Bishops Sinning?

[dairygirl4u2c]

ty

[LouisvilleFan]

Guess it would depend on the nature of the dissent and what technicality or whatever it was that they were in disagreement about. All I know is those bishops are dead and the Church is still alive.

[dairygirl4u2c]

thank lou

incidentally, too bad conservative obviouslyists will want to point to papal infallibility quotes at catholic.com as end of discussion, instead of facing reality, and having conversations like this, that reflect reality:
[url="http://coalitionforfog.blogspot.com/2007/06/historical-dissent.html"]http://coalitionforfog.blogspot.com/2007/0...al-dissent.html[/url]

[dairygirl4u2c]

thank lou

incidentally, too bad conservative obviouslyists will want to point to papal infallibility quotes at catholic.com as end of discussion, instead of facing reality, and having conversations like this, that reflect reality:
[url="http://coalitionforfog.blogspot.com/2007/06/historical-dissent.html"]http://coalitionforfog.blogspot.com/2007/0...al-dissent.html[/url]

[dairygirl4u2c]

thank lou

incidentally, too bad conservative obviouslyists will want to point to papal infallibility quotes at catholic.com as end of discussion, instead of facing reality, and having conversations like this:
[url="http://coalitionforfog.blogspot.com/2007/06/historical-dissent.html"]http://coalitionforfog.blogspot.com/2007/0...al-dissent.html[/url]

[rkwright]

What does it matter?

[rkwright]

I read your article you posted, most notably the piece by Newman about the infallibiltiy. I think he states it well here...

[quote]Far different has been the case now,—though the Council is not yet finished. But, if I must now at once decide what to think of it, I should consider that all turned on what the dissentient Bishops now do.
If they separate and go home without acting as a body, if they act only individually, or as individuals, and each in his own way, then I should not recognize in their opposition to the majority that force, firmness, and unity of view, which creates a real case of want of moral unanimity in the Council.
Again, if the Council continues to sit, if the dissentient Bishops more or less take part in it, and concur in its acts; if there is a new Pope, and he continues the policy of the present; and if the Council terminates without any reversal or modification of the definition, or any effective movement against it on the part of the dissentients, then again there will be good reason for saying that the want of a moral unanimity has not been made out.
And further, if the definition is consistently received by the whole body of the faithful, as valid, or as the expression of a truth, then too it will claim our assent by the force of the great dictum, 'Securus judicat orbis terrarum.'[/quote]

The bishops did return home, they did not act as a body, they continued to take part in the council, the pope has continued the policy of the present, the defination was not reversed and thus there is good reason for saying the want (lack) of a moral unanimity has not been made.

When you say people aren't facing reality, the reality is that, under Newman's defination, there was no real dissent, rather there was moral unanimity.

As far as your question about them "sinning", I'm in no place to judge the bishops themselves, and right now theres not a lot info in front of me to say there was.

Edited October 25, 2007 by rkwright

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1409092' date='Oct 25 2007, 10:35 AM']thank lou

incidentally, too bad conservative obviouslyists will want to point to papal infallibility quotes at catholic.com as end of discussion, instead of facing reality, and having conversations like this, that reflect reality:
[url="http://coalitionforfog.blogspot.com/2007/06/historical-dissent.html"]http://coalitionforfog.blogspot.com/2007/0...al-dissent.html[/url][/quote]
lol! the infamous torture debate. haha

[Socrates]

Geez, Dairy, what's up with all the conservative-hating?