For those who label themselves "Trads"

[Guest Rick777]

I like Cam42. He's cool. Just thought I say that.

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' post='989109' date='May 23 2006, 11:49 PM']
If you think about it, just because something can be erroneous doesn't make it.

Of course, I don't have an opinion on it being erroneous in faith or morals, but somehow you've twisted it into me wanting to say so. Why don't I have an opinion on it being erroneous...well, because I'm a faithful Catholic...one who also disagrees with how you view the Catechism as the "end all." If you don't, well, that's kinda how you're coming across.

You need to make a distinction between the capacity and the actuality of a thing. That's a pretty Thomistic distinction.

Andy, perhaps leaving your bias against me outta this might make it more fruitful.

Also, I didn't bring forward the death penalty in here at all.

Can you, though, respond to my post at the top of this page (or around there) and on the other page? I think not because you have not.

Time for you to play by the rules you like for debate. (edit smiley)

[quote]This Catechism, which you so quickly dismiss as "potentially erroneous" is in fact a direct out pouring of Vatican Council II and in direct harmony with Lumen Gentium as well as the will of the Magisterium. For as John Paul II says:[/quote]

Actually, I don't quickly dismiss it. I just treat it the same as the Church. It isn't infallible...If it is not potentially erroneous it is infallible, according to the definition you supplied. If it it not potentially erroneous then it has the charism of infallibility...If it doesn't, can you show how that is?

Anyways, it is not infallible, is it?

It's funny and odd how you said that I think it's erroneous and then later you say I think it's potentially erroneous. One of these thoughts about me is erroneous itself, and you know which.
[/quote]


Until you understand the difference between INERRANT and INFALLIBLE, this argument will continue to be circular. Come back when you have studied the Catechetical view, promulgation and understand this charism. Have a nice day.

[qfnol31]

You have said it is inerrant and not responded to it being potentially erroneous, have you?

If it isn't potentially erroneous, I don't see how it isn't infallible.

You didn't, as has been typical in this thread, actually answer anything that I raised. You just said "You don't understand" as you have said much...but you sidestep anything I actually say...

[dairygirl4u2c]

It seems to me, which I have not read close but thought I'd offer, that qnolf has said that it has erroniousness in it with those homosexual tendency negligible comments. Now he's saying it's only potential erroneous. But it could be tht the homo tendency comment was meant as if things change in homosexual DNA then it's eronneous in the future, as that one dude said, and so in that sense it's potentially erroneous and that 's what qnolf meant by what he said, that it's not necessarily free from error.
It also seems like Cam is not responding to how it can be for sure inerrant unless it is infallible. I think he agrees not everything in it is infallible, so how can it be surely inerrant, as qnolf has stated?

Edited May 24, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[Resurrexi]

In the following post I'm going to unhijack this thread. I have chosen to no longer identify myself with those who identy themselves as "Tradtional Catholics" or "Trads." I choose to do so because the so called "Traditional Catholics" are mostly heretics who deny that His Holieness is the Pope, deny that the Novus Ordo Missae is Catholic, deny that the Second Vatican Council was at least "authoritative," and deny that persons who attend the Novus Ordo Missae and believe in the Pope and find Vatican II to be authoritative are Catholic.

If the term "Traditional Catholic" were not abused as it currently is today, I would still use the term to describe myself as such since I attend the Traditional Latin Mass or Eastern Divine Liturgy, find works of "modern biblical scholarship" such as the New American Bible and New Jersualem Bible to be a load of carp, do not read the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the CCC in Q and A format (though I do find them to be authoritative), only attend the Novus Ordo when it is the only way to fufill my Obligation, do not think the new process of canonizations which does not use the "Devil's Advocate" to be appropriate (though I do believe that those canonizations are still infallable), follow the 1962 claendar, and detest Life Teen and Female Altar Boys and Extraoridanry Ministers of Holy Communion in ordaniry circumstances and holding hands during the Pater Noster and not kneeling during the Canon and shaking hands at the Pax and unveiled women in church and versus poplum (other than when versus poplum IS ad orientam) and the charismatic movement and other "liturgical abuses".

Since I have said these things, I would like to now say that I identify myself as a normal Catholic who happens to be very traditional and hates liturgical abuses.

[qfnol31]

Now that is great to read.

[missionseeker]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='989798' date='May 24 2006, 03:57 PM']
In the following post I'm going to unhijack this thread. I have chosen to no longer identify myself with those who identy themselves as "Tradtional Catholics" or "Trads." I choose to do so because the so called "Traditional Catholics" are mostly heretics who deny that His Holieness is the Pope, deny that the Novus Ordo Missae is Catholic, deny that the Second Vatican Council was at least "authoritative," and deny that persons who attend the Novus Ordo Missae and believe in the Pope and find Vatican II to be authoritative are Catholic.

If the term "Traditional Catholic" were not abused as it currently is today, I would still use the term to describe myself as such since I attend the Traditional Latin Mass or Eastern Divine Liturgy, find works of "modern biblical scholarship" such as the New American Bible and New Jersualem Bible to be a load of carp, do not read the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the CCC in Q and A format (though I do find them to be authoritative), only attend the Novus Ordo when it is the only way to fufill my Obligation, do not think the new process of canonizations which does not use the "Devil's Advocate" to be appropriate (though I do believe that those canonizations are still infallable), follow the 1962 claendar, and detest Life Teen and Female Altar Boys and Extraoridanry Ministers of Holy Communion in ordaniry circumstances and holding hands during the Pater Noster and not kneeling during the Canon and shaking hands at the Pax and unveiled women in church and versus poplum (other than when versus poplum IS ad orientam) and the charismatic movement and other "liturgical abuses".

Since I have said these things, I would like to now say that I identify myself as a normal Catholic who happens to be very traditional and hates liturgical abuses.
[/quote]


I agree the term is used loosely and must say that I am a normal Catholic who happens to be very traditional and hates liturgical abuses, too.


Also, I hope to be able to help fix them even though I am a girl. Not on a large scale but in whatever parish I am in.

I also think that alot of times it is adults more then teens who like LifeTeen Music at Mass. I know way more teens who refuse to go to LT Mass than adults who refuse to go to a Mass that is beautiful and shows more respect to God. I know of so many adults who sit in the back and Text message during Mass. (LT) I bet they wouldn't do that at a Chant Mass or even one with traditional hymns.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='missionseeker' post='990132' date='May 24 2006, 11:52 PM']

I also think that alot of times it is adults more then teens who like LifeTeen Music at Mass. I know way more teens who refuse to go to LT Mass than adults who refuse to go to a Mass that is beautiful and shows more respect to God. I know of so many adults who sit in the back and Text message during Mass. (LT) I bet they wouldn't do that at a Chant Mass or even one with traditional hymns.
[/quote]

wanna bet. If someone wants to be irreverant or disrespectful the setting doesn't matter. The only real deterrant to such behavior would be the blatent disapproval of people around them, and now a days that rarely happens. Embarrassment and guilt are great social forces that are rarely applied these days.