Ad Hominem + Canonical Typos
- Hristofor wrote (post 7251):
> I am surprised that you are usingSuch "surprise" comes from an addiction to
> Archbishop Peter (l'Huillier) as a reference.
"ad hominem" reasonning - which is forbidden
by the Guidelines of this Forum:
"Speak to the truth of the facts, quality of the
premises, and logic of the conclusions of the
other participants, not to their person (ad hominem)"
(Moderator's post 5902).
If Pierre L'Huillier happened to be mistaken, this is because
he was mistaken, not because he is Pierre L'Huillier!
And we would have to prove his error "as face value", not
according to his biography.
If, say, a schismatic tells us that 2+2=4, this does not mean that
2+2=4 is a wrong statement, nor does his correct statement makes him
And most importantly, A TRUE STATEMENT TOLD BY A SCHISMATIC
IS INFINITELY MORE VALUABLE THAN A LIE TOLD BY AN ORTHODOX.
As an illustration, consider the following exercise:
- since vl. Varnava has been sentenced according to canons applicable
to murderers, or to those who baptise the deaths (forget about the
deaconesses), does it mean he really committed murder, or he baptised
- conversely, if the canons used to condemn him are eccentric
to say the least (see details in posts 7164 and 7194) - are we not
lead to the conclusion (so much feared by fr Alexander in his post
7132), that "the legal judgement [against vl. Varnava] is [simply]
Fr Alexander wrote (post 7231):
> the Canonical citations given by ... against thoseIn relation to this "reciprocity" phenomenon, and to the
> who would foment schism in the Church actually apply
> most aptly to [themselves].
> But they cannot see this.
inability to apprehend it, there is an important Church rulling
which basically orders that whoever unjustly accuses somebody is
himself sanctioned by the very castigation he invokes.
Could anybody on the List provide the exact reference of this
interesting Holy Canon?