Pope DOES NOT say "Feeneyites aren't heretics"
This is an update on this thread: http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/...id=3281943

I will be honest, I did not read the whole 8 pages of that thread (BoD discussions are so boring) so if this was brought up in that thread, then I apologize.

Anyway, I saw this over at AQ:

[The Philosopher retracts an error, which originated on Angelqueen in 2006]

by The Philosopher
March 02nd, 2009

I have erred. A couple of weeks ago, I bombed it. Yes, I — the Philosopher — made a colossal mistake. It seems I imprudently trusted a friend who sent me a quote alleged to be from the pen of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. That passage, supposedly from an article in the scholarly journal, Communio, was a total fabrication. My friend was snookered by it, and I trusted him. The Philosopher has never been a fan of Descartes, but it seems I shall have to practice more “methodical doubt” when sent such a quote — even from my friends who are scholarly (never trust a Platonist!).

* * *

This is the passage:

“With regards to those who hold strictly the absolute necessity of water baptism, it would be quite wrong to charge them with heretical constructs. As they merely assert that which was the near-universal consensus of the Patristic era, such a charge would be proximate to condemning all but a few of the Fathers as heterodox.” (Communio April 1997 p 13. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.)

While I did not get it there, the quote originated on Angelqueen, where a dishonest polemicist used it and later admitted it was a fraud. When this was shown to me, I pulled down the quote and promised I would return to my former rigor of verifying, even if I trust

Deacon Augustine from Angel Queen:

Quote:Johannus, pascendi and everyone else, I really must apologise to you all for the above "quote" I cited - please do not rely on it or cite it elsewhere.

It is entirely a spoof and my own invention, and was meant to be a satirical comment on what he might have said based on the "Razing the Bastions" type theology.

I was hoping the spoof source would have given it away, but I guess it looked too realistic and I should have put something like: (sarcasm).

Once again, my sincere apologies to anybody who took this seriously.

And now you know...the rest of the story.

Thank you for the update.  Let's be glad that the Philosopher was humble enough to admit the mistake.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)