Replies

I see that you still did not supply clear answer to the one question which you chose to highlight, in your next previous comment --leaving it up to matter of guess what that answer could be (based on your mention of 1917 Code of Canon Law) while you tossed in notes of criticism aimed at the questioner himself, doing so, apparently, as far as I can tell, in attempt to put the matters back upon himself rather than yourself needing address the (and those other) questions he presented in comment #1051.

All of those questions at this point within this long & drawn out discussion were logical enough to ask, despite possibility that direct honest answers on your part could undermine your seeming overall positions.

I think we know why you did not answer those questions forthrightly. Remember; you did invite the guessing.

Based on what little answer you did supply, so far, lacking other answers, he and the rest of us also would need to be able to read your mind in order to answer those questions for you.

If that is what you are inviting, then if or when the devil himself were to take the hindmost (or shall we say -- your own true innermost thoughts revealed? including the self-refuting aspects) don't expect that any amount of umbrage (or else crocodile tears) on your part engender sympathy for failure on your own part to keep those thoughts either somewhat hidden, or couched only in certain terms --terms which still fail to adequately address the question(s).

If on the other hand that 1917 Code does answer the question, then show where that does, doing so while bearing in mind such as;

An extraordinary constriction of Catholicity occurred through the anti-Modernist oath imposed by Pius X on all ordinands, bishops, and priests appointed to teaching or administrative offices in the Church. The oath demanded acceptance of papal teaching in eodem sensu (in the same sense) and eadem semper sententia (always with the same meaning) as that proposed by Rome. In other words, there was no possibility of any form of dissent, even interior. The conscience of the person taking the oath was forced to accept not only what Rome proposed, but even the sense in which Rome interpreted it! Not only was this contrary to the traditional Catholic understanding of the role of conscience, [read up-page at the link for background information of what the author here means] but it was a form of thought control that was unrivaled even under fascist and communist regimes. It was Orwell's 1984 in 1910! The imposition of this oath was not removed until 1966.
[underlining and note of direction in small text added]

in order to make sure that you are deriving the same sense and same meaning only that Popes themselves would have statements (and even words, themselves) have.

and after doing that;

Explain -- and explain clearly how the following could not apply to you;

Pope Alexander: We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication. — Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium”, Lib. V, c. ii:

and then we'll have another look at whether or not your own words could ever possibly "carry any weight" at all, and that including also your own critical comments aimed at daniel1212's person.

Trey Gowdy interrogating the Hildabeast, mode/.