I haven't denied it.
I accept that the version of Liguori's book that you found had an imprimatur and nihil obstat
Do you accept that the version I found did NOT have a nihil obstat and Imprimatur?
Either way I have shown that what Liguori wrote was consistent with the quote from the Catechism that I gave.
They are not contradictory statement as you claimed.
I think you are the one in denial. Like KiwiChristian you are reluctant to give up a stick to bash the Catholic Church with even when it shown to be a rotten one.
You are trying to dilute the issue. I am not biting.
There is no such thing as "my version doesnt have nihil obstat and Imprimatur" and "your version hasn't".
When a book is written, it never has a nihil obstat or imprimatur immediately. The approbation always comes after it is written, and often even after it is printed for the first time.
This especially goes for historical documentation.
What you did was find a copy which was from before the nihil obstat and imprimatur. In your case a print from 1889
The nihil obstat and imprimatur was granted in 1927. So your "version" also bears the nihil obstat and imprimatur, as does the original manuscript from which the translations come.
You have not at all made a point for the claim made by Liguori.
Your derive your defense from John 20:21-23 and make a claim that a "power" to forgive sins was passed on to the apostles. A power to which God obligates Himself to honor.
Firstly the text never indicates a "power" was passed on.
Secondly your claim is not even logical.
I have given you various scenario's from which it becomes very clear that the intent of John 20 is not at all what you claim it is.
It is logically incoherent to claim that God can obligate Himself to honor a decision made by a human.
People make mistakes, God cannot make mistakes, hence God cannot obligate Himself to honor a mistake.
Hence the statements "God is not obligated to anyone" and "God is obligated to the priest" are contradictory and mutually exclusive.
I predicted "And once you have seen the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur notice, in your case, all that's left to do is deny it and pretend it never happened."
I was incorrect and incomplete. It should have been:"And once you have seen the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur notice, in your case, all that's left to do is deny it, pretend it never happened and deflect by victimization."
You have been treated honorably in this thread, and no unreasonable attempts to insult your theology have been made.
There is no reason for you to victimize yourself and make this an issue of "Catholic bashing".
You are aware that Catholics are the only people on this board who turn a perfectly normal theological discussion into some form of religious discrimination?
You have followed the predicted pattern:
- Someone makes claim
- Your first argument is denial
- The claim is being elaborated on and your argument is being refuted
- You find yourself caught in an inconsistency, Your escape is to pretend the objections do not exist
- And the final prediction comes true when you turn around and claim the whole discussion is nothing but "Catholic bashing"