Peace Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Actually the positive claim on the existence of heresy is your own. In the Church as with criminal law they would be presumed innocent of heresy unless proven otherwise. That would be your job. One cannot positively assert a negative. That is a painful abuse of language proof and logic. I have not made a claim on the existence of heresy. Again - I wrote that I do not know whether or not they are heretics. So specifically - what is it that you believe my job is exactly? I do not know what it is that you believe I must do. As for the presumption of innocence - I am not aware of any formal obligation to personally believe that any particular person or group is not in heresy, but please correct me if you have something specific to that effect. From what I understand, the legal presumption of innocence applies to the imposition of penalties in the context of a trial or a tribunal. I am not aware that it applies to what I must believe. In your particular case - you wrote that it is obvious that they are not heretics. Now - why is it obvious? I do not believe that is such a crazy question to ask. Simply because you said so, or because there is good evidence to support what you wrote? If you have good evidence to support what you wrote - I am open to considering it. Or, are you saying that it is obvious that they are not heretics because they have not been formally declared heretics? If that is your argument - I can accept that (although I would not find it very persuasive).
Nihil Obstat Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) It is a priori true that you might or might not be a penguin. But just because that is true and I said it does not mean you are obligated to prove you are not a penguin. But by saying you might be I am clearly implying that I think that possibility is actual. I have no evidence implying that you might be. Edited June 29, 2015 by Nihil Obstat
Nihil Obstat Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 I have not made a claim on your penguinhood. But I do not know whether you are or are not a penguin. Do you have any evidence that you are not a penguin?
Credo in Deum Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) Innocent until proven guilty. Not, guilty until proven innocent. Edited June 29, 2015 by Credo in Deum
Nihil Obstat Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 Innocent until proven guilty. Not, guilty until proven innocent. Just what I would expect a penguin to say.
Credo in Deum Posted June 29, 2015 Posted June 29, 2015 (edited) Just what I would expect a penguin to say. Edited June 29, 2015 by Credo in Deum
Peace Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 I have not made a claim on your penguinhood. But I do not know whether you are or are not a penguin. Do you have any evidence that you are not a penguin? Penguins can't use the internet homey. I'm just saying.
PhuturePriest Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Penguins can't use the internet homey. I'm just saying. That's what they want you to think. Haven't you seen the Penguins of Madagascar?
Yaatee Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 For the record, twenty million Facebook users have superimposed a rainbow over their profile photos.
Amppax Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Vatican II being a pastoral council and not a dogmatic one, one can reject Vatican II in its entirety and still be completely Catholic. Try again.
Amppax Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 For the record, twenty million Facebook users have superimposed a rainbow over their profile photos. WOW! They must be right. Silly me.
tojo Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 For the record, twenty million Facebook users have superimposed a rainbow over their profile photos. Frankly, given that plenty of people outside of the United States are doing so also, I'm surprised it's not several times higher. Facebook has 1.44 billion active monthly users.
Yaatee Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 WOW! They must be right. Silly me. Just an observation, and I guess, pretty lame. After all, FB is mainly the younger generation, that 1 bill of youth. Except I'm on it.
superblue Posted July 2, 2015 Author Posted July 2, 2015 just goes to show you how bad off the world is on common sense when that many people take to FB to support what has happened, but it should have been a clue with Ireland on what a poor an crooked system would in turn do and or follow suit as in wanting to continue a progressive movement. But hey at least now the road is paved for polygamy to be welcomed, and why not incest as well. I find it really bizarre on how the Supreme court can actually claim to have limits on anything any more. like if someone came up to the supreme court and said it should be law that anyone can throw candy at a fat kid, supreme court is going to be, oooooo no no no that is it, that is a line we don't cross, unamerican yada yada. But for the Supreme Court, to go beyond its power, that it was designed to have, and declare what they have done to be legal, when such issues are at the state level, and for Congress to give up all power to the socialist party and the supreme court is beyond disgusting. I Already supplied a thread to holy matrimony which i really should have put in here. luckily the Church can side step this nightmare by just not issuing state marriage licenses and only performing the sacrament of marriage, which will have everyone on the screaming bloody murder socialist left side, wondering what in the world happened the supreme court said it is legal. It is sadder that society would rather listen to blatantly corrupt government officials and have what they say, shape and form their lives and let their actions be something to look up too, than to what the Church and Christ has to offer. It isn't society always at war with homosexuals, it is the democrat ( socialist party ) who keeps flaming hate with race baiting and the idea that the world hates homosexuals and that Christians want them to burn in hell and wont accept them ever, that is the deception. An a republican party who is beyond lazy to fight back and more concerned about protecting an image they no longer have. All this is, is showing we no longer have acceptable limits in society, Marijuana is now becoming acceptable, porn is easier to access that drugs, violence, sex, drugs, indecent language is easier accepted on mainstream tv, and our laws are being twisted to suit a new agenda. Instead of others of having to accept our laws it is now acceptable to let socialists destroy our laws from the inside out with applause to motivate them more an more.
Peace Posted July 4, 2015 Posted July 4, 2015 Try again. Perhaps - but why? Perhaps one might argue that if you entirely reject one of the Church's councils that there is an implicit rejection of Her authority over the Christian faithful within that rejection. Is that your argument?
Amppax Posted July 4, 2015 Posted July 4, 2015 Perhaps - but why? Perhaps one might argue that if you entirely reject one of the Church's councils that there is an implicit rejection of Her authority over the Christian faithful within that rejection. Is that your argument? Are you defending his position? My point had more to do with the distinction he made regarding Vatican II as a pastoral council. His point simply isn't true. At the very least the 2 Dogmatic Constitutions (Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum) demand assent, in their definitive statements.
Amppax Posted July 4, 2015 Posted July 4, 2015 Are you defending his position? My point had more to do with the distinction he made regarding Vatican II as a pastoral council. His point simply isn't true. At the very least the 2 Dogmatic Constitutions (Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum) demand assent, in their definitive statements. Darn, I suppose my editing window disappeared. I didn't mean for that to be accusatory, I just didn't completely understand what you were getting at.
Peace Posted July 4, 2015 Posted July 4, 2015 Are you defending his position? My point had more to do with the distinction he made regarding Vatican II as a pastoral council. His point simply isn't true. At the very least the 2 Dogmatic Constitutions (Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum) demand assent, in their definitive statements. I thought that what he asserted was basically correct - that the council was pastoral and that Vatican II does not contain any new definitions that Catholics are bound to assent to. As for the dogmatic constitutions - I think that even though they use the word "Dogma" - they are not necessarily infallible. My understanding is that we have to assent to them to the extent that they contain things that have already been infallibly defined, but we are not bound to assent to anything beyond that. So I wanted to know why you thought he was wrong. I think that one can reject Vatican II and remain a faithful Catholic (in theory at least). But in practice I somehow doubt it. It would seem that perhaps such a person does not follow the Church in spirit (but that is not something I can ultimately judge). Especially if such a person is discouraging other Catholics from attending the normal form of the Mass that the Church currently advocates. I very much agree with Vatican II, by the way (whether one characterizes it as dogmatic or pastoral). I generally try to stick with what the Church has to say whether it be doctrine or something more prudential.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now