Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Ad Hominem + Canonical “Typos”

Expand Messages
  • sergerust2002 <sergerust@hotmail.com>
    ... Such surprise comes from an addiction to ad hominem reasonning - which is forbidden by the Guidelines of this Forum: Speak to the truth of the facts,
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 30, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hristofor wrote (post 7251):
      > I am surprised that you are using
      > Archbishop Peter (l'Huillier) as a reference.

      Such "surprise" comes from an addiction to
      "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
      less schismatic.

      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
      his victims?

      - 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]
      invalid"?



      Fr Alexander wrote (post 7231):
      > the Canonical citations given by ... against those
      > who would foment schism in the Church actually apply
      > most aptly to [themselves].
      > But they cannot see this.

      In relation to this "reciprocity" phenomenon, and to the
      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?


      Serge Rust
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.