Please give me a good explanation for these V2 changes

[Redbandito]

otm:

Who is it out there that has said priestly celibacy should be “changed”?

Nobody said it “should” be changed. However, this was an example that was used in the thread to be compared to women covering their heads. This was from an earlier post. “Wearing headcoverings is a discipline, not a doctrine. Priestly celibacy is also not a doctrine but rather a discipline. I don’t see that changing any time soon (although it could) unless there is a very good reason.” So, I was answering his analogy, not proposing that it should be “changed”.

 

[otm]

JSmitty2005:

Prove that he’s wrong. Sorry, but I’m not just going to trust your assertion. I’m not a big fan of his, but the refutation he gave of Jimmy Akin’s article was quite skillfully done. If you think you can disprove him, you’re welcome to.

The code itself said that it abrogated the prior code. If you want proof, go read the code. Sungennis is no Canon lawyer.

 

[JSmitty2005]

## So why do they vote ? Repeating Card. Ratzinger’s bon mot doesn’t answer the question.

Quoting it collides with quoting Chesterton - why should we care a penny piece what past generations did, if the Cardinal’s statement is an absolute truth ? After all, if votes (and by implication, numbers) are irrelevant, then appealing to the past is entirely pointless. IOW, you’ve blown your own argument to smithereens, by relying on both quotations.

Wrong. The quotes are not contradictory. Truth is not determined by a demoncratic vote…Ratzinger is right. However, if these liberals really want “voting,” it would only be fair to include those of past generations (tradition). The Church is not and has never been a democracy. It is the Kingdom of God and kingdoms have hierarchies and laws. If the Church were a democracy, we’d be a bunch of contracepting Arians right now.