What does fairness have to do with it?
Not that it would devastate my life, but, why do you want me banned? Let me repeat myself, I do not enjoy bickering Catholics. So why should I revisit that scene? If you doubt what I said and if you feel the need to know, then you just may need to stumble upon it yourself. As I stated earlier, they generously proclaim the other guy’s sliver.
I’m not trying to get you banned, I’m just trying to figure out what you’re referring to. And fairness does matter. That’s why I’m trying to get you to define “muck-raking”. If you’re going to make derogatory remarks about apologists in general, people have the right to know what exactly they’re being accused of.
Just a question…
Fine. I will talk about the one statement on this thread made by an “apologist” regarding another “apologist”.
Here we see Mr. Keating stating that Mr. Sungenis has used “some quotations from Nazi propagandists”, as though Sungenis’ stance was grounded on the work of many different nazis. If you would take the time to research this particular subject, you would instead learn that he ACCIDENTALLY used ONE quotation from ONE nazi. You would also learn that the original source used by the nazi was the Detroit Jewish Chronicle.
The custom of giving Holy Communion to infants was over 1200 years old before it was proscribed by canon law in the Latin Rite. So I don’t see the “old custom” argument as very compelling. Even before the custom was postively abrogated by canon law (something that has not happened to the custom of head coverings), St. Pius X asserts that the ancient custom of giving Holy Communion to infants and children fell into disuse. As such, customs, even very ancient ones are not necessarily binding.
You forgot to ask me how many times I have been married, or how many children I have brought into this world, or how my co-workers regard me.
Now, compare the following thesis to the instance above: Head coverings for women is an ancient custom, and as such, is binding upon all the faithful and cannot be abrogated by canon law.
What does your famililial arrangement have to do with your apologetic accumen? All I said is that Karl Keating is leader in the world of lay apologetics. As far as I know, unless you are Scott Hahn or Patrick Madrid incognito, you are not. Mr Keatings manifest desire to express his apologetics in the public forum, and his obvious skill (you do have to have some to be published) gives him a level a credibility that you unfortunately do not.
Apparently, nothing at all. Which is the point I was trying to make.
If you don’t care what anyone’s credentials are then many we can just invite Jack Chick or Bart Brewster over here to answer questions.
The simple point I was trying to make about credibility is that Stevereeno was essentially attacking Karl Keating over one simple sentence. Karl is a well-published author and Catholic Apologist, and the founder of this friggin’ site, for cryin’ out loud. I would think that people might try to show him a little more respect than demand that he make a public reconning for a sentence that is quickly appearing to be taken out of context. BTW, are you still Corps? I was a FMSS Hospital Corpsman for 15 years.
While it is not proscribed by the Church, it is no longer obligatory (ie. a norm of the Church).
This doesn’t square with what I’ve posted in #29 above. The ancient custom of giving Holy Communion to infants was 1200 years old. It fell into disuse. Then it became proscribed by canon law.
It seems the custom, “for a time” was not considered normative" (cf. CDF, INTER INSIGNIORES,1976). So (2) above seems to apply. Moreover, (1) seems to apply, as the majority of the community have ceased to observe the custom for a time. Thus, the custom cannot be said to be “continous” with respect to canon 26 of the Code of Canon Law. Thus, the custom is no longer a legal custom but is now merely an optional practice.