Nazianzen

Totally Traditional

[Nazianzen @RealNazianzen]

Thread of threads

John XXIII declining to rule the Church by law

https://t.co/6gvlKlKK60

Texts on John XXIII's revolution

https://t.co/oYsZXiWqOq

The New Church doesn't govern by law

https://t.co/6gvlKlKK60

A Dissertation on papal law from 1954

https://t.co/BdckJEoN6Y

[Nazianzen @RealNazianzen]

Here's a Catholic dissertation from Germany, 1954, that a friend found.

[Nazianzen @RealNazianzen]

@moirans_fan @AmericanReform_ @DTCory @FrLavery The consciences that were definitely warped were those whose real purpose was to damage the economy of the South and who didn't care how much harm came to the negroes as a result. And their subsequent indifference to negro suffering proved it.

[Nazianzen @RealNazianzen]

@FrLavery Because you began by directly stating that the slavery praticed by Catholics in the South was evil. In order for your analogy to work there had to be some evil which was being tolerated for proportionately grave reasons. What was that evil, if not the one you stated?

[Nazianzen @RealNazianzen]

The notion that slavery is intrinsically wrong is, I believe, heretical.

Numerous Catholic bishops in the old South taught clearly that it was lawful and the Holy See never corrected them, let alone rebuked them (despite the insistent urging of liberals).

@FrLavery

[American Reform @AmericanReform_]

1. Slavery, considered absolutely, is in no way inconsistent with Natural or Divine law. Theologians and canonists have historically outlined a number of titles by which a man could be lawfully reduced to servitude. In good conscience, Catholics have bought and sold slaves, recognizing their rights and providing, most importantly, for their spiritual welfare. Incidentally, there can be great friendship between master and slave.

Slavery is, however, contrary to the first intention of Nature and Pope Leo XIII, in keeping with the spirit of the Gospel, did enjoin Catholics to effectuate the universal abolition of the institution at the end of the 19th century. This was a good thing.

If you dispute any of these specific points, Father, please let me know.

2. As for the question of the American Revolution and its philosophical paradigm, could you please clarify your criticism of my presentation (judging things, of course, on my body of written work and not a single post)? https://t.co/MH5GLsz7CK

After the revolutionary war, and abstracting from its liceity, George Washington did receive praise from Popes for putting the country right and being friendly to the Church. In addition, his natural virtue was noted along with the friendly relations he had with America’s first Bishop, John Carroll. Carroll, if you recall, was the first choice of the notorious Freemason Benjamin Franklin and it was, unfortunately, the latter’s recommendation which made him a Bishop. From what I have read, there are good reasons to consider Carroll a Liberal and proto-ecumenist, and his reaction to the Revolution should be compared to Bishop Briand’s reaction in Quebec — the reader can be the judge of the true, Catholic response.

Also, bear in mind that when Pope Pius IX donated an engraved stone for the Washington Monument as a diplomatic gesture of goodwill, the anti-Catholic Know-Nothings (who controlled the monument’s construction committee in the 1850s) sabotaged and removed the stone, refusing to install it. This is the same Washington monument whose cornerstone was laid in a Masonic ceremony.

Finally, given the British recognized the legitimacy of the US in 1783 at the Treaty of Paris, I would argue UPA was achieved and any defects present in the “Founding” would have been healed, for the sake of the common good.

It was then imperative for the Holy See to establish warm relations with the new country and work to secure the rights and welfare of Catholics.

[Nazianzen @RealNazianzen]

@FrLavery "To defend your statement that attendance at godless schools is intrinsically evil..."

I didn't make such a statement.

Maybe come back when you're not angry?

[Nazianzen @RealNazianzen]

@FrLavery Just to make this, is possible, even clearer, if one were to foresee that attendance at a Godless school would seriously harm the child's faith, then no other conditions could justify placing the child in the school.

[Nazianzen @RealNazianzen]

@FrLavery You've already conceded that slavery is itself lawful.

Godless education isn't.

Tolerating an evil is lawful within certain conditions. Slavery isn't intrinsically evil, as you aver, it is *often conditioned by evil* and that's a different kind of moral case entirely.

[Nazianzen @RealNazianzen]

@FrLavery "This would be similar to the case of a Catholic child who attends a godless public school. This is an evil which may be tolerated as long as it is unavoidable, but which must be eliminated as soon as possible."

Godless education is against divine and natural law. Slavery isn't.

[Nazianzen @RealNazianzen]

@FrLavery "Considering that I never said it was intrinsically evil, I fail to see why you feel the need to tag me in this post."

AR appears only to be defending the lawfulness of slavery per se. You are calling him a Feeneyite or whatever and posting irrelevant texts.

What am I missing?

[Nazianzen @RealNazianzen]

@moirans_fan @DTCory @FrLavery @AmericanReform_ These all either refer explicitly to unjustly enslaving free men or abusing slaves, or in one case the text has been cut right after the relevant question was apparently stated so that one cannot know what is being condemned.

Theft is condemned. Property isn't.

[Nazianzen @RealNazianzen]

The proposition under criticism here is incomplete.

The New Church doesn't demand that anyone assent to any specific point of doctrine. This is why it's aflood with heretics "in good standing." This is why it has no visible unity of belief.

[Nazianzen @RealNazianzen]

They don't believe in anything so they don't know how to make anyone else believe anything either.

It's an antichurch in every respect. An ecclesia is a gathered-in assembly. That's a dispersion.

[Nazianzen @RealNazianzen]

The proposition under criticism here is incomplete.

The New Church doesn't demand that anyone assent to any specific point of doctrine. This is why it's aflood with heretics "in good standing." This is why it has no visible unity of belief.

[Novus Ordo Watch @NovusOrdoWatch]

'Where Prevost Is' is right on one thing: If Paul VI was Pope, then Vatican II requires the assent of Catholics.

[Nazianzen @RealNazianzen]

Weaponised orthodoxy is really about the only force making for doctrinal unity in the new church and it can't even produce a facsimile of real unity of profession because nobody is able to say what specific doctrinal propositions are obligatory.

[Nazianzen @RealNazianzen]

@jdflynn @holysmoke With respect, this is insane. Marriage is a contract, so that the Church can impose requirements for the validity of the contract. Valid contract = valid sacrament. Holy Orders aren't. Which is why schismatics can and do validly ordain and consecrate bishops.

[Nazianzen @RealNazianzen]

@jdflynn @holysmoke With respect, this is insane. Marriage is a contract, so that the Church can impose requirements for the validity of the contract. Valid contract = valid sacrament. Holy Orders aren't. Which is why schismatics can and do validly ordain and consecrate bishops.

[Nazianzen @RealNazianzen]

I read this and wondered about this @DominoFide account. Some ferocious fiend, filled with fiery rhetoric, flowing out over feckless sedes, who flee in fear after a mere feather-touch of three tweets?

So I issued a clear challenge to his re-tweeting of @RomanoSace57080

[Nazianzen @RealNazianzen]

But alas, no response to that challenge either.

So, @BigModernism , what do you think? Are these challenges not sufficiently clear, direct, and falsifiable to constitute truly definitive debate points?

[Nazianzen @RealNazianzen]

I read this and wondered about this @DominoFide account. Some ferocious fiend, filled with fiery rhetoric, flowing out over feckless sedes, who flee in fear after a mere feather-touch of three tweets?

So I issued a clear challenge to his re-tweeting of @RomanoSace57080

[Chris Jackson @BigModernism]

@fr_geckle No big name will have a discussion with @DominoFide for more than 3 tweets.

[Nazianzen @RealNazianzen]

The challenge: https://t.co/QtBJOyWTby

The result? @RomanoSace57080 appears to have blocked me. @DominoFide has not replied.

Instead, the latter replied to another respondent on the ensuing thread, so I answered that.

https://t.co/LSiq7z6NqH

[Nazianzen @RealNazianzen]

This is wrong.

Public dissent *is* allowed even to ex cathedra teaching - under the Novus popes.

@DominoFide can't show that the Novus popes care at all about such dissent, nor do most Novus bishops.

This point he will continue to avoid.

@RomanoSace57080 @AmericanReform_