I am very interested in what you have to say. My first read, as a layperson not trained in canon law, was that they have a pretty good point but that as the investigation they're asking for doesn't seem to enable any action, it's more of a (mostly) good roundup of bad stuff.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
save it..... ANYTHING DATED 1389 would seem to REEK of the ENVY/LUST/GREED for the Power of God... this has been an ONGOING corruption in the Church since the beginning..we are only NOW experiencing its PUTRIDNESS.
-
Dr. Peters is referring to canons (Canon law) not dates, with the numbers. (Though I can empathize with your point!)
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I look forward to future posts on this!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I don't think there's really a question that he's pushing contradictions of divine revelation. But we've had nearly a century of weaponized ambiguity in the Church. Almost nobody enforces even things like canon 915. It's almost "Yeah, he's a heretic, but so what?"
-
Also, it occurs to me that Honorius was condemned specifically for negligence.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
No it's not simply negligence. He has signed his name to documents which contain statements which appear to contradict dogma. As you know, heretics generally will not openly admit their heresy, but are convicted by both their words and confirming actions.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Umm, re-read my tweet, and do read the canon.
- Show replies
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.