own, this thread concerns the user kingofspades RE ex cathedra.  Other users, in particular those who are aware I cannot see their posts, are asked to desist:  kingofspades can speak for himself.

Since you cannot see my posts, how could it possibly make any difference to you whether I post or not?
(09-15-2012, 04:02 PM)Adeodatus01 Wrote: [ -> ]90% of everything that gets posted on this site is a violation of the rules, since most of it is an attempt to assassinate the character of the Vicar of Christ or one of God's priests.

By what method did you empirically deduce the figure "90%"?


(09-15-2012, 04:02 PM)Adeodatus01 Wrote: [ -> ]You start this thread calling out a fellow as if he had been dodging you ("more than 24 hours have passed")... that's an implicit slur against this man who is a parish priest. He's trying to save souls while you lot are trying to ruin them.

He says he is a parish priest.  We have only his word as to his identity.  In the past, personas on this forum have not aligned with their "real life" identities.  There is no actual surety.

But be that as it may, I have reported your post quoted above for the line "He's trying to save souls while you lot are trying to ruin them."  You have grouped me into a collective trying to ruin souls.  I take offense to your unwarranted and unfounded assertion.  It is slander.

Please write more carefully in the future.
Cardinal Newman said that "ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and doubt are incommensurate;"

When it comes to ex-cathedra teaching, difficulties should not even make a doubt, let alone a disagreement.
(09-15-2012, 12:42 PM)tmw89 Wrote: [ -> ]More than twenty-four hours have passed since the last time I remarked in the JP2 saint thread that kingofspades had yet to clarify the following underlined statement

Is there a rule if someone does not respond to you in 24 hours, it is permissible to publicly denounce him, as it were, by making a new thread, with the neglectful poster's name in the title, and even asking other people to not add anything to the conversation?

It's like you are challenging Fr. to a duel. This is a bit ridiculous.

edit:
(09-15-2012, 03:55 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]This all seems reasonable to me. I think the problem we run into here is that many conservative Catholics, and here trads are no different from the "neocons," tend to put forth a definition of Catholicity that puts great emphasis on blind adherence to dogma.

I get the overall point but it does seem to me very problematic to go around expressing difficulties with dogmas publicly. While these difficulties may not be real doubt on the part of one person, they may completely unsettle another. Thus we must be prudent with what we say, where we say it, who can hear it.
(09-15-2012, 04:49 PM)m.PR Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-15-2012, 12:42 PM)tmw89 Wrote: [ -> ]More than twenty-four hours have passed since the last time I remarked in the JP2 saint thread that kingofspades had yet to clarify the following underlined statement

Is there a rule if someone does not respond to you in 24 hours, it is permissible to publicly denounce him, as it were, by making a new thread, with the neglectful poster's name in the title, and even asking other people to not add anything to the conversation?

It's like you are challenging Fr. to a duel. This is a bit ridiculous.

A request for clarification from a user who says he is a priest RE a statement which appears to contradict standard Catholic understanding is not ridiculous.

Again, there is no duel.  Nor have I made a denunciation.  Only a request for clarification.  His response thus far has not clarified the issue.
(09-15-2012, 04:54 PM)tmw89 Wrote: [ -> ]A request for clarification from a user who says he is a priest RE a statement which appears to contradict standard Catholic understanding is not ridiculous.

It is ridiculous to make a whole new thread about it. After merely 24 hours!
(09-15-2012, 04:56 PM)m.PR Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-15-2012, 04:54 PM)tmw89 Wrote: [ -> ]A request for clarification from a user who says he is a priest RE a statement which appears to contradict standard Catholic understanding is not ridiculous.

It is ridiculous to make a whole new thread about it. After merely 24 hours!

It appears to me that our subjective criteria for "ridiculous" in this particular case is not aligned.
I will not participate anymore in this topic if the OP is trying to insinuate that I am lying about my priesthood.  >:(
This is unacceptable, offenisve, without respect, and if no excuse follows, I'm done with that poster.

I did my best to clarify things, and that should be enough for the moment.
It is good to know that those who strongly disagree that Christ was God are not sinning.  The elect just became a much bigger group.
Pages: 1 2 3 4