<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Res et Explicatio for A.D. 7-23-2009</title>
	<atom:link href="http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/07/23/res-et-explicatio-for-a-d-7-23-2009/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/07/23/res-et-explicatio-for-a-d-7-23-2009/</link>
	<description>Politics and Culture from a Catholic perspective.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:50:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Res et Explicatio for A.D. 7-30-2009 &#171; The American Catholic</title>
		<link>http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/07/23/res-et-explicatio-for-a-d-7-23-2009/#comment-32395</link>
		<dc:creator>Res et Explicatio for A.D. 7-30-2009 &#171; The American Catholic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:12:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=10941#comment-32395</guid>
		<description>[...] 6. For the last Res et Explicatio click here. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 6. For the last Res et Explicatio click here. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: e.</title>
		<link>http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/07/23/res-et-explicatio-for-a-d-7-23-2009/#comment-32394</link>
		<dc:creator>e.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 20:42:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=10941#comment-32394</guid>
		<description>And what, pray tell, was it in my comments that made you believe I was actually employing the term in its seeming officially accepted theological meaning?

Especially since you yourself so much as admitted that its common usage (as well as according to Webster&#039;s dic. and, not to mention, the fact that a certain Catholic Theologian himself also utilized the same term in the same sense I had applied thus in my own comments) is meant to contrue &quot;flawless&quot;, as I had indeed intended then.

Regardless, that does not render (even slightly -- and, if anything, your constant harangues only solifies support for my original position) my original statement wholly nugatory: the fact that just because something happens to be infallible, it doesn&#039;t mean it&#039;s actually impeccable!

[Why do I even bother?]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And what, pray tell, was it in my comments that made you believe I was actually employing the term in its seeming officially accepted theological meaning?</p>
<p>Especially since you yourself so much as admitted that its common usage (as well as according to Webster&#8217;s dic. and, not to mention, the fact that a certain Catholic Theologian himself also utilized the same term in the same sense I had applied thus in my own comments) is meant to contrue &#8220;flawless&#8221;, as I had indeed intended then.</p>
<p>Regardless, that does not render (even slightly &#8212; and, if anything, your constant harangues only solifies support for my original position) my original statement wholly nugatory: the fact that just because something happens to be infallible, it doesn&#8217;t mean it&#8217;s actually impeccable!</p>
<p>[Why do I even bother?]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gabriel Austin</title>
		<link>http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/07/23/res-et-explicatio-for-a-d-7-23-2009/#comment-32393</link>
		<dc:creator>Gabriel Austin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 19:20:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=10941#comment-32393</guid>
		<description>e. Says Monday, July 27, 2009 A.D. at 10:46 am

[I must say I don&#039;t know why I bother. Nonetheless to prevent the spread of error}.

&quot;you actually are of the opinion that just because something happens to be infallible, it is indeed impeccable [flawless]&quot;.

I would be curious for a citation citing my opinion on this confusion. The error is in the definition of impeccable as flawless. Perhaps in common usage. But in theology, impeccable means without sin.

[Again, I ask myself why I bother].</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>e. Says Monday, July 27, 2009 A.D. at 10:46 am</p>
<p>[I must say I don't know why I bother. Nonetheless to prevent the spread of error}.</p>
<p>"you actually are of the opinion that just because something happens to be infallible, it is indeed impeccable [flawless]&#8220;.</p>
<p>I would be curious for a citation citing my opinion on this confusion. The error is in the definition of impeccable as flawless. Perhaps in common usage. But in theology, impeccable means without sin.</p>
<p>[Again, I ask myself why I bother].</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: e.</title>
		<link>http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/07/23/res-et-explicatio-for-a-d-7-23-2009/#comment-32392</link>
		<dc:creator>e.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:04:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=10941#comment-32392</guid>
		<description>Interesting to note that Iafrate is committing the very same kind of calumny that he was berating Tito for in a previous thread.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting to note that Iafrate is committing the very same kind of calumny that he was berating Tito for in a previous thread.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DarwinCatholic</title>
		<link>http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/07/23/res-et-explicatio-for-a-d-7-23-2009/#comment-32391</link>
		<dc:creator>DarwinCatholic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:08:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=10941#comment-32391</guid>
		<description>Michael,

Yes Tito expressed belief in the accounts given to him by several Salvadoran friends indicating that Archbishop Romero had been hiding guns to help the guerrillas in that insanely long comment thread last week.  No, I do not think it likely that his friends were right to believe that -- though given their personal sufferings at the hands of the communist revolutionaries there I can see why Tito would.

However, that in no way indicates &quot;hatred&quot; or anti-Catholicism, and while I won&#039;t delete your original comment making that accusation (since it&#039;s not my thread) I am going to stake out a line and tell you to stop it, or else I&#039;ll delete any further comments from you along these lines.

If you have something substantive to say, say it, but if you&#039;re working on your extensive hate-list, we&#039;re not interested.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael,</p>
<p>Yes Tito expressed belief in the accounts given to him by several Salvadoran friends indicating that Archbishop Romero had been hiding guns to help the guerrillas in that insanely long comment thread last week.  No, I do not think it likely that his friends were right to believe that &#8212; though given their personal sufferings at the hands of the communist revolutionaries there I can see why Tito would.</p>
<p>However, that in no way indicates &#8220;hatred&#8221; or anti-Catholicism, and while I won&#8217;t delete your original comment making that accusation (since it&#8217;s not my thread) I am going to stake out a line and tell you to stop it, or else I&#8217;ll delete any further comments from you along these lines.</p>
<p>If you have something substantive to say, say it, but if you&#8217;re working on your extensive hate-list, we&#8217;re not interested.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: e.</title>
		<link>http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/07/23/res-et-explicatio-for-a-d-7-23-2009/#comment-32390</link>
		<dc:creator>e.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:56:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://the-american-catholic.com/?p=10941#comment-32390</guid>
		<description>Iafrate:

At worst, Tito may be classified as careless or even thoughtless in some respects; however, to actually label the man &quot;anti-Catholic&quot; would seem to me to be wholly unjustified.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Iafrate:</p>
<p>At worst, Tito may be classified as careless or even thoughtless in some respects; however, to actually label the man &#8220;anti-Catholic&#8221; would seem to me to be wholly unjustified.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

