Contradictions of the modern popes
#31
(08-14-2012, 01:34 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-14-2012, 01:09 PM)TrentCath Wrote: Your excuses for pope paul VI are quite frankly ridiculous, the primary and secondary ends of marriage are always referred to in that order, why would you refer to them in reverse order? Its not only confusing its bizzare, and why do it twice? It seems far more likely that he was reversing the order just as happened in the new code of canon law, which does the same thing then that he just happened to twice refer to the primary and secondary ends in reverse order.

I cannot believe you are seriously making this argument.  Is English your first language?

Thats the best response you have?  :LOL:

Reply
#32
(08-14-2012, 01:13 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: How can we have a conversation when you post a million things? It would have been better to start separate thread based on topic.

It is unlikely he wants a conversation.
Reply
#33
Oh and Jayne before you make yourself look anymore foolish, you should know that condemnations of the reversal of the two ends of marriage are common and well known among the SSPX, in fact I can't believe you haven't heard of them, so you're going to have do better than just 'thats so silly!'
Reply
#34
1983 Code of Canon Law- heretical. Check
Popes Paul VI- Benedict XVI: preaching heresy with no break in continuity of the hermeneutic of rupture vs continuity proper- CHECK.

Calling John Lane... you have a candidate.
Reply
#35
(08-14-2012, 01:25 PM)Scriptorium Wrote:
(08-14-2012, 01:15 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-14-2012, 01:13 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: How can we have a conversation when you post a million things? It would have been better to start separate thread based on topic.

For your purposes perhaps, but not for mine. I simply intend to find all the relevant contradictions and put them in one place.

Why don't you start "contradictions of TrentCath" first, and then come back to this thread.

Alternatively you could you know, start your own thread, kind of like I did  :eyeroll:
Reply
#36
(08-14-2012, 01:37 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: 1983 Code of Canon Law- heretical. Check
Popes Paul VI- Benedict XVI: preaching heresy with no break in continuity of the hermeneutic of rupture vs continuity proper- CHECK.

Calling John Lane... you have a candidate.

:eyeroll:

a) never said that, and
b) yes clearly ABL and the whole SSPX is sede
Reply
#37
(08-14-2012, 01:28 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(08-14-2012, 01:15 PM)TrentCath Wrote:
(08-14-2012, 01:13 PM)Scriptorium Wrote: How can we have a conversation when you post a million things? It would have been better to start separate thread based on topic.

For your purposes perhaps, but not for mine. I simply intend to find all the relevant contradictions and put them in one place.

You seem to be trying to create an illusion of overwhelming evidence by posting a large quantity of points.  The quantity is indeed overwhelming.  The quality, however, is not.  The very first point on your list was laughable.

I am more convinced than ever that there are no serious theological problems with the recent popes, since these are the sort of tactics necessary to attempt to make a case against them.

You can make all the ad hominems you want, I didn't really intend to convert you anyway, as we are all very well acquainted with your cognitive dissonace, I merely intended to put all the evidence in one place.
Reply
#38
(08-14-2012, 01:33 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: There is no conversing with TrentCath. There is just the hammer of his own interpretation of doctrine coming down on all us "modernist-heretics", based on what he's been taught by others. I'm waiting for a reply to the links in the EENS thread about the links Ray M. Facere posted which basically says what I've been saying all along. I'm sure that theologian is wrong too.

What I want to know, per this thread, is how we've now had Popes preaching "heresy" for 40+ years. How on earth does one maintain that position without being a sede, and not find themselves getting laughed at by both the sede's and everyone else? It's kinda ridiculous.

Me and Ray have butted heads quie a few times before actually, along with quite a few other people on here on both sides, so take your caricatures and straw men elsewhere.
Reply
#39
Or you could just respond with all the reasons that respected, conservative theologian is wrong. Your use of "sophisms!", "ad hominem!" etc get old. Cry wolf to someone else dude. You engage in it just as much as anyone else. If you want to play the proper rhetoric game, then engage in proper, civil rhetoric or shut your SSPX mouth up.

Entiendes?
Reply
#40
Quoting the 1983 CIC I have another one for mr TrentCath:

Can. 1373 — Qui publice aut subditorum simultates vel odia adversus Sedem Apostolicam vel Ordinarium excitat propter aliquem potestatis vel ministerii ecclesiastici actum, aut subditos ad inoboedientiam in eos provocat, interdicto vel aliis iustis poenis puniatur.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)