Second Catholic Answers Radio Show on Rad Trads Tonight (Aug 12) !
#21
I didn't listen I wanted some peace last night. But reading through here, it could be a start. If they keep this up and our best "calm" radmadtrads called in it could start to change minds and hearts. Just like St. Paul it's all in who is delivering the message. St. Paul a cosmopolitan Roman citizen was perfect for shooting the breeze to the pagans. He was really clever for Christ. This could be the trad Assissi.

tim
Reply
#22
(08-13-2013, 06:48 AM)2Vermont Wrote: But the real issue is not whether JPII "sinned".  The real issue is whether what he did at Assisi even in line with traditional Catholic teaching.  ...... In reality those who question these actions are actually defending traditional Church doctrine.

Oh, I know that.  That's precisely what I meant, above, just was in a hurry when writing it. But that's the essence of the non-analagous part of Staples' argument.  They are not parallel, because if violation of Church doctrine was at issue, without magisterial/papal reversal of doctrine (as we know, not really possible in that sense anyway), then something quite different is at play.  It was Staples who oddly brought up "sin" as a red herring, i.m.o.  And yet he also folded "sin" into "error" (that slipped in, I think, in his response), as if the two terms are interchangeable.  (Not.)  I kept wondering while listening, Why is he talking about "sin?"  I agree that the defense of Church doctrine is the issue. (Way to change the subject, Staples.)

CAF needs not only to get their facts about trads straight, they need to get their facts about Catholicism straight.
Reply
#23
(08-13-2013, 10:25 AM)Miriam_M Wrote:
(08-13-2013, 06:48 AM)2Vermont Wrote: But the real issue is not whether JPII "sinned".  The real issue is whether what he did at Assisi even in line with traditional Catholic teaching.  ...... In reality those who question these actions are actually defending traditional Church doctrine.

Oh, I know that.  That's precisely what I meant, above, just was in a hurry when writing it. But that's the essence of the non-analagous part of Staples' argument.  They are not parallel, because if violation of Church doctrine was at issue, without magisterial/papal reversal of doctrine (as we know, not really possible in that sense anyway), then something quite different is at play.  It was Staples who oddly brought up "sin" as a red herring, i.m.o.   And yet he also folded "sin" into "error" (that slipped in, I think, in his response), as if the two terms are interchangeable.  (Not.)  I kept wondering while listening, Why is he talking about "sin?"  I agree that the defense of Church doctrine is the issue. (Way to change the subject, Staples.)

CAF needs not only to get their facts about trads straight, they need to get their facts about Catholicism straight.

Ya think?  lol
Reply
#24
This is available for replay now.  I listened to it earlier.

You know, I don't really care about these jokers' opinions about those they consider "radical."  But, it is really annoying how they can't let callers make a point, articulate their questions, or otherwise speak wihout jumping in to rush them or "correct them for the benefit of the listeners. That made this an excruciating listen for me. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)