[COLOR="Red:
[QUOTE]
Nektarios Lady, post:95, topic:381598"]
You have mis-quoted my words, . . . ] I’ve not seen you quote a single Church Father . . . ] name a single Father to back-up your accusation here that Bishops, through the ApostleS, were Not given the keys to both “loose” & “bind”
[/QUOTE]
. . . .]
This will be the dozenth time I’ve responded to you. Where I have paid you the respect of responding directly to your claims. I encourage you to attempt the same.
- For the SIXTH TIME: I relied on the Fathers previously cited (St. Augustine, Jerome, Epiphanius)-- I even PASTED THEM into my previous comments for you and you ignored both them and my words. Will you not honestly see that you are doing this? If you slowly contemplate this back and forth, or take a fresh and objective look at my comments, you’ll see me doing this throughout. I could number the references and it would be embarrassing.
Roughly 4-5 posts ago I came to the conclusion that you weren’t even reading my comments–though I’m still holding out hope that this can turn around. I would love to be wrong on this score.
- Though the core point I’ve raised was the unequivocal differences between ABC/NFP–to which I await a response, you honed in on a side-comment (
) and there-by immediately jumped off the tracks–note first, here is what I actually said about the Keys and their vested authority:
“the Fathers DENY that the authority vested in the Keys was distributed equally, or could be exercised per-se by local Bishops, or even as official and final by councils of the same character;]”
The honest, sober reader will note that I did not deny that the Fathers teach that the Bishops could exercise the authority of the keys, but rather the point was the **degree and scope of their ** use of them–the degree to which they’ve been officially vested to local bishops. The bottom line here is you’re just not accurately interpreting me, I never said this: "Bishops, through the ApostleS, were Not given the keys to both “loose” & “bind” . . nor can the inference be reasonably drawn that I hold the same.
Be very precise in how you parse the meaning the passages on the specific points I’ve alluded to, and with humility, and prayer (and most of all Grace to enlighten the intellect,) and you will see this. Autocephaly has no place in the Patristic or Conciliar record–it is a medieval invention laced with political corruption. The silence in the Tradition is deafening; its just not there-- not a spec. Period.
- Relying on the above authorities cited (St.'s Augustine, Jerome, Epiphanius, etc), I have gone through dozens of differences between NFP and ABC . . in which ABC is categorically condemned in its actus reus. Will you even attempt to respond to this outlining of the Patristic actus reus?
"'Unlike ABC which actually is i) conduct; ii) intruding as cause; iii) intrinsically as a iv) thwarting effect to the v) actus reus in the solemnity of the Sacrament–NFP can’t even possibly i) as an act, ii) intrinsically iii) intrude as a iii) causal iv) actus reus of solemnizing marriage. It discerns an independent circumstance element and cannot even itself occasion a sin or inherently create a mens rea susceptible to becoming the same.
. . . ]
The differences are tremendous; ABC and NFP are irreducibly, absolutely different in Christian Marriage and the duty of Procreation–these differences are essential, each quickly produce others and dictate even more because of how the analysis relates to the nature and duties of the Sacrament:
- the very actus reus in question and
- how mens rea attaches the these; and for
- both (and not just one, as in ABC) of the agents, while at the same time involving;
- inherently separate forms of attempting to solemnizing marriage in natural course;
- where nature furthers another duty to be enacted (procreative) independent of culpable occasion; where nature (and not actor) will be
- proximity to occasion that duty, and thus a proper means that is natural as to this (as a separate element now, but couldn’t be in the comparison); and so because this will
- at least be the Sacrament’s own natural means (as always pe se within this duty; showing it clear that
- design of that cause for the end of procreation; and thus this specifically, and not some external force–again as would be denied by the comparison;
- implicates showing of a breach in the natural design – and in which all the previous AR, MR now carry-- occasioning this duty as to a specific result of the procreative plan (namely, whichever Divine providence previously gives each specific family natural conditions of cooperation); and all this consistently only bc
- the non-natural/thwart/intrusion case as intervening/altering cause into the Sacrament’s procreative-result is condemned; (again, the false comparison of ABC/NFP can’t even fathom this) . . natural occasions
- will therefore only ever involve natural circumstances of the previous (the false comparison of ABC to NFP thus misses both that this is the case of the exception, and the basis of the duty which distinguishes the omission of the act in a circumstance);
- which may actually further reveal the duty as to that occasion one to be per-se omit solemnizing marriage as to that result. (This is impossible to conclude under the false equivalence of NFP/ABC thinking, because the results have already been blurred with the mens rea confusion-- but common-sense to an NFP couple–indeed its very provisions commend it "
