seebs

The thing about a "pastoral" council "not changing doctrine" is that, by definition, its teachings are what doctrine was all along.

Which is to say, when you "interpret" VII by declaring that it's not as important as the state you would like to see replace God, you are in schism as much as the SSPX people whose rejection is, by contrast, at least openly admitted.

Apologist

Inerrant authority applies in certain situations. Just because the Pope says "Boy! This soup is awesome!" doesn't mean that the soup is infallibly awesome. Some would probably disagree.

rigorist

Only evidence in the thread is mine. You dropped all cites to the Catechism. You dropped all cites to Lumen Gentium. You dropped all cites to Nostra Aetate.

Apologist

Not really. That's just it. A pastoral council gives a new twist on current teachings. That twist has been open to a wide range of interpretation. As I said earlier. Liberals are trying to make it out to override the entirety of the past. Trads see it as disregarding the past. You can't view it either way.

It must be viewed as valid, but bearing in mind the past.

You said that I would like to see a state replace God. I didn't. You are putting words in my mouth.

laughing dog

Considering that lemonade also has no bones, I don't see what your point is.
What does that red herring have to do with persecuting him because of the results of his research?

Apologist

Do you have any pre V II documents?

Evoken

I don't think you are correctly representing Apologist's views here.


Valz

David B

Yeah - I thought about mentioning that. But that can be put down to some sort of temporary historical abberation. So I didn't.

That quack philosopher cum cunt Aquinas seems to me to be rather crucial to the history of Catholicism, though.

Have you ever read him without cherry picking?

Aquinas is fascistic, from what I recall of having read him. I can understand an Aquinus freak, who is bright enough to go through with the implications of what taking Aquinas on board means becoming a fascist.

The thing is, though, that Aquinas's alleged proofs of god are busted.

Unless, of course, someone can demonstrate to the contrary, in which case I'd change my view.

Anyone want to try? Last I looked - and I'm only just back to the thread after a night out - Apologist wasn't doing very well.

David B (is off to check out the rest of the thread)

Apologist

He is?

So, surely, you agree that Fascism is best for theists, no?

Infinate regression is impossible.

David B

Please explain why

David B (wonders if a lot of posts going 'Infinite regression is an impossibility' 'please explaiin why' is some sort of indicator that something can lead towards infinite regression - but that idea could, he supposes, could. logically, be broken by Apologist actually explaining why infinite regression is an impossibility)