co-authors are other participants quoted. I haven't changed content of thr replies, but quoted it part by part in my replies, interspersing each reply after relevant part. Sometimes I have also changed the order of replies with my retorts, so as to prioritate logical/topical over temporal/chronological connexions. That has also involved conflating more than one message. I have also left out mere insults.
Pages
- Home
- Other blogs, same writer
- A thread from Catholic.com (more may be added)
- Answering Steve Rudd
- Have these dialogues taken place? Yes.
- Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
- I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube - or perhaps not
- What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.
- It Seems Apocalypse is Explained in a Very Relevant Part
- Dialoguing Mainly with Adversaries
- Why do my Posts Right Here Not Answer YOUR Questio...
Thursday, January 25, 2024
What's a Heresy?
The Theological Notes: Dogmas, Doctrines and Heresies w/ Michael Lofton
Reason & Theology | 23 Jan. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo30L69jy0Q
Nice.
A teaching that contradicts traditional doctrine and is very hard to reconcile, to impossible, even if you turn stones, with dogma, is that a heresy or not?
Because, that's where I definitely place CCC § 283.
Unless of course you care to show a reconciliation between that and Trent Session V, 1546, forget the actual date, canons 1, 2 and 3 is totally possible.
Would be interesting to see you try.
I have even challenged Robert Barron* on that one (you might refer to him as bishop and as ordinary of Winona–Rochester).
He has so far left the response to laymen ...
* See here:
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Bishop Barron Against Rad Trads
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/01/bishop-barron-against-rad-trads.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment