Co-Redemptrix and baptism of desire

MarianLibriarian wrote:I have a strong Marian devotion. When someone asks me about Mary as Co-Redemptrix, a doctrine of our Blessed Mother not yet defined dogmatically, I can point to multiple places where Popes have used the title, and multiple places where Popes and Councils have explicitly laid out this role of Our Lady and what is meant by the title Co-Redemptrix.

This is actually quite revealing since baptism of desire has a much stronger tradition and universal pedigree than “Co-Redemptrix”. Unlike “baptism of desire”, "following ... the slow course of theological development” for the doctrine of “Co-Redemptrix” ... "the specific focus of the papal magisterium on Mary's collaboration in the work of the redemption is a relatively recent one” [beginning with Pope Pius XI]. (The Mystery of Mary Coredemptrix in the Papal Magisterium, by Arthur Burton Calkin)

In fact, if you can show us where the term “Co-Redemptrix” is explicitly laid out in a Council or an Encyclical, please do so. In the documents of VCII you will find the terms Advocate, Helper, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Benefactress; but you will not find “Co-Redemptrix”.

You can point to “A [1914] decree of the Sacred Congregation Holy Office [which] praises the custom of adding after the name of Jesus that of His Mother, our Co-Redemptrix, the Blessed Virgin Mary”, yet, when I point to a Letter of the same Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office pointing to the Church’s traditional teaching on baptism of desire, and also point to the Canon Law decrees of 1917 and 1983 …, well, that’s a different story. You can point to St. Bernard and St. Catherine of Siena who used the title “Co-Redemptrix”, yet, when I go all the way back to St. Cyprian, to St. Ambrose, to St. Augustine and to St. Justin Martyr on baptism of desire; not to mention the deluge of saints and Fathers who believed in baptism of blood; not to mention the universal consensus of the medieval theologians on baptism of blood/baptism of desire; not to mention the universal moral consensus of saints, doctors and theologians since the Council of Trent who taught baptism of blood/baptism of desire; well, that’s a different story.

You can point to an Allocution by Pope Pius XI (to pilgrims from Vicenza, 1933); yet, when I point to Pope Pius XII and his Allocution to mid-wives; well, that’s a different story.

You can point only inferentially to the CCC, where it says: "By pronouncing her 'fiat’ at the Annunciation and giving her consent to the Incarnation, Mary was already collaborating with the whole work her Son was to accomplish" (No. 973); yet when I point to explicit teachings on baptism of blood/baptism of desire (No’s 1257-1260), well, that’s a different story.

You point to the “magisterial” non-defined doctrine of Co-Redemptrix, and then complain when you can find no “magisterial definition” for baptism of desire, a doctrine which is clearly taught by the magisterium. Your complaint boils down to a protest over the fact that “Baptism of desire” is not a term one finds in magisterial documents, until recently; this despite the fact that “desire” is used in the same context, with the same meaning and in a variety of magisterial documents going back to Trent, and is clearly taught in theological treatises and commentaries going back to the third century, at the very same time the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus was first articulated by one of the Fathers.

I must say, Marian, that I am at a loss to understand your point about a lack of a “magisterial definition” for baptism of desire, when “Co-Redemptrix” did not enter the lexicon of papal language until the reign of Pope Pius XI; with its highly nuanced meaning having never been defined except in the most general terms, and in a variety of different and complimentary ways.

When it comes to the law of baptism, baptism of desire and baptism of blood do not suffer from an identity crisis, as you infer; their respective meanings are clear enough, and when the Church tells us that she has always held these doctrines; and holds them as authentic, sure and true, she means it.

MRyan,
One problem I see with your reasoning is that you don't see baptism of desire goes against other established theology and dogmatic teachings. It is not a well thought out theory. You just make and act of faith that there was no error long ago that is manifesting itself now.

I am not accusing you of believing any or all of these I am just pointing out problems
baptism of desire problems:
1. No Sacramental seal--needed to be a member of the Church
2. Is not a Sacrament-- illustrates sacrament/s are not necessary for salvation
3.Doubts the Providence of God-- He can not get Baptism to those who want it.
4. There is salvation outside the Church---since they are not members
5. Implies salvation by Faith Alone--- St. Bernard used "Faith Alone" to describe baptism of desire
6. comes close to being Pelegianism -- at least to general laity / priests, by just
keeping the natural law one is saved

I don't see the same problems with Co-Redemtrix.

The doctrine is well established by the Fathers of Mary being the new Eve like Jesus is the New Adam.
Can you show how the doctrine contradicts established theology and dogma?

Oh.... Did you want me to reply?

Your smug response makes it sound as though this is all rhetorical.

MarianLibrarian wrote:Oh.... Did you want me to reply?

Your smug response makes it sound as though this is all rhetorical.

There was nothing “smug” about my response; and if you don’t want to address my arguments, then don’t.

All I know is that you’ve been after me to explain why baptism of desire is not mentioned (by name) in previous magisterial documents.

I answered that in another post, and I also answered that here. I also gave you an example of another theological term that represents a non-defined doctrine - Limbo.

If you think I’m playing games or that I enjoy talking to myself; fine, visit the water cooler and view some fun videos.

I simply meant that you laid out what you thought my argument would be, and your response to it. A monologue is a one-way street.


As far as Co-Redemptrix goes, yes, there are plenty of non-infallible explicit references made by the Popes as you've pointed out. (Though, as far as I'm aware, not a single Pope has ever actually used the phrase "baptism of desire"...)

On to the encyclicals... while the title "Co-Redemptrix" is not used, what we must believe about the doctrine has been included in numerous Papal encyclicals:

Pope Leo XIII, Supremi Apostolatus "She who is associated with him in the work of man's salvation has favour and power with her Son greater than any other human or angelic creature has ever obtained or ever can obtain."

Pope Leo XIII, Adiutricem Populi "It is impossible to measure the power and scope of her offices since the day she was taken up to that height of heavenly glory in the company of her Son, to which the dignity and luster of her merits entitle her. From her heavenly abode she began, by God's decree, to watch over the Church, to assist and befriend us as our Mother; so that she who was so intimately associated with the mystery of human salvation is just as closely associated with the distribution of the graces which for all time will flow from the Redemption."

Pope Leo XIII, Fidentem Piumque "And yet, as the Angelic Doctor teaches, there is no reason why certain others should not be called in a certain way mediators between God and man, that is to say, in so far as they cooperate by predisposing and ministering in the union of man with God ... especially has the Blessed Virgin a claim to the glory of this title. For no single individual can even be imagined who has ever contributed or ever will contribute so much towards reconciling man with God. She offered to mankind hastening to eternal ruin, a Saviour, at that moment when she received the announcement of the mystery of peace brought to this earth by the Angel, with that admirable act of consent in the name of the whole human race ( Summa. p. III., q. xxx., art. 1). She it is from whom is born Jesus; she is therefore truly His mother, and for this reason a worthy and acceptable "Mediatrix to the Mediator." As the various mysteries present themselves one after the other in the formula of the Rosary for the meditation and contemplation of men's minds, they also elucidate what we owe to Mary for our reconciliation and salvation ... Moreover, one must remember that the Blood of Christ shed for our sake and those members in which He offers to His Father the wounds He received, the price of our liberty, are no other than the flesh and blood of the virgin, since the flesh of Jesus is the flesh of Mary, and however much it was exalted in the glory of His resurrection, nevertheless the nature of His flesh derived from Mary remained and still remains the same (de Assumpt. B. V. M., c. v., among the Opera S. Aug)."

Pope St. Pius X, Ad Diem Illum "Since she surpassed all in holiness and union with Christ, and has been associated with Christ in the work of redemption, she, as the expression is, merits de congru what Christ merits de condigno, and is the principal minister in the distribution of grace."

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis "It was she, the second Eve, who, free from all sin, original or personal, and always more intimately united with her Son, offered Him on Golgotha to the Eternal Father for all the children of Adam, sin-stained by his unhappy fall, and her mother's rights and her mother's love were included in the holocaust. Thus she who, according to the flesh, was the mother of our Head, through the added title of pain and glory became, according to the Spirit, the mother of all His members."

Pope Pius XII Ad Coeli Reginam "But the Blessed Virgin Mary should be called Queen, not only because of her Divine Motherhood, but also because God has willed her to have an exceptional role in the work of our eternal salvation ... Now, in the accomplishing of this work of redemption, the Blessed Virgin Mary was most closely associated with Christ; and so it is fitting to sing in the sacred liturgy: "Near the cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ there stood, sorrowful, the Blessed Mary, Queen of Heaven and Queen of the World." Hence, as the devout disciple of St. Anselm wrote in the Middle Ages: "just as . . . God, by making all through His power, is Father and Lord of all, so the blessed Mary, by repairing all through her merits, is Mother and Queen of all; for God is the Lord of all things, because by His command He establishes each of them in its own nature, and Mary is the Queen of all things, because she restores each to its original dignity through the grace which she merited. For "just as Christ, because He redeemed us, is our Lord and king by a special title, so the Blessed Virgin also (is our queen), on account of the unique manner in which she assisted in our redemption, by giving of her own substance, by freely offering Him for us, by her singular desire and petition for, and active interest in, our salvation." From these considerations, the proof develops on these lines: if Mary, in taking an active part in the work of salvation, was, by God's design, associated with Jesus Christ, the source of salvation itself, in a manner comparable to that in which Eve was associated with Adam, the source of death, so that it may be stated that the work of our salvation was accomplished by a kind of "recapitulation," in which a virgin was instrumental in the salvation of the human race, just as a virgin had been closely associated with its death; if, moreover, it can likewise be stated that this glorious Lady had been chosen Mother of Christ "in order that she might become a partner in the redemption of the human race"; and if, in truth, "it was she who, free of the stain of actual and original sin, and ever most closely bound to her Son, on Golgotha offered that Son to the Eternal Father together with the complete sacrifice of her maternal rights and maternal love, like a new Eve, for all the sons of Adam, stained as they were by his lamentable fall," then it may be legitimately concluded that as Christ, the new Adam, must be called a King not merely because He is Son of God, but also because He is our Redeemer, so, analogously, the Most Blessed Virgin is queen not only because she is Mother of God, but also because, as the new Eve, she was associated with the new Adam."


Of course, these are all also going to naturally flow into Our Lady's role as Mediatrix and Advocate since they go together and flow from each other. Nonetheless, it is safe to say that Mary's role as Co-Redemptrix (Mediatrix, and Advocate) has clear mention and outline in Papal teachings. You cannot say the same for 'baptism of desire'. What Pope or Council has said in an encyclical 'without being baptized one may obtain the grace of baptism by an act of perfect charity and contrition'? or 'the grace of baptism is separable from the reception of the Sacrament itself as when some are justified by perfect charity'? or some such similar language?

MarianLibrarian wrote:I simply meant that you laid out what you thought my argument would be, and your response to it. A monologue is a one-way street.

If I have taken too much liberty by assuming what your arguments would be, than that is a fair rebuke - pardon my assumptions. You’ll have to understand that it is tempting to group all of the rebuttals into one - because the arguments never change, no mater the evidence to the contrary. I am prone to frustration - a weakness to which I freely admit.

For example, when Duckbill says: “I don't see the same problems with Co-Redemptrix …Can you show how the doctrine contradicts established theology and dogma?”; you’ll forgive me for wanting to pound my head against the wall … and then let that carry over to one of my more subtle sarcasms in my response to you or someone else, though I make no apologies to the sede heretics and people who accuse the pope of formal heresy. Such trash should not be allowed on a Catholic forum - but that is just my opinion.

I have demonstrated, through the universal teachings of the theologians and the magisterial teachings of the Church, how baptism of desire and baptism of blood do not and cannot change, rescind from, or contradict dogma. Those who continue to insist that they do so seem to have little respect for the teaching authority of the Church in all such matters, and are an authority of one.

I didn't mean to make the arguments of others your own.

I have no problem with your papal citations; but they don’t actually address my arguments.

Perhaps if you would address my arguments, and pay no mind to the “that’s a different story” comments (amended below), that would be a good start:

You can point to “A [1914] decree of the Sacred Congregation Holy Office [which] praises the custom of adding after the name of Jesus that of His Mother, our Co-Redemptrix, the Blessed Virgin Mary”, and I can point to a Letter of the same Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office pointing to the Church’s traditional teaching on baptism of desire, and also point to the Canon Law decrees of 1917 and 1983 ….

You can point to St. Bernard and St. Catherine of Siena who used the title “Co-Redemptrix”, and I can go all the way back to St. Cyprian, to St. Ambrose, to St. Augustine and to St. Justin Martyr on baptism of desire; not to mention the deluge of saints and Fathers who believed in baptism of blood; not to mention the universal consensus of the medieval theologians on baptism of blood/baptism of desire; not to mention the universal moral consensus of saints, doctors and theologians since the Council of Trent who taught baptism of blood/baptism of desire.

You can point to an Allocution by Pope Pius XI (to pilgrims from Vicenza, 1933); and I can point to Pope Pius XII and his Allocution to mid-wives.

You can point only inferentially to the CCC, where it says: "By pronouncing her 'fiat’ at the Annunciation and giving her consent to the Incarnation, Mary was already collaborating with the whole work her Son was to accomplish" (No. 973); and I can point to explicit teachings on baptism of blood/baptism of desire (No’s 1257-1260).

You point to the “magisterial” non-defined doctrine of Co-Redemptrix, and then wonder why you can find no “magisterial definition” for “baptism of desire”, a doctrine which is clearly taught by the magisterium. Your complaint seems to boil down to a protest over the fact that “Baptism of desire” is not a term one finds in magisterial documents, until recently; this despite the fact that “desire” is used in the same context, with the same meaning and in a variety of magisterial documents going back to Trent, and is clearly taught in theological treatises and commentaries going back to the third century, at the very same time the dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus was first articulated by one of the Fathers.

MRyan wrote:

MarianLibrarian wrote:I simply meant that you laid out what you thought my argument would be, and your response to it. A monologue is a one-way street.

If I have taken too much liberty by assuming what your arguments would be, than that is a fair rebuke - pardon my assumptions. You’ll have to understand that it is tempting to group all of the rebuttals into one - because the arguments never change, no mater the evidence to the contrary. I am prone to frustration - a weakness to which I freely admit.

Frustration aside, it's harder to see your point when you toss everyone in the same boat and pretend like we're all crazy sedevacantists. I know there are issues with charity on both sides of the debating fence, but all the snide/sarcastic/semi-uncharitable comments (on BOTH sides) really take away from discussion. Why should anyone who happens to stumble upon this forum stay or join in themselves when it seems like everyone who participates walks away with war wounds?

MRyan wrote:For example, when Duckbill says: “I don't see the same problems with Co-Redemptrix …Can you show how the doctrine contradicts established theology and dogma?”; you’ll forgive me for wanting to pound my head against the wall …

Well, here I can sympathize with Duckbill a bit. Most explanations of 'baptism of desire' that I've seen, seem to contradict the necessity of Baptism (Baptism is both a necessity of means AND of precept) and seem to deny God's omnipotence. Can God impart grace to some poor ignorant native? Of course. Would God deny then deny him baptism if he truly desired it? It does not seem that we can legitimately say that He would.

And as for Mary's being associated with/intimately connected with our Savior and the work of Redemption... well, that just seems plain from both Sacred Scripture and Tradition.

MRyan wrote:though I make no apologies to the sede heretics and people who accuse the pope of formal heresy. Such trash should not be allowed on a Catholic forum - but that is just my opinion.

I agree with you here, though I think in a certain sense they should be "tolerated but contained" on a forum-- so that their errors may be refuted.

MRyan wrote:I have demonstrated, through the universal teachings of the theologians and the magisterial teachings of the Church, how baptism of desire and baptism of blood do not and cannot change, rescind from, or contradict dogma. Those who continue to insist that they do so seem to have little respect for the teaching authority of the Church in all such matters, and are an authority of one.

There is disagreement as to whether there is universal support for 'baptism of desire'... aside from that, I find it odd (to say the least) that this is a doctrine (rather than theological opinion) since it has no mention in any papal encyclicals or conciliar decrees-- not just the phrase "baptism of desire", but an outlining of precisely what 'baptism of desire' is/what must be believed about it. As above, with Mary as Co-Redemptrix, the phrase may not be used in the encyclicals, but the meaning is there. That's what I was asking for in the other (locked) thread.

It's an awful big jump to assert that something which is not outlined in any papal or conciliar decree is a binding doctrine.

Even if we pretended for a moment that the Fathers of Trent meant to declare 'baptism of desire' doctrine, we are still left with the dilemma about what is meant by desire. What sort of desire suffices? Any desire? The liberals seem to interpret it as such and promote universal salvation-- no one goes to hell! More conservative theologians put forth conditions on 'desire'-- it must be accompanied by perfect charity, etc. Except these conditions are not found anywhere in the Conciliar texts. It is undefined.

MRyan wrote:I have no problem with your papal citations; but they don’t actually address my arguments.

As far as your arguments are concerned, I would not have used the texts you quoted to "prove" Mary Co-Redemptrix as doctrine-- I don't need those citations when the doctrine is laid out in encyclicals. Might I have used them as some support for the title? Sure. But the actual substance of the doctrine has been laid out in numerous papal encyclicals.


I don't disagree with you that 'baptism of desire' taught, I disagree that 'baptism of desire' is doctrine instead of theological opinion.

MarianLibrarian wrote:

MRyan wrote:

MarianLibrarian wrote:I simply meant that you laid out what you thought my argument would be, and your response to it. A monologue is a one-way street.

If I have taken too much liberty by assuming what your arguments would be, than that is a fair rebuke - pardon my assumptions. You’ll have to understand that it is tempting to group all of the rebuttals into one - because the arguments never change, no mater the evidence to the contrary. I am prone to frustration - a weakness to which I freely admit.

Frustration aside, it's harder to see your point when you toss everyone in the same boat and pretend like we're all crazy sedevacantists. I know there are issues with charity on both sides of the debating fence, but all the snide/sarcastic/semi-uncharitable comments (on BOTH sides) really take away from discussion. Why should anyone who happens to stumble upon this forum stay or join in themselves when it seems like everyone who participates walks away with war wounds?

Now you’re the one who is assuming too much. I didn’t lump you in with sede’s, I was lumping you in with Duckbill (and everyone else), a man who until now has never investigated the writings of the Church Fathers (and wants someone else to do it for him) and suddenly finds the authority to turn over the testimony of saints, theologians and Doctors on the meaning of what a given Father actually wrote.

I don’t know where laypeople get the authority to sweep thousands of years of scholastic discipline and tradition off the table because it does not fit into their narrow Feeneyite lens of Pharisaical enlightenment.

I find it remarkable that you’re worried about a few sarcastic remarks (oh my, what will the visitors think) when what they will see on a routine visit to this Forum is the Pope being called a heretic, a slanderous charge against Blessed Cardinal Newman, scandalous lies straight from TIA , and a “deny and reject” attitude towards the authentic teachings of the Church by arm-chairs theologians who wouldn’t recognize a legitimate theological distinction or a theology manual if it bit them in the rear end.

So please, go easy on the lectures on forum etiquette.

If you really want to have a discussion, we can do that. For now, I’m taking a little hiatus; I can only take so much of this at a time.

Perhaps we can start another thread, but I want to know what exactly on the Tradition in Action site that was linked to on this forum was a lie?

When the TIA displays a quote from Cardinal Ratzinger that is translated they provide a scanned copy of the theological journal that it was published in. From what I have seen their translations seem pretty faithful to the Italian text.

Additionally, MRyan, many times we post links because we precisely want to discuss things, to hammer out the issues because things trouble us. We post because we are seeking answers. Many of us do not have anyone that we can discuss these things with in person and most priests that I know don't even know about these issues. (As Columba mentioned he met a traditionalist priest who didn't even know what sedevacantism is.)

Other priests are (sadly) less knowledgeable then us lay people. Others are too busy running the parish that they don't have time for you. I asked a traditionalist priest here if I could sit down and discuss Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus with him and he just basically told me NO and just not to bother getting into the controversy at all. When I brought up some serious objections to his statement that pagans can "earn" grace by their good works, he just simply told me that he didn't have time and just started talking to some elderly parishioners, pretending I wasn't even there.

I don't know why you are so flustered when people don't agree with you. After all the whole point of a forum is to DEBATE.

I apologize you thought I was lecturing you, MRyan, it was not my intent. I thought I made this clear since I mentioned it was a problem for people on both sides of the debate.

I'll be around when you decide you want to discuss 'baptism of desire' and Mary Co-Redemptrix. Enjoy your hiatus.

RashaLampa wrote:Perhaps we can start another thread, but I want to know what exactly on the Tradition in Action site that was linked to on this forum was a lie?

When the TIA displays a quote from Cardinal Ratzinger that is translated they provide a scanned copy of the theological journal that it was published in. From what I have seen their translations seem pretty faithful to the Italian text.

No need to start another thread; I’ll say my piece and be done with it.

Whether it is “faithful” to the Italian text is irrelevant; it is the headlines and "intent" of these attack pieces that more often than not turn out to be unsubstantiated accusations and even outright lies. Do you think that TIA does not have an agenda when its official position holds that Pope Benedict XVI is a formal heretic rejected by God, but remains in office only because the faithful have not rejected him en masse?

So the TIA is going to scour everything Cardinal Ratzinger ever said and wrote that they believe justifies their position. And when you faithfully reproduce the same headlines and the same pieces … do you really want to initiate a “debate” on these citations when most Catholics are not equipped to know the context of what was cited, what else the same Cardinal/Pope might have said that might put the “offending” text into clearer relief, or even what the intention of the Cardinal/Pope was when saying/writing these things?

Here is a “lie” of TIA headlined on this forum:

Fr. Joseph Ratzinger defends the false theory of the 'anonymous Christian' by Karl Rahner

I read the piece, it’s a lie, he did no such thing.

RashaLampa wrote:I don't know why you are so flustered when people don't agree with you. After all the whole point of a forum is to DEBATE.

I’m never flustered just because people don’t agree with me (good grief, my position is not exactly "well received" here); I tend to get flustered when facts and substantiated arguments are ignored or rebutted with a simple denial based on nothing but one’s unsubstantiated “opinion”. I am frustrated when time is spent formulating a detailed specific response with verifiable facts, and the very next post from my protagonist repeats the same out of context or erroneous line, as if I had said nothing. It’s amazing to me how people can simply ignore or turn the truth on its head simply because they don’t like the facts.

I have no problem with debate and I have no problem with going at it hard in a spirited exchange. But this type of stuff tends to be a bit taxing on one’s equilibrium meter:

Columba, for example, can state his opinion that the doctrine of baptism of desire never existed, never mind the mountain of evidence to the contrary. In other words, “I don’t give a damn what the evidence says, I say baptism of desire never existed as a doctrine of the Church”, and thus, Columba actually does say: “Bernard of Clairvaux and Hugo of St. Victor neither could they have been defending a non-existant doctrine.” Columba said it, so it must be true, and not one shred of evidence is brought forth to substantiate such an outrageous claim.

See, the doctrine never existed, so how can anyone defend it? Simple - I mean, I don’t know how to argue with such penetrating logic.

OK, I know I am being a spoiled sport; so let’s just have a happy disagreement over whether hard cold facts exist and pretend that one’s “opinion” is as good as another; and this is called “debate”.

I reserve the right to be frustrated, but don’t confuse me with those soppy sentimentalists who are always getting their feelings hurt when they are called to the carpet for ignoring reality and for ignoring an argument based on verifiable facts they pretend do not exist.

That's just the way it is, and this is, after all, a Catholic “debate” forum, so let’s roll with it and have some spirited exchanges.

Rasha,
In my opinion TIA is vile, cancerous and a vexation to the spirit. It is one of the worst “Catholic” websites I’ve ever seen.

As far as the translations go, you may read Italian and Spanish, but I only read Spanish. From my Spanish and what little I know of Italian from my husband’s family, the translations may be reasonably close (I haven’t read them all), but TIA still takes the Pope out of context and does so on purpose. When I read the parts not translated and posted, it puts all the parts that TIA translates and then post to its website in a completely different light.

Maybe it’s my motherly instincts, but I would suggest you steer clear of that trash and don’t let it sully your mind or this forum. Just my opinion.

Continued blessings to you and your work here. You remain in my prayers.
Love,
Elisa

Elisa and MRyan.

The reason TIA can quote our Popes words is because he actually did say them. Even if taken out of context they are still real words. What are we supposed to do? Pretend he never said them? I've read some of them (not all ) in full context and that didn't detract from thier initial meaning proposedly out of context. I have no love for TIA and the way it presents most of its material but like Mryan said about me, "Columba, for example, can state his opinion that the doctrine of baptism of desire never existed, never mind the mountain of evidence to the contrary. In other words, “I don’t give a damn what the evidence says," and this of course would be untrue as the eveidence MRyan presents is subordinate to Dogma and must be understood in light of dogma.
The out of context TIA submititons are refuted (if you check out some replies) with sentimental arguments about the Pope being able to do no wrong.
I can live with the pope not being perfect and saying some strange things. Actually I was going to post some of his words as if they were my own (just to see the reaction) and to see how long I could remain on the forum without being banned as a undercover protestant.

Folks we have to be realists and recognise we are living in strange times and have to use our own judgement more now than was ever required before, and thank God in this tecnological age we are not left without the means to know our faith if we so wish to know it. The Pope is still the Vicar of Christ on earth and I am duty bound to pray for him daily even when I am forced to ignore some of his ambiguios statements lest I take from them an incorrect meaning which the pope did not intend me to take. I will also be ignoring his forth-coming ecumenical assembly in Assisi which seems to go against the first commandment lest I take from it a meaning the pope did not wish me to take.

Am I being disloyal to the Church and endangering my faith by doing so?

I will split this topic into two when I get a chance later. Until then I am going to lock the thread.

Topic locked until it can be split. Thanks!