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
(09-15-2012, 05:04 PM)kingofspades Wrote: [ -> ]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.

There is no insinuation as such, only recognition that we cannot in fact verify whether you are or are not what you say you are.  And that this problem has come to a head before, albeit the issue was not whether that user was or was not a cleric.

Will PM this as well to ensure it is seen.
(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.

I agree with you in the context of this forum (or any forum that I know).  But (just a comment) I've often thought it would be nice to have a more private place where you could converse with just one person (like email but with more immediate responses and easier viewing).
(09-15-2012, 04:49 PM)m.PR Wrote: [ -> ]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.

I think fisheaters often unsettles people.  We have to be prudent and be clear that we are expressing difficulties, not doubts.  But it is very hard not to present disturbing difficulties when we talk about the Church in the conciliar era.  If someone doesn't want to be disturbed, maybe he should go elsewhere.  I do agree you have to be prudent, but it is not easy today.
(09-15-2012, 05:10 PM)tmw89 Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-15-2012, 05:04 PM)kingofspades Wrote: [ -> ]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.

There is no insinuation as such, only recognition that we cannot in fact verify whether you are or are not what you say you are.  And that this problem has come to a head before, albeit the issue was not whether that user was or was not a cleric.

I thought that Vox had checked him out and confirmed his identity.  Am I misremembering?
Even if it was, the last time the forum moderator confirmed someone's identity, well...

Nothing against Vox.  In fact, I believe that kingofspades is a priest.  I'm just saying, for someone who's predisposed to think otherwise, be suspicious... you can't say they wouldn't have cause.
(09-15-2012, 05:15 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Even if it was, the last time the forum moderator confirmed someone's identity, well...

Nothing against Vox.  In fact, I believe that kingofspades is a priest.  I'm just saying, for someone who's predisposed to think otherwise, be suspicious... you can't say they wouldn't have cause.

Thank you.

What's more, N.B. I did not make any suggestion that the matter of identity was only expounded upon in order to shift focus away from the issue in the OP.
I think it's a simple question that deserves an answer. Not too big of a deal.
Instead of trying to misunderstand his less than clear English, why not try to understand what he is saying. Why is the first assumption that he is some kind of modernist spy, trolling to bring souls to hell ?  I'll tell you why, you believe if anyone isn't SSPX they are heretics, right boys. This them and us as in 99 percent of the Church is heretical, is schismatic, the Bishops stuff notwithstanding.

tim
(09-15-2012, 05:30 PM)Tim Wrote: [ -> ]Instead of trying to misunderstand his less than clear English, why not try to understand what he is saying. Why is the first assumption that he is some kind of modernist spy, trolling to bring souls to hell ?  I'll tell you why, you believe if anyone isn't SSPX they are heretics, right boys. This them and us as in 99 percent of the Church is heretical, is schismatic, the Bishops stuff notwithstanding.

tim

Kingofspades said that strongly disagreeing with dogma is not sinful as such.  We're trying to understand exactly what that means.
(09-15-2012, 05:30 PM)Tim Wrote: [ -> ]Instead of trying to misunderstand his less than clear English, why not try to understand what he is saying. Why is the first assumption that he is some kind of modernist spy, trolling to bring souls to hell ?  I'll tell you why, you believe if anyone isn't SSPX they are heretics, right boys. This them and us as in 99 percent of the Church is heretical, is schismatic, the Bishops stuff notwithstanding.

tim

I don't think I've ever said anything like that.  I am not a member of the SSPX.
(09-15-2012, 05:33 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: [ -> ]Kingofspades said that strongly disagreeing with dogma is not sinful as such.  We're trying to understand exactly what that means.

The tone makes it difficult to believe that the questions are being asked in good faith.  As a matter of principle, I try to believe people's questions are sincere, but it is hard in this thread.
Pages: 1 2 3 4