A Refutation Of Zechariah 4:06's "You're Not in Schism..."

Short answer: Yes, the author Zechariah 4:06 is in schism. So is his source, Anne Barnhardt. First, "Ius Canonicum" while sounding very "Canonical" is a book about Canon Law. It is the author's …
Ultraviolet
@Saveusfromhell

First, if you read my comments a bit more closely, you'd notice that "Ius Canonicum", 7:398, 1943 is not Canon Law. It is private work written by two priests.

Second, my concerns about the authors' use of "they" is a contextual one and not a Canonical one. Simply put, you're asking for a legal citation from the Catholic Church for what is essentially a grammatical problem …More
@Saveusfromhell

First, if you read my comments a bit more closely, you'd notice that "Ius Canonicum", 7:398, 1943 is not Canon Law. It is private work written by two priests.

Second, my concerns about the authors' use of "they" is a contextual one and not a Canonical one. Simply put, you're asking for a legal citation from the Catholic Church for what is essentially a grammatical problem stemming from a truncated quotation.

Apples and oranges.

Third, the full passage from which the two priests are quoted is missing. The obligation for providing that context, is on those using the original citation to argue their position.

In other words, providing you the full quote is the duty of Anne Barnhardt and Mr. Daly, since she's the one almost certainly quoting him, and he's the one quoting those authors.

I am not required to clarify a reference they inadequately cited. All I need do is point out the discrepancy present in what they HAVE cited. ;-)

"hence the reason latin is the offical language of the church as latin cannot be misinterperted in the dual that you have just tried to."

I'm not attempting to "misinterpret" the Latin. Please don't imply a motive absent any evidence of it.

Again, that's an accusation better pointed at the writers originally quoting this source.

How strange you so conveniently overlook the way Anne Barnhardt and Mr. Daly both cited the work in English. Obviously there are no complaints about that "dual" from you. Nor have you questioned either the authorship or source of that translation into English.

English was just fine 'n dandy when Barnhardt. 'n Daly were using it. So please do apply your standards and your concerns evenly.

If you have such a burning worry that the original Latin may have been mistranslated, then I suggest you take that up with the two writers citing an English translation of a book in Latin. After all, they're the ones responsible for what they are citing. Again, that's Mr. Daly and Ms. Barnhardt.

Yes, Latin is the official langauge of the Church. However returning to my original point, These books are not the official Canon Law of The Catholic Church. These books don't even refer to the official Canon Law of The Church. Not anymore. They're out of date. Obsolete..

The Catholic Church no longer uses the 1917 Code. The current version is the 1983 Code. Thanks for playing, ;-)
Saveusfromhell
@Ultraviolet so your interpretation of "they" is just yours and makes no sense at all and could only be used by somone being disingenuous, by the way i deleted my comment prior to you replying but seeing as you replied.
Ultraviolet
"so your interpetation of "they" is just yours" @Saveusfromhell

Actually, no. It's the interpretation of Wernz and Vidal. That's my point. ;-)

"and makes no sense at all and could only be used by somone being disingenuous,"

Again, you make a claim absent support and motive absent evidence. The latter accusation of being disingenuous is a No True Scottsman Fallacy also.

"by the way i delete…More
"so your interpetation of "they" is just yours" @Saveusfromhell

Actually, no. It's the interpretation of Wernz and Vidal. That's my point. ;-)

"and makes no sense at all and could only be used by somone being disingenuous,"

Again, you make a claim absent support and motive absent evidence. The latter accusation of being disingenuous is a No True Scottsman Fallacy also.

"by the way i deleted your comment prior to you replying."

I'm not sure what you mean. My original post is here. My first reply to you is here.

Perhaps your time would be better spent asking the authors citing this passage as support for their claims why they saw fit to quote only the parts they did and not the rest, who did their Latin English translation and getting a professional to double-check their work.

I'm noticing a very selective pattern of attention from you and, ironically enough, "disingenuous" is precisely the word I'd use for it.

Barring getting your questions answered by the people who introduced you to these authors, you would do well to familiarize yourself with GTV's user controls instead of deleting things you shouldn't or at least trying to, or whatever playful, light-hearted mischief you were up to. ;-)
Saveusfromhell
There is nothing in your post that supports your interpretation of the way Wernz and Vidal cite "they" , none zero nought. its absolute nonsense.
Ultraviolet
"There is nothing in your post that supports your interpretation of the way Wernz and Vidal cite "they" , none zero nought." @Saveusfromhell

...except for the placement of the pronoun "they" as the subject of the sentence and the verbal phrase "cannot be numbered" negating that pronoun's incluson in the group serving as the sentence's object, i.e. "schismatics", the description of the More
"There is nothing in your post that supports your interpretation of the way Wernz and Vidal cite "they" , none zero nought." @Saveusfromhell

...except for the placement of the pronoun "they" as the subject of the sentence and the verbal phrase "cannot be numbered" negating that pronoun's incluson in the group serving as the sentence's object, i.e. "schismatics", the description of the latter group is set off by a comma.

Meaning, everything following the comma describes the schismatics.

Let us review how Wernz and Vidal define schismatics... schismatics are those "who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation."

...and that's Barnhardt and Yerian et. al to a point.

So not only does everything in my post support my interpretation, everything in Wernz and Vidal's quote, supports my interepetation as well

You claiming otherwise by repeating variations of "zed" simply isn't going to change that. ;-) But please... do go on.

A less charitable soul than mine might begin to question your motives, suspecting ones akin to a malicious little gad-fly. Furious that some "un-named third party" (in a different context, though the pun is intended) swatted them with a suspension, it's trying to sting the hand it wrongly believes held the swatter. Like so many metaphoric flying pests, it's mostly noise and lacks the attention span necessary to sit down and really apply themselves to crafting an argument of any merit.

I however, attribute your errors to the usual sort of hurried reading that's common-place at the start of another busy day. We're on different time zones and, even barring that, my "day" started sometime late last night when I popped the tab on that "day's" first can of Red Bull.

Perhaps you can revisit this subject when you've given the full post a thorough re-reading and, better still, received a reply from the writers who originally quoted the sources that so concern you. ;-)