dissolution

Avi sayers must DESTROY all 'pfp' sayers

The Phrase "fullness of truth" which is so commonly used to refer to the Church and its teachings today is found in Congar's 1939 work "Divided Christendom"; refers to the new "ecumenical Church".

Stay safe out there, first pic is a picture of my friend iv (follow him for pred catches, @pickleboy677) baiting a predator to join a server that grabs his email Second pic is self explanatory (mary is an associate of a child predator & sex offender, dps.texas.gov/texas10mostwan…)

@PinballWiz4rd True

More people need to experience psychic dissolution amidst the misty redwoods methinks

Interesting parallel between Paul VI and Kung on the idea of "primacy of service" here

@FinnishZoomer True modernists don't use distinctions thats scholastic

@dissolution1806 Distinquo. Religious unity yes(if grace) racial unity no

"Under the Old Covenant, before the Holy Spirit is given, religious unity was closely bound with a human and racial unity. But the Holy Spirit, given under the New Covenant, and visibly manifested, has inaugurated the Church and the world-wide extension of unity." - Yves Congar

The left has no response to this

@CathRoser @irumyuui1 I would only feel confident on Kung, Delhaye, Semmelroth, Lehmann and Balthasar. Congar does seem quite suspect too tho based off his diary

@dissolution1806 @irumyuui1 You don’t think that (e.g.) the mutability of dogmatic notions, which is a pretty ubiquitous principle among all their authors, is implicitly modernist?

This is a direct misquote of what you posted an SS of. It says: "If it (Vatican II) should be opposed to Vatican I, then Vatican I—and this was not least the intention of Vatican II—would have to be supplemented and corrected in the light of the gospel." If I say, "If the moon is made of cheese, then the moon is tasty", I didn't say that the moon is tasty. This is called the "Frege-point", that you can express a proposition in a conditional statement without asserting it. As for the clarification, "...—and this was not least the interpretation of Vatican II..." can either be taken to apply to the conditional as a whole or just the consequent. If we read what follows, it is obvious what is meant. "...are not adequate to describe..." means insufficient. Because "inadequate" or "not adequate" means "not enough" in the English language (you can look it up if you don't believe me). So, either you interpret the clarification as specifying that the intention of Vatican II was to supplement and correct Vatican I (applying to the consequent) or as saying that the intention of Vatican II was to supplement Vatican I's inadequacies and correct those who oppose it to Vatican I (applying to the whole conditional statement). If what was meant was the former, you would expect what follows to clarify that Vatican I is opposed to Vatican II in this one regard, of being false in some respects, and inadequate in others. If what was meant is the latter, you would expect that what follows doesn't do that. What follows is actually him just saying that "in any case" (regardless of whether Vatican I is opposed to Vatican II), Vatican I's juridical language is insufficient in describing the Pope in respects that Vatican II is not, not him saying that Vatican I is incorrect because it is opposed to Vatican II.

@BasedBurger4654 @Gastonist_ Its fake

@Gastonist_ I've heard this before yet it never materialized.

“I’m over 6ft tall and I still can’t get a gf”

@mementomori_mt @TheiosGregorios Erm montfortian.substack.com/p/england-did-…

@TheiosGregorios @dissolution1806 Jamais trocaria meu país católico para viver sob um rei anglicano com dedos de salsicha e dentes estragados.

Acho engraçado que ele considera o Papa Leão chefe tanto da Igreja Católica como da Igreja Conciliar por eles definida. É como se dois corpos pudessem dividir a mesma cabeça.

@TheiosGregorios @mementomori_mt Erm I follow the thought of the school of La Reja (Argentinian) and Williamson (English). Also saxons belong to a first world country!

@dissolution1806 @mementomori_mt Castro mayer também era brasileiro e você é seguidor das ideias dele, Saxão.

@irumyuui1 I am not trying to defend Roser or his original claim, as I said in a reply to my original QT, i just wanted to share. Anyways love you nigga

You successfully did find Gallicanism in your other SSs, but that is just now how anybody would interpret that as it is alone. Regardless, much of the Nouvelle Theologiae condemned Kung anyway. The original claim was about the NT in general, not about Kung, and no individual example proves a general statement.

Kung in suggests that in order for his desire for the Pope to take "a new view of his function" as "a place of dialogue" to be a "model pope" Vatican I must be "corrected in light of the gospel" as it is "not adequate". We may infer Heterogenus evolution of dogma.

@irumyuui1 Proof he denied the infallbility of the magisterium

@irumyuui1 not assurting v1 is wrong in this case. Also see x.com/dissolution180…

@DrInquisitivus He is saying that if his idea is opposed to Vatican I, then Vatican I must change, rather than his idea being wrong. So it being in a if then seems irrelevant. Also read the next sentance?

@dissolution1806 That's inside of a conditional, isn't it? Not stating that that actually is the case.