“”bigger issue is the presentation of syllogism based upon an impossible premise. Daniel1212 cobbled together another tome built entirely upon a hidden “if”. The argument can only proceed if one accepts the premise.””
This is true ,dear friend.
Both Daniell1212 and boatbums post long posts that change nothing about what canon law and what the Church teaching has been ,all they do is point fingers without knowing if someone has repented of grave sin and accuse Priests, Cardinals,Bishops, etc.. of not teaching the faith properly by taking of what some of them say out of context or expecting them to condemn someone without knowing if they repented even during their last breath of life
What really concerns me is how some protestants on FR who know the truth about the Trinity and core Christian beliefs do not openly try and set straight the protestants who don;t believe core Christian beliefs ,but rather band in unity with them against the Catholic Church-who gave them the understanding of these core Christian beliefs given to us by Christ to the Catholic Church
Long day at the lake, I wish you a Blessed evening!
No one will ever accuse either of them of being pithy. There is, however a name for a hypothetical construct created for the purposes of attaching it to a party and then attacking it, it is called a straw man. The simple truth is that a straw man created with 100,000 words is still a straw man.
I would also suggest you become familiar with something we witness often on these threads; the mind projection fallacy. The mind projection fallacy is a logical fallacy in which someone thinks that the way they see the world reflects the way the world really is, going as far as assuming the real existence of imagined objects, or in our case actual Catholic doctrine. That is, someones subjective judgments are "projected" to be inherent properties of an object, rather than being related to personal perception. One consequence is that others may be assumed to share the same perception, or that they are irrational or misinformed if they don't. Another manifestation of the fallacy is when one assumes their own is when someone assumes that their own lack of knowledge about a subject as meaning that the is is not or cannot be understood by others.
Peace be with you, FRiend
...all they do is point fingers without knowing if someone has repented of grave sin and accuse Priests, Cardinals,Bishops, etc.. of not teaching the faith properly by taking of what some of them say out of context or expecting them to condemn someone without knowing if they repented even during their last breath of life.
Your attempts at damage control is contrary to your attempt to deal with liberal RCs by relegating them all as excommunicated, which was part of your attempt to dismiss my statement that “under the Roman model of sola ecclesia, formal divisions and schisms are also apparent. Her interpretation of Tradition, history and Scripture has significant differences with other Catholic groups and churches and others who operate under her sola ecclesia model.”
You tried to minimize the substantial issues within Catholicism and then tried to deal with disagreements within Roman Catholicism by focusing on "latae sententiae," which you used to dispense liberal Catholics, when in fact i was mainly referring to permissible disagreements within Roman Catholicism due to the need for interpretation, in addition to the divisions within Catholicism under sola ecclesia.
And when i in response i provided substantiation of just some the differences with Catholicism, as well as how latae sententiae is open to interpretation, and that the interpretation Rome examples is to overall to treat liberal Catholics as members in life and death (despite the official line), you resorted to your typical dismissal of evidence with, “all you do is try and create a web of confusion that only panders to those who hate the Catholic Church,” and by trying to justify allowing souls like Pelosi others living in grave sin to receive Eucharist by saying they might “have gone to confession,repented and became worthy,” which a baseless assumption contrary to the facts. The conflict and confusion within Catholicism is not my doing, but your problem, and cannot be dismissed either by attributing a false motive or by special pleading.
You then attempted to deal with my substantiation of the reality of the interpretive broadness of the criteria for excommunication by asserting that such “have no effect about what the Church dogmatically teaches,” labeling it “dishonest and cunning,” when in reality i had already explained to you and substantiated that “what Rome says and effectually conveys manifests interpretation, and this can seem to be two different things,”as part of the interpretative complexity in applying what the Church dogmatically teaches. And thus i responded that it was your “your minimization of the differences between Catholics, and the wishful simplistic portrayal of excommunication, and of Rome's strictness thereof as if words alone constitute teaching.., that can be said to be dishonest,” and then i provided more evidence of the interpretive complexity and what is overall effectually taught.
Of course, then you complain about the length of posts which is much due to substantiation, and charge thing are taken out of context when they are not, and substantiation is necessary due to the misleading portrayals of Catholic conservatism and unity, which is how this began. And i have corrected critical error here by Prots.
Exactly. I've never seen either say anything to the non-Trinitarians who would post their objections to the Trinity. Nothing, not a word. it's almost as if they agree with them.
Oh and bb -- for the record, if kosta did say anything that I believed was against my beliefs, I called him out, in contrast I've seen posts by the non-trinitarian one saying the trinity is falsely made up and have pinged you to them, but naught. Do you agree with their interpretation?