Twitter | Search | |
Michael Brendan Dougherty
It's darkly hilarious watching the very first people the current Catholic Church would coerce out of their political and theological views-Catholic traditionalists-argue in this way.
Reply Retweet Like More
Michael Brendan Dougherty Jan 10
Replying to @michaelbd
When they convince Francis to assume his full powers, it will be Fr. Martin presiding at their trial.
Reply Retweet Like
Aaron Gigliotti Jan 10
Replying to @michaelbd
When Cupich sends in the CPD to take SSPX babies to be raised by nuns in pant suits, we may see a change of tune.
Reply Retweet Like
Michael Brendan Dougherty Jan 10
Replying to @michaelbd
Which is precisely why this debate is utterly useless and counterproductive. Maybe petition your local ordinary to stop liturgical abuse today, and save your worry about what the Prince of Bologna will do in the dreamed about future for later.
Reply Retweet Like
Rogue Works Progress Administration Jan 10
Replying to @michaelbd
Noooobody expects the Gelato Inquisition
Reply Retweet Like
Przysuchy Jan 10
Replying to @michaelbd
They're defending a pope (who was later beatified by JP2) for actions that were in accordance with authoritative canon law and for which the modern church has repeatedly refused to apologise to Mortara's family.
Reply Retweet Like
Gladden Pappin Jan 10
Replying to @michaelbd
So because +Francis is the Lord & Sovereign Pontiff, it's more intellectually serious & respectable, in your view, to deny that the pope has certain powers?—mutatis mutandis, the president? Political power is a high-stakes matter & debatable—but it always involves coercion.
Reply Retweet Like
Michael Brendan Dougherty Jan 10
Replying to @gjpappin
I'm well beyond tired at friends inserting into my mouth things I didn't say. I never said tell untruths, my comment was obviously about priorities.
Reply Retweet Like
Adrian Vermeule Jan 10
Gladden’s proposition implies one on which I think is absolutely correct: whatever the proper view of Papal authority, there is no basis for trimming that view based on the current occupant of the office.
Reply Retweet Like
Michael Brendan Dougherty Jan 10
Replying to @gjpappin
This is a "When did you stop beating your wife question?" and it should be beneath you. Nowhere have I denied the Pontiff's authority. And you've come late in a long line of false accusers.
Reply Retweet Like
Gladden Pappin Jan 10
Replying to @michaelbd
Your comment expressed mirth at the people who foolishly assert that a ruler has such and such powers, because they very well could suffer from the use of those powers. And while I didn't make an accusation in asking questions, I will observe one thing: this view is not serious.
Reply Retweet Like
Michael Brendan Dougherty Jan 10
Replying to @gjpappin
Your accusation is that I believe it wise to tell untruths about the papacy. Coming from a friend after a long train of arriviste-TRAD accusations of faithlessness on my part, I have one thing to say: STOP.
Reply Retweet Like
Salvator R. Tarnmoor Jan 10
Replying to @michaelbd
I think you intend this as a prudential argument about what's worth debating. But it's easy to hear it instead as an invocation *within the debate itself* of a kind of liberal proceduralism.
Reply Retweet Like
Salvator R. Tarnmoor Jan 10
Replying to @michaelbd
Hence, I think, some of the outraged responses you're getting. You're saying in one breath both "let's not debate this right now" and "you're wrong"; which leaves the impression you're ruling out, not the argument, but their position, and for procedural reasons
Reply Retweet Like
Ian Curtis Yarvin Jan 10
or Joan of Arc
Reply Retweet Like
Ian Curtis Yarvin Jan 10
Replying to @michaelbd
(not to imply equivalent personal virtue on any of our parts, of course.)
Reply Retweet Like
Ben Conroy Jan 10
Which is?
Reply Retweet Like