[quote=1ke]It is not what he is doing, it is how he is going about it that I find inappropriate. If he wants to refute specific teachings or documents published by a bishop, theologian, etc, then do so. But, anyone can post anything on here and much of it is likely to be speculative and possibly untrue.
As is everything else discussed on this forum. If we must not discuss anything whereby a person may post something untrue, than we must not discuss anything at all. Should we not discuss Martin Luther simply because some may post untrue facts about him? Of course not! Every post here is expected to be backed up with facts and sources. When people post things without sourcing them, others almost always demand the source.
I find that many people on here find things “unorthodox” that in reality are not and innocent parties end up slandered. There are bishops who have taught heterodox teachings, and they have been censured with due process through the Church ecclesial processes.
Perhaps so, but again, that is the nature of a forum. When a person labels something unorthodox which is not, he or she is corrected and a discussion occurs so that all may present facts and we may determine the truth.
Oh yes, it is highly likely that the Pope did not make any sort of judgment about these men and do so accurately, but someone in Podunk, USA, with no theological training can make a better assessment. The Pope evaluated them for the position of Cardinal, do you think the Pope is a moron?
History has shown, 1ke, that Popes very very often err in their appointments. Many of the problems that we have today are the result of bishops appointed by Pius XII and John XXIII, men whome I am sure nobody would label as liberal or progressive. Nonetheless, these men erred. We must always be cautious. Even St. Paul was required to prove himself to the Apostles.
I think it’s wrong to attack people without substantiation as was started on the other thread, and now “orthodox or not” is being questioned regarding men the Pope just selected as Cardinals. I think the whole thing is scandalous.
No attacks have been rendered. JSmitty is, like myself, hoping for great and orthodox Cardinals whom will help to raise the Church back to what it once was. He is asking for information because he does not know these men well. In the other thread, JSmitty did not attack men without substantiation. He listed people as well as those things with which they disagree with the Church on. If someone questions these, they may demand a citation. Be careful, because what truly is scandalous is to fail to be concerend with the direction of the Church, or to view a person as orthodox simply by reason of his title. I know you do not intend to do this, I am just suggesting that these are things which your words seem to convey that you are doing.
Um, please look up any of my posts and you will see that I am not on the “un” orthodox side of the arguments. I just think this type of post, attacking people rather than forming fact-based arguments against erroneous teaching, is wrong.
I’m quite glad to hear that.