Sedevacantist website still assumes the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus

Why do you pollute this forum with the "evil" and "stupid immaturity" of that website?

It was a wrong report Michael and I did want to copy it here.

In the above report instead of the word 'wrong' I meant 'long'.

Here is an interesting passage from the sedevacantist websites website:

It is possible that a member of the Jewish Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul, and so be good with the goodness God wants, but objectively, the direction he is seeking to give to the world is opposed to God and to that life, and therefore is not good. If a Jew who rejects our Lord is good in the way God demands'- Fahey

For the Dimond Brothers, this is evil, since they take it for granted that [b]salvation is visible to us on earth, and so those who are saved in other religions 'in certain circumstances' (Letter of the Holy Office 1949) would be exceptions to every one needing the baptism of water for salvation.-

If some one is saved in another religion and it is known only to God then this case is non existint for me. It has to exist to be an exception.

If for example someone goes to court and accuses another of murder, and the accused proves he was not in the city at that time of the murder he will not be convicted.Since to commit the murder he would have to be at the place of the crime.

Bishop Donald Sanborn: “Vatican II’s idea of the Church is heretical, since it identifies organized religions of pagans and idolaters with the Mystical Body of Christ. The truth is that in no way are pagans and idolaters, as pagans and idolaters, united to the Mystical Body of Christ. If, by some mystery of Providence and Predestination, they [pagans and idolaters] are united to the soul of the Church, and by desire to its body, it is in spite of their paganism and idolatry. It is due to an invincible ignorance of their error.”

Lionel:
This passage is difficult for Peter and Michael Dimond. Since they assume being saved in invincible ignorance is explicit and so an exception to Cantate Domino.For them it would contradict the Principle of Non Contradiction ( every one needs to explicitly be a visible member of the Church and invincible ignorance is also explicit)

If, by some mystery of Providence and Predestination, they [pagans and idolaters] are united to the soul of the Church, and by desire to its body, it is in spite of their paganism and idolatry. It is due to an invincible ignorance of their error.

Bishop Donald Sanborn: “Vatican II’s idea of the Church is heretical, since it identifies organized religions of pagans and idolaters with the Mystical Body of Christ

Can someone give us an example where Vatican Council II identifies the religions of pagans and idolaters with the Mystical Body of Christ ?
I don't think there is such a passage.

sedevacantist websites
The infallible teaching of the Church, which is what binds, teaches that no man gets to Heaven without the Sacrament of Baptism. The Church teaches that no man is saved without the rebirth of WATER AND THE SPIRIT (John 3:5). That’s a dogma. You obstinately reject it and you are not a Catholic. Your failure to condemn Fahey's statement as a heretical rejection of dogma is all one needs to know.

Lionel:
The infallible teaching of the Church, which is what binds, teaches that no man gets to Heaven without the Sacrament of Baptism. The Church teaches that no man is saved without the rebirth of WATER AND THE SPIRIT (John 3:5). That’s a dogma

Correct.Agreed
And there is no magisterial text or statement of the Church Fathers which says that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance is explicit for us.So here is where we disagree.

sedevacantist websites
You obstinately reject it and you are not a Catholic. Your failure to condemn Fahey's statement as a heretical rejection of dogma is all one needs to know

Lionel:
We accept that all need the baptism of water in the present times and this is not contradicted by implicit-for-us- salvation.
We could agree that all need the baptism of water in the present times and this would be contradicted by explicit-for-us- salvation.

sedevacantist websites
Your failure to condemn Fahey's statement as a heretical rejection of dogma

Lionel:
If the sedevacantist websites could name a person on earth who is saved in another religion then it would be an exception to the dogma.
We don't know any one in another religion in the present times saved in another religion.

Lionel Adrades wrote:
Can someone give us an example where Vatican Council II identifies the religions of pagans and idolaters with the Mystical Body of Christ ?
I don't think there is such a passage.

Aren't Protestant sects considered to be in "imperfect communion" with the Mystical Body of Christ, and isn't an "imperfect communion" nevertheless identified as " communion" and aren't Protestant sects idolaters for believeing in a man-made christ, a christ fabricated in the mind of Luther who bears some resemblance to the true Christ but is not in fact the true Christ?

Lionel Andrades wrote:
If the sedevacantist websites could name a person on earth who is saved in another religion then it would be an exception to the dogma.
We don't know any one in another religion in the present times saved in another religion.

What about the late Br Roger the founder of the Taize group? Pope benedict says, "He is now visiting us and speaking to us from on high. I think that we must listen to him." What does this mean?

columba wrote:

Lionel Adrades wrote:
Can someone give us an example where Vatican Council II identifies the religions of pagans and idolaters with the Mystical Body of Christ ?
I don't think there is such a passage.

Aren't Protestant sects considered to be in "imperfect communion" with the Mystical Body of Christ, and isn't an "imperfect communion" nevertheless identified as " communion" and aren't Protestant sects idolaters for believeing in a man-made christ, a christ fabricated in the mind of Luther who bears some resemblance to the true Christ but is not in fact the true Christ?

Tell us again, columba, that the validly baptized Protestant child who reaches the age of reason and does not sin against the faith is NOT in “imperfect communion” with the Catholic Church; no tell us he is A), a bona fide Roman Catholic who is subject to the Roman Pontiff, in communion with the faithful and participates in the sacramental life of the Church, while innocently professing at the same time the errant faith of his parents “in a man-made christ, a christ fabricated in the mind of Luther”; or B), he is a stark raving apostate and “sect idolater for believing in a man-made christ, a christ fabricated in the mind of Luther”.

I should just let you and Lionel go at it, for, between “dead Protestants walking”, and de facto Protestant/de jure Roman Catholic “sect idolaters" who believe "in a man-made Christ”, this should be quite entertaining.

OK Mike,
Let's break your post down into its bit-size pieces:

MRyan wrote:
Tell us again, columba, that the validly baptized Protestant child who reaches the age of reason and does not sin against the faith is NOT in “imperfect communion” with the Catholic Church;

Who's speaking of "the validly baptized Protestant child?" Is it not obvious that such a child is in a state of sancification for the simple reason that he/she is incapable of sin or heresy of any kind and if such a child should depart this lfe (before the age of reason) they will infallibly enter into the kingdom of heaven. Baptism alone will have saved them. What was your point Mike?

MRyan wrote:
..no tell us he is A), a bona fide Roman Catholic who is subject to the Roman Pontiff, in communion with the faithful and participates in the sacramental life of the Church, while innocently professing at the same time the errant faith of his parents “in a man-made christ, a christ fabricated in the mind of Luther”;

No such child is capable of professing the errant faith of his/her parents, nor is he/she capable of professing the faith of the Church. That's why his/her only hope of salvation is their valid Baptism.

MRyan wrote:
or B), he is a stark raving apostate and “sect idolater for believing in a man-made christ, a christ fabricated in the mind of Luther”.

He can't be any such thing as he lacks the capacity to be such. Again; what is your point?

Can you answer the following question from a Catholic perspective"

Aren't Protestant sects idolaters for believeing in a man-made christ, a christ fabricated in the mind of Luther who bears some resemblance to the true Christ but is not in fact the true Christ?
(I'm speaking here of members of such sects who have reached the age of reason and believe in Luther's christ and refuse to believe in the true Christ as preached by the Catholic Church; the same members of which are referred to as being in a state of "imperfect communion." The others -as mentioned above- are already in perfect communion via their Baptism, so ignore those little saints for now).

MRyan wrote:
I should just let you and Lionel go at it, for, between “dead Protestants walking”, and de facto Protestant/de jure Roman Catholic “sect idolaters" who believe "in a man-made Christ”, this should be quite entertaining.

Since you have already joined in, will you be kind enough to answer the above question?
A simple Yes or No will suffice.

columba wrote:OK Mike,
Let's break your post down into its bit-size pieces:

MRyan wrote:
Tell us again, columba, that the validly baptized Protestant child who reaches the age of reason and does not sin against the faith is NOT in “imperfect communion” with the Catholic Church;

Who's speaking of "the validly baptized Protestant child?" Is it not obvious that such a child is in a state of sancification for the simple reason that he/she is incapable of sin or heresy of any kind and if such a child should depart this lfe (before the age of reason) they will infallibly enter into the kingdom of heaven. Baptism alone will have saved them. What was your point Mike?

No, if he has reached the age of reason he is perfectly capable of falling into heresy, that's my point. Are you actually positing that a validly baptized Protestant child who reaches the age of reason cannot profess His faith in Christ as he understands it without knowingly and obstinately rejecting the Catholic faith?

Are you actually suggesting that this same child who reaches the age of reason and professes his faith in Christ, just as he was taught (and knows nothing of Papal Primacy, for example), is an apostate heretic who professes his faith “in a man-made christ, a christ fabricated in the mind of Luther”?

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
..no tell us he is A), a bona fide Roman Catholic who is subject to the Roman Pontiff, in communion with the faithful and participates in the sacramental life of the Church, while innocently professing at the same time the errant faith of his parents “in a man-made christ, a christ fabricated in the mind of Luther”;

No such child is capable of professing the errant faith of his/her parents, nor is he/she capable of professing the faith of the Church. That's why his/her only hope of salvation is their valid Baptism.

So, no such Baptized child, upon reaching the age or reason, in order to remain in a state of grace, is capable of innocently professing some errors of his parents while professing his faith in Christ, in the Incarnation, in the Trinity and the Resurrection, without immediately falling into heresy and mortal sin.

Do I understand you correctly?

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
or B), he is a stark raving apostate and “sect idolater for believing in a man-made christ, a christ fabricated in the mind of Luther”.

He can't be any such thing as he lacks the capacity to be such. Again; what is your point?

My point is that he has reached the age of reason, so of course he has the capacity, or can't you follow a simple sentence?

columba wrote:
Can you answer the following question from a Catholic perspective"

Aren't Protestant sects idolaters for believeing in a man-made christ, a christ fabricated in the mind of Luther who bears some resemblance to the true Christ but is not in fact the true Christ?
(I'm speaking here of members of such sects who have reached the age of reason and believe in Luther's christ and refuse to believe in the true Christ as preached by the Catholic Church; the same members of which are referred to as being in a state of "imperfect communion." The others -as mentioned above- are already in perfect communion via their Baptism, so ignore those little saints for now).

For those Protestants who are not guilty of obstinate heresy, there is no such thing as "Luther's Christ", and for the validly baptized Protestant child who has reached the age of reason, he professes his faith in the name of the one true Christ, the only name under heaven by which we must be saved.

So when you say you are "speaking here of members of such sects who have reached the age of reason and believe in Luther's christ and refuse to believe in the true Christ as preached by the Catholic Church; the same members of which are referred to as being in a state of 'imperfect communion'", you are speaking nonsense and heresy, for anyone who obstinately rejects a single Catholic truth cannot be in "imperfect communion" with the Church.

That the Church now presumes good will on the part of the Orthodox and the Protestant does not mean that certain of these cannot be guilty of obstinate heresy and/or schism. The Church leaves the formal anathemas to God, while recognizing the limitations of an imperfect communion as she continues to preach the fulness of the truth found only in the Catholic Church.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
I should just let you and Lionel go at it, for, between “dead Protestants walking”, and de facto Protestant/de jure Roman Catholic “sect idolaters" who believe "in a man-made Christ”, this should be quite entertaining.

Since you have already joined in, will you be kind enough to answer the above question?

A simple Yes or No will suffice.

I'm not good with simple yes's and no's, especially with you.

MRyan wrote:
I'm not good with simple yes's and no's, especially with you.

I know, Mike; that's why I kept my question simple and added a bracketed caveat so as to prevent any misunderstanding as to the group I was referring to and, to allow you to answer with a 'yes' or 'no' without compromising your opinions on surrounding issues.

So lets take it from the point of view of the leaders of such sects, those with whom the Vatican negotiate and who already know what the Catholic Church teaches (even more so than many lay Catholics) and yet reject these teachings while understanding what these teachings mean and from what premises they were derived. I'm speaking here of such teachings as Transubstantiation, the institution of one Church led by Peter, the perpetual virginity and sinlessness of Mary and her Assumption into heaven, to name but a few.
Can these leaders of their respective Protestant sects, knowingly reject Catholic teaching in favor of the man-made gospel of Luther and remain as imperfect members of the Catholic Church?

Do you hold the same position as the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who in is speach (on the occasion of his presenting an ecumenical award to the Lutheran bishop Johannes Friedrich) said:

“Baptism is the fundamental sign that we are sacramentally united in Christ, and that presents us as the one visible Church before the world. Thus, we as Catholic and Protestant Christians, are already united even in what we call the visible Church. Strictly speaking, there are not several Churches, one beside the other, but rather these are separations and divisions within the one people and one house of God. …”

I supply this quote also for the benefit of Lionel who was asking if someone could:

..give us an example where Vatican Council II identifies the religions of pagans and idolaters with the Mystical Body of Christ ?
I don't think there is such a passage.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
I'm not good with simple yes's and no's, especially with you.

I know, Mike; that's why I kept my question simple and added a bracketed caveat so as to prevent any misunderstanding as to the group I was referring to and, to allow you to answer with a 'yes' or 'no' without compromising your opinions on surrounding issues.

Your simple question was answered with a very specific response, and then a simple question as to the “communion” status of a of validly baptized Protestant child who has reached the age of reason and does not appear to sin against the faith, even while professing the faith of his parents in Jesus Christ, in the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Redemption and the Resurrection; and, as I clarified even further, without being aware of a single error against the true faith.

You simply said “he lacks the capacity to be such” a heretic, meaning you either have no idea what the age of reason means, or you mean that any Protestant, upon reaching the age of reason, who does not profess the Catholic faith whole and inviolate (as it is may or may not be presented to him) is an obstinate heretic and an “idolater for believing in a man-made christ, a christ fabricated in the mind of Luther who bears some resemblance to the true Christ but is not in fact the true Christ”.

It appears, if you are going to remain consistent (fat chance), you hold the latter, and if so, your ecclesiology is even more jaded and deluded than even I suspected, and I consider your fabricated private doctrine on the OT just to be heresy, pure and simple.

But, as usual, you dodge the question and move on, for Lionel's benefit, to calling Lutherans “pagans and idolaters”, when it is clear that you have no idea what those words actually mean. But that has never stopped you before.

I am not going to let you play the “do you believe this citation” game, when you can’t answer a very simple question.

Is it or is it not possible for a baptized Protestant who had reached the age of reason to remain in “imperfect communion” with the Church by virtue of his Baptism and the faith of his parents he professes in our Lord, the Trinity and the Incarnation, while being inculpably ignorant of any errors he may hold with respect to Papal Primacy and other secondary dogmas?

A simple response would be nice.

MRyan wrote:
Is it or is it not possible for a baptized Protestant who had reached the age of reason to remain in “imperfect communion” with the Church by virtue of his Baptism and the faith of his parents he professes in our Lord, the Trinity and the Incarnation, while being inculpably ignorant of any errors he may hold with respect to Papal Primacy and other secondary dogmas?

A simple response would be nice.

As it's late here Mike I offer a quick and simple response to your question.

It is possible.

In the same way it is also possible for a Catholic who has reached the age of reason to not fully hold or understand the teachings of the Church through no fault of his own. Such a Catholic remains sinless concerning these points of faith and remains in perfect union with the Church. He is in the same state as the nominal Protestant who has not knowingly rejected anything of the true Catholic faith.

If however they (the Catholic or the noninal Protestant) then hears the truth and understands what is being proposed for belief but yet rejects that truth, then he/she falls out of communion and into fromal heresy.

With that behind us, now lets talk about those whom I mentioned earlier; the well-beyond-the-age-of-reason sect leaders who are in negotiations with Rome, who know what the Church teaches on any given point of faith (or morals) yet refuse to accept those teachings. Are these leaders in partial communion with the true Church of Christ or are they following a christ who is an invention of the mind of Martin Luther and therefore cut off from the Church?
Remember, these were the people who were being addressed by Archbishop Muller on the occasion of his presentation of an award for ecumenism to a Lutheran "bishop." What I'm asking is; Is the sect itself fromally heretical?

.Bishop Donald Sanborn: “Vatican II’s idea of the Church is heretical, since it identifies organized religions of pagans and idolaters with the Mystical Body of Christ

Can someone give us an example where Vatican Council II identifies the religions of pagans and idolaters with the Mystical Body of Christ ?
I don't think there is such a passage..

As I thought, Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Unless one assumes not- visible- for- us salvation is physically visible for us.

This could have been the misconception of Bishop Sanborn.

Lionel said:

Unless one assumes not- visible- for- us salvation is physically visible for us.

Who is saying that Salvation is visible to us; any ones Salvation, my salvation, your salvation, your neighbors salvation, someone you do not even knows salvation? You have made up your own theory contrary to Church teaching. I can offer no one Salvation by Baptism of Desire. I can only offer Baptism by Water and No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church. I do acknowledge Baptism of desire as a possibility in the circumstances the Church has described in detail and professed throughout the ages. This is NOT new. We see no Salvation. Where do you get this nonsense. I love Father Feeney and have several of his books. I will quote a few of his actual words in a latter post. His continual love and submission to the Holy Father hopefullly and prayfully will become more obvious to you. He should have went to Rome a very grevious mistake. He did correctly teach and preach against modernism and was correct in seeing that many were not teaching the faith and reducing sound Church doctrine to a meaninless formula as Pope Pius XII said was indeed happening. I will go so far as to say that Father was on the cusp of understanding baptism of desire and should have went to Rome! No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and the necessity of Baptism by water are intact. Those that teach this truth as understood by the Church falsely as you do, inflict grave damge to the Church. That includes the extreme right and left. This has always been the case.


JMJ,

George

George:
Who is saying that Salvation is visible to us; any ones Salvation, my salvation, your salvation, your neighbors salvation, someone you do not even knows salvation?

Lionel:,
When you and Michael say that the baptism of desire is an exception to the dogma it is you' ll who are saying that salavtion is visible . This is the dead man walking theory.This is also heresy by the way.

I am saying it is not visible and so there are no exceptions to the dogma.

George:
You have made up your own theory contrary to Church teaching. I can offer no one Salvation by Baptism of Desire. I can only offer Baptism by Water and No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church. I do acknowledge Baptism of desire as a possibility in the circumstances the Church has described in detail and professed throughout the ages.

Lionel
You do acknowldge it as a possibility ,good.However since it is not an exception to the dogma, are you saying a non Catholic can be saved in another religion and this would not contradict the dogma?

George:
This is NOT new. We see no Salvation. Where do you get this nonsense. I love Father Feeney and have several of his books. I will quote a few of his actual words in a latter post. His continual love and submission to the Holy Father hopefullly and prayfully will become more obvious to you. He should have went to Rome a very grevious mistake. He did correctly teach and preach against modernism and was correct in seeing that many were not teaching the faith and reducing sound Church doctrine to a meaninless formula as Pope Pius XII said was indeed happening. I will go so far as to say that Father was on the cusp of understanding baptism of desire and should have went to Rome! No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church and the necessity of Baptism by water are intact. Those that teach this truth as understood by the Church falsely as you do, inflict grave damge to the Church. That includes the extreme right and left. This has always been the case.

Lionel:

George, whether Fr.Leonard Feeney accepted the baptism of desire or rejected it, it is irrelevant to his literal intepretation of the dogma. SInce the baptism of desire is not opposed to the dogma.

Archbishop Gerhard Muller indicates all Protestants at the Synod are on the way to Hell: Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II

The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican in an interview with the National Catholic Register, about a week before the start of the Synod in Rome, has stated that those who know about the Catholic Church and yet do not enter cannot be saved. He cited Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.

The Anglican Arcbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams who has addressed this synod knows about the Catholic Church and yet he will not convert.According to Vatican Counciil II he is lost and so are the educated and informed Protestants participating in the Synod of bishops on the New Evangelisation.

The Archbishop has not cited these religions in particular but was speaking to the NCR with reference to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus .

The dogma says all non Catholics need to convert into the Church to avoid Hell and not just those who know. It specifically mentions Protestants.

The Archbishop assumes that we know persons on earth saved in invincible ignorance and so not all need to convert but only those who know; who are not in invincible ignorance.This is a flaw. Only God can judge who knows and does not.The Archbishop assumes that the dead are visible. This is irrational! So he rejects the dogma since he assumes that there are known exceptions to it. He shrugs off the dogma as belonging to another time. The dogma of the Trinity is older than extra ecclesiam nulla salus and of course does not apply only to the fourth century.

So Lumen Gentium 14 is correct in saying only those 'who know'. We do not know who they are.Lumen Gentium 14 is referring to those who know and who are known only to God.

The dogma and Vatican Council II (AG 7) says all need to convert for salvation. This is the official teaching of the Catholic Church. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church according to Church-texts and the Magisteriums's understanding of objective reality.


Archbishop Gerhard Muller also indicates that Jews and Muslims, in Rome, who know about Jesus and the Catholic Church are oriented to where the 'worm does not die and the fire is never extinguished'.Non Catholics in Rome know abut the Vatican , the Holy Father.The culture and religion is Catholic in Italy. So they know about Jesus and the Church in Rome.


Protestants have the baptism of water but do not have Catholic Faith. All need Catholic Faith and the baptism of water for salvation (Ad Gentes 7, Vatican Council II).




According to the Archbishop Muller, the non Catholics participating at the Synod underway need to enter the only Ark of Noah that saves in the flood (CC845) and the Church in which God the Father wants all people to be united (CCC 845). The Catechism is in agreement with extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors.


For salvation non Catholics need to respond and enter the Catholic Church (Dominus Iesus 20) .That there can be non Catholic saved though Jesus and the Church (CCC 846) does not contradict the dogma and Ad Gentes 7 which says all need Catholic Faith for salvation. That God is not limited to the Sacraments (CCC 1257) does not contradict the dogma and CCC1257 which also says all need the baptism of water for 'eternal beatitide' . The baptism of water presupposes an adult has Catholic faith.




It is not enough just to be able to cite Scripture and believe in Jesus. The Catholic Church is necessary for salvation.Cases of the baptism of desire, a good conscience ,seeds of the word , imperfect communion with the Church etc are not known to us in 2012.The dogma has been defined by three Church Councils and Pope Pius XIIcalled it an 'infallible teaching'.


The Sacraments of the Church are necessary for salvation especially the Sacrament of Confession and the Eucharist.


Vatican Council II indicates there must be an ecumenism of return. In ecumenism Jesus cannot be separated from the Catholic Church the only church he founded and the only one true Church

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
Is it or is it not possible for a baptized Protestant who had reached the age of reason to remain in “imperfect communion” with the Church by virtue of his Baptism and the faith of his parents he professes in our Lord, the Trinity and the Incarnation, while being inculpably ignorant of any errors he may hold with respect to Papal Primacy and other secondary dogmas?

A simple response would be nice.

As it's late here Mike I offer a quick and simple response to your question.

It is possible.

So it is possible for a Protestant to be in imperfect communion with the Catholic Church by virtue of his Baptism and by faith, provided he has not fallen into obstinate heresy.

But now we come to your private definition of formal heresy which says when this Protestant “then hears the truth and understands what is being proposed for belief but yet rejects that truth, then he/she falls out of communion and into formal heresy.”

So if the Protestant hears, for example, the dogma on Papal Primacy but, because of his long-standing faith tradition he does not accept what is being proposed as Catholics understand it, and therefore maintains (with the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission report) that "the New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for papal primacy" and that they contain "no explicit record of a transmission of Peter's leadership", and that only with the development of time would the Church come to understand the pope as leader of the worldwide church, but Protestant scholarship insists that this development is neither Scriptural nor of apostolic tradition, the Protestant has no excuse for not accepting the dogma as the Church understand it, and thus, “he/she falls out of communion and into formal heresy” and becomes an “idolater for believing in a man-made christ, a christ fabricated in the mind of Luther who bears some resemblance to the true Christ but is not in fact the true Christ”.

Tell you what, columba, why don’t you introduce yourself to the Catholic converts and to the non-Catholic Christians at Called-to-Communion and tell the former Evangelicals, some of whom have since received S.T.D.’s in Sacred Theology and who now call their Evangelical brothers and sisters into full communion by defending the true Faith, that prior to their conversions (entering into "full communion") they were “idolaters for believing in a man-made christ, a christ fabricated in the mind of Luther who bears some resemblance to the true Christ but is not in fact the true Christ”, and see how long it takes to get banned for being the clod that you are.

The fact is, for most converts, the Evangelical tradition in which they were borne and raised is strong, and thus, the conversion process is a long one, and only slowly does the truth finally seep through, and hardly ever is there an on-the-spot “understanding” of the Catholic truth (the assent of faith) when it is first presented. Most educated Evangelical converts to Catholicism studied the Christian faith for years while developing their apologetic skills in order to defend their own faith tradition, and to be able to refute the claims of the Catholic Church, which they believe erred in developing the traditions of men, rather than of God.

But no matter, the likes of GK Chesterton and Cardinal Newman were “idolaters for believing in a man-made christ” before finally embracing the Catholic faith, as is every adult Evangelical and Protestant today who “understands what is being proposed for belief” by the Church, but chooses to hold to their faith traditions.

Formal heresy must be obstinate, columba, and if you want to hold (in opposition to the Magisterium) all adult Protestants (who have not immediately embraced, upon hearing, each and every Catholic Truth) as obstinate formal heretics, go right ahead with your bluster and bravado, you impress no one, least of all our Lord.

Lionel Andrades wrote:
Archbishop Gerhard Muller indicates all Protestants at the Synod are on the way to Hell: Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II

The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican in an interview with the National Catholic Register, about a week before the start of the Synod in Rome, has stated that those who know about the Catholic Church and yet do not enter cannot be saved. He cited Lumen Gentium 14, Vatican Council II.

This is utter nonsense, Lionel, but it is so typical of your false pick-and-choose ecclesiology that allows you to play havoc with the truth and ignore what the Church actually teaches.

Nowhere does the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith suggest that "all Protestants at the Synod are on the way to Hell", for "those who know about the Catholic Church and yet do not enter cannot be saved". This is your appalling private interpretation of what he said, which is simply the same truth as it is expressed by Lumen Gentium 14:

In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

There is a huge difference between knowing "about" the Catholic Church and "knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ [understanding and acknowledging this truth]," and thus, for the latter, anyone who KNOWS this Truth as being True and "would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved".

But let's ignore that bit of truth, Lionel, and let's ignore the very next paragraph, LG 15:

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.

Go ahead, Lionel, tell us these are the very same "Christians" about and all of whom the Prefect said "are on the way to Hell"; these very same Christians "who know about the Catholic Church and yet do not enter cannot be saved".

Tell us again, Lionel, that the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is saying that these very same "loving" Christians "who show a sincere zeal" for the faith, and who "know about" the Catholic Church are "are on the way to Hell", as are all heretics, the definition of which is:

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same

Here, for the record is what the Prefect actually said, in response to the following question:

Do you, nevertheless, accept there’s been a weakening of the Church’s teaching because of this underlying confusion of terminology? One example sometimes cited is that the teaching of “no salvation outside the Church” seems to have become less prominent.

[Archbishop Gerhard Müller:] That has been discussed, but here, too, there has been a development of all that was said in the Church, beginning with St. Cyprian, one of the Fathers of the Church, in the third century. Again, the perspective is different between then and now. In the third century, some Christian groups wanted to be outside the Church, and what St. Cyprian said is that without the Church a Christian cannot be saved. The Second Vatican Council also said this: Lumen Gentium 14 says:

“Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”

He who is aware of the presence of Revelation is obliged by his conscience to belong publicly — and not only in his conscience, in his heart — to this Catholic Church by remaining in communion with the Pope and those bishops in communion with him.

But we cannot say that those who are inculpably ignorant of this truth are necessarily condemned for that reason. We must hope that those who do not belong to the Church through no fault of their own, but who follow the dictates of their God-given conscience, will be saved by Jesus Christ whom they do not yet know. Every person has the right to act according to his or her own conscience. However, if a Catholic says today, “I am going to put myself outside the Church,” we would have to respond that without the Church that person is in danger of losing salvation.

Therefore, we must always examine the context of these statements. The problem that many people have is that they are linking statements of doctrine from different centuries and different contexts — and this cannot be done rationally without a hermeneutic of interpretation. We need a theological hermeneutic for an authentic interpretation, but interpretation does not change the content of the teaching.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/archbishop-mueller-the-church-is-not-a-fortress#ixzz2KKH20Hil

columba wrote:

With that behind us [yeah, right], now lets talk about those whom I mentioned earlier; the well-beyond-the-age-of-reason sect leaders who are in negotiations with Rome, who know what the Church teaches on any given point of faith (or morals) yet refuse to accept those teachings. Are these leaders in partial communion with the true Church of Christ or are they following a christ who is an invention of the mind of Martin Luther and therefore cut off from the Church?

Remember, these were the people who were being addressed by Archbishop Muller on the occasion of his presentation of an award for ecumenism to a Lutheran "bishop." What I'm asking is; Is the sect itself fromally heretical?

Why do you assume that all of “the well-beyond-the-age-of-reason sect leaders who are in negotiations with Rome, who know what the Church teaches on any given point of faith (or morals) yet refuse to accept those teachings” are obstinate in their refusal, when the Church considers them to be sincere and in good faith?

Are you smarter than the Church? Or to you propose to speak for the “true Church”?

How the Church chooses to treat and evangelize those sects that remain separated from full communion with the one true Church after centuries of mutual acrimony, anathemas and little progress, is up to the Vicar of Christ, who alone is responsible for the disciplines and policies of the Church under his Supreme Primacy of Jurisdiction.

If you don’t like it, my suggestion to you, columba, is to make your break official, and stop with the pretense. You are fooling no one.

MRyan wrote:

So it is possible for a Protestant to be in imperfect communion with the Catholic Church by virtue of his Baptism and by faith, provided he has not fallen into obstinate heresy.

We first need to define faith. According to the Catholic definaition (can also be found in the CCC 1814):
"Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and all that Holy Mother Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself."

Fr Corapi (in his heyday) used to explain that if any one of the above quoted elements of the definition are rejected, then one does not have, some faith, or a little faith, but one has no faith at all, period. Therefore, the Protestant who knowingly rejects any item of faith that Holy Mother Church proposes for belief, that Protestant can nether be in partial or imperfect communion or in communion of any kind, just as a Catholic too, who knowingly rejects certain teachings of the faith no longer can claim to be in communion but falls ipso facto outside the Church.

MRyan wrote:
But now we come to your private definition of formal heresy which says when this Protestant “then hears the truth and understands what is being proposed for belief but yet rejects that truth, then he/she falls out of communion and into formal heresy.”

Well of course. Isn't this what the Church has always and everywhere taught? Don't you believe this?

So if the Protestant hears, for example, the dogma on Papal Primacy but, because of his long-standing faith tradition he does not accept what is being proposed as Catholics understand it, and therefore maintains (with the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission report) that "the New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for papal primacy" and that they contain "no explicit record of a transmission of Peter's leadership", and that only with the development of time would the Church come to understand the pope as leader of the worldwide church, but Protestant scholarship insists that this development is neither Scriptural nor of apostolic tradition, the Protestant has no excuse for not accepting the dogma as the Church understand it, and thus, “he/she falls out of communion and into formal heresy” and becomes an “idolater for believing in a man-made christ, a christ fabricated in the mind of Luther who bears some resemblance to the true Christ but is not in fact the true Christ”.

Yes of course. Isn't this the reason why Luther and all who followed him were excommunicated? Any follower of Luther -to the present day- has an obligation and a duty (for the sake of their eternal salvation) to enquire as to the origins of their faith and to seek the truth concerning its authenticity. They will not be alone in their search for they will receive help from the Church and from the Holy Ghost Himself for Christ has promised that whoever seeks will find. If, on the other hand, they do not seek such answers, they will be classed among those who are willfully ignorant and so will be culpable for their separation.

MRyan wrote:
Tell you what, columba, why don’t you introduce yourself to the Catholic converts and to the non-Catholic Christians at Called-to-Communion and tell the former Evangelicals, some of whom have since received S.T.D.’s in Sacred Theology and who now call their Evangelical brothers and sisters into full communion by defending the true Faith, that prior to their conversions (entering into "full communion") they were “idolaters for believing in a man-made christ, a christ fabricated in the mind of Luther who bears some resemblance to the true Christ but is not in fact the true Christ”, and see how long it takes to get banned for being the clod that you are.

Mike. why is anyone at all Catholic? Is it not because they looked at the claims the Catholic Church has made concerning herself and deduced (with the aid of grace and by application of their God-given gift of intellegence) that these claims are founded on irrefutable principles that neither contradict Sacred Scripture or God's providencial care over His own Mystical Body on earth.

The "Catholic convert" argument is very subjective to say the least. But the very fact that you recognize that they did convert means that you recognize that they changed from one set of beliefs to another. Therefore, before they converted they were in a state of apostasy. If (as we are led to believe today) the Catholic Church merely has the fullness of truth and therefore is the safer bet rather than the only bet, I think you will find that this proposal has already been condemned.

MRyan wrote:
The fact is, for most converts, the Evangelical tradition in which they were borne and raised is strong, and thus, the conversion process is a long one, and only slowly does the truth finally seep through, and hardly ever is there an on-the-spot “understanding” of the Catholic truth (the assent of faith) when it is first presented.

100% true. And likewise the Catrholic tradition, yet some still reject their Catholic faith, but until the truth actually does filter through and they convert they are outside the Church and outside the scope of salvation. If they are not, then just let them remain as they are (a policy which Archbishop Muller seems to have adopted).

MRyan wrote:
Most educated Evangelical converts to Catholicism studied the Christian faith for years while developing their apologetic skills in order to defend their own faith tradition, and to be able to refute the claims of the Catholic Church, which they believe erred in developing the traditions of men, rather than of God.

Of course they did and eventually found out that they were wrong. But until they discovered their error they remained apostate and recognizing their apoatasy, converted.

MRyan wrote:
But no matter, the likes of GK Chesterton and Cardinal Newman were “idolaters for believing in a man-made christ” before finally embracing the Catholic faith, as is every adult Evangelical and Protestant today who “understands what is being proposed for belief” by the Church, but chooses to hold to their faith traditions.

And they recognized themselves as idolaters and converted. Especially Chesterton who tried to explain (in his charitable and candid way) that those who still remained outside the Catholic Church were in fact heretics. If we were to believe that they did not recognize their prior beliefs as being idolatrous, we would have to conclude that their conversions were merely in the human-faith realm and not supernatural and that the full magnitude of their error was not recognized.

MRyan wrote:
Formal heresy must be obstinate, columba, and if you want to hold (in opposition to the Magisterium) all adult Protestants (who have not immediately embraced, upon hearing, each and every Catholic Truth) as obstinate formal heretics, go right ahead with your bluster and bravado, you impress no one, least of all our Lord.

We've already went over what separates a culpably, obstinate heretic from an inculpable material heretic and how both states can be found even among those who profess to be Catholic. As we cannot judge who is, or who is not in a state of non-culpable heresy, it would be charitable to assume that those in Protestant sects are culpable for their error instead of relying solely upon their valid Baptism (which in some instances is dubious enough to require conditional Baptism at the time of conversion) as a safety net, and make the effort (and take seriously the duty) to go all out and convert them into the one true Church.

Archbishop Muller is gambling with the eternal salvation of numerous souls by implying to them that they are part of the True Church of Christ while yet remaining in their heretical sect. This is a diabolical (demon inspired) teaching, putting human respect above duty and care of souls and as such should be condemned as heresy and this man publically excommunicated. The fact that this has not happened leads one to believe that he is interpreting VATII in accord with the present magisterium's interpretation and so proving that the true interpreatation of the council is that of rupture and not continuity, something which traditionalist (and sv's) have been claiming all along.

The very reason why one forfeits his external membership in the Body of Christ is that he has first seperated himself internally. It is not the other way about. It's not only charitable to believe, but imperative to hold, that those outside the visible body are also outside the Mystical Body. Anything less would be gross negligence and complete indifference for the eternal salvation of souls both in and outside the Church.

Mike, your defending of this confucated "internal vs external" membership (the former of which can never be known let alone relied upon) and making of it a dogma, has turned a few passing comments of certain popes into an opt-out clause, preventing the fulfilling of the God-given mission of the Church, to "go make disciples of all nations." What can be known for certain is now eclipsed by those things which cannot be known. Unfortiuately that is where we're at today.

Columba says “It is possible … for a baptized Protestant who had reached the age of reason to remain in ‘imperfect communion’ with the Church by virtue of his Baptism and the faith of his parents he professes in our Lord, the Trinity and the Incarnation, while being inculpably ignorant of any errors he may hold with respect to Papal Primacy and other secondary dogmas”.

However, this possibility should not dissuade the Church from labeling and treating the Protestant sects as formally heretical idolaters “for believing in a man-made christ”.

After all, columba says, “As we cannot judge who is, or who is not in a state of non-culpable heresy, it would be charitable to assume [as we did in ages past] that those in Protestant sects are culpable for their error”; and not only that, these same Protestants should “recognize themselves as idolaters”.

In other words, never mind what the Catholic Church teaches and instructs, columba is here to straighten out the Magisterium.

First, columba will instruct the Church on the true definition of “idolatry”, which the Catechism of the Catholic Church mistakenly defined as being limited to the following;

Idolatry

2112 The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols, [of] silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see." These empty idols make their worshippers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all who trust in them." God, however, is the "living God" who gives life and intervenes in history.

2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon." Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast"45 refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.

2114 Human life finds its unity in the adoration of the one God. The commandment to worship the Lord alone integrates man and saves him from an endless disintegration. Idolatry is a perversion of man's innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who "transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God."

Far from considering the baptized “who … are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety” as “idolaters”, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 15, teaches:

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*)

I’m confused, columba, for how can “idolaters” who believe “in a man-made Christ”, “lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour?” I mean, how can we “say that in some real way they [idolaters] are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power.”?

And how can Dominus Iesus actually teach, with the approval of the Pope:

For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church [e.g., Protestant “idolaters”], "salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit"; it has a relationship with the Church, which "according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit".

The same Dominus Iesus teaches,

If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation. ...

"Indeed, God ‘desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth' (1 Tim 2:4); that is, God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of the truth. Salvation is found in the truth. Those who obey the promptings of the Spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation. But the Church, to whom this truth has been entrusted, must go out to meet their desire, so as to bring them the truth.

And finally (for the sake of brevity), the CDF in its 1992 Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion; an official instruction approved by the reigning pope (well, according to columba, IF he was the pope, tee hee hee), obviously did not understand columba’s notion of “idolatry”:

V ~ ECCLESIAL COMMUNION AND ECUMENISM

17. "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honoured by the name of Christian, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter"(72). Among the non-Catholic Churches and Christian communities, there are indeed to be found many elements of the Church of Christ, which allow us, amid joy and hope, to acknowledge the existence of a certain communion, albeit imperfect(73).

This communion exists especially with the Eastern orthodox Churches, which, though separated from the See of Peter, remain united to the Catholic Church by means of very close bonds, such as the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, and therefore merit the title of particular Churches(74). Indeed, "through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches, the Church of God is built up and grows in stature"(75), for in every valid celebration of the Eucharist the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church becomes truly present(76).

Since, however, communion with the universal Church, represented by Peter's Successor, is not an external complement to the particular Church, but one of its internal constituents, the situation of those venerable Christian communities also means that their existence as particular Churches is wounded. The wound is even deeper in those ecclesial communities which have not retained the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist. This in turn also injures the Catholic Church, called by the Lord to become for all "one flock" with "one shepherd"(77), in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of its universality in history.

Columba, if you do not even understand the definition of “idolatry”, why in the world should anyone take you seriously?

MRyan wrote:
Why do you assume that all of “the well-beyond-the-age-of-reason sect leaders who are in negotiations with Rome, who know what the Church teaches on any given point of faith (or morals) yet refuse to accept those teachings” are obstinate in their refusal, when the Church considers them to be sincere and in good faith?

When you say the Church, you can't mean the whole Church. Can you?
The whole Church (bar a few latter day, presumed members, dubiously holding positiions of high authority) has always held them to be obstinate by the very fact of their obstinacy. We even pray (in one of the days intentions of the Divine Mercy novena) for those separated from the Church who obstinately persist in their error.

If there is no obstinacy present in those who are in talks with Rome, and these theologically and scripturally knowledgable sect leaders can't for the life of them see the truth of the Catrholic faith through no fault of their own, then we would have to suspect that maybe it's the Catholic Church who is in error. But like you say, Mike, those who genuinely look into the matter (even to disprove the Catholic position) end up converting.

But here's another problem.. A problem which undermines your own argument...That is... The problem of inconsistancy. While assuming good will on the part of very knowledgable sect leaders, you assume bad will on the part of sedevacantists (and dare I say, fence-sitters such as myself) even while they would relish the opportunity to have their position debated by those same Vatican authorities who hand out prizes to self proclaimed heretics, many of whom are more biblically and theologically astute (and thus more culpable) than your average sede or fence-sitter. Can you clear that one up Mike?

MRyan wrote:
Are you smarter than the Church? Or to you propose to speak for the “true Church”?

If you as a layman propose to speak for the Church then I'm supposing I hold the same right as you. But you seem to be speaking for a certain historically isolated part of the Church that doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to the whole historical Church. I claim to speak for the other 97.5%, that same percentage that you wish to ignore.

MRyan wrote:
How the Church chooses to treat and evangelize those sects that remain separated from full communion with the one true Church after centuries of mutual acrimony, anathemas and little progress, is up to the Vicar of Christ, who alone is responsible for the disciplines and policies of the Church under his Supreme Primacy of Jurisdiction.

Even the Vicar of Christ has no authority to unseat Christ and deem evangelization unnecessary by including those already excluded as already being in the Church. These very sects do not wish to be included unless this inclusion denies the ecumenism of a return; a proposal which Benedict XVI (along with "Archbishop Muller") has already accepted and validated.

MRyan wrote:
If you don’t like it, my suggestion to you, columba, is to make your break official, and stop with the pretense. You are fooling no one.

Your suggestion falls on deaf ears. Your own pretense at orthodox Catholicism should be of more concern to you than that of my clearly stated position.

I have to clarify something in case you missed it Mike.

MRyan wrote:
Columba says “It is possible … for a baptized Protestant who had reached the age of reason to remain in ‘imperfect communion’ with the Church by virtue of his Baptism and the faith of his parents he professes in our Lord, the Trinity and the Incarnation, while being inculpably ignorant of any errors he may hold with respect to Papal Primacy and other secondary dogmas”.

columba wrote:
In the same way it is also possible for a Catholic who has reached the age of reason to not fully hold or understand the teachings of the Church through no fault of his own. Such a Catholic remains sinless concerning these points of faith and remains in perfect union with the Church. He is in the same state as the nominal Protestant who has not knowingly rejected anything of the true Catholic faith.

Im am saying that no such animal as "imperfect communion" exists. Those who are validly baptized and have not culpably denied any dogma of faith, these remain in perfect communion.

CCC, 2113 Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divinizing what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God,

This is the definition I applied to Lutheran sects. They worship a Christ who is a creation of Martin Luther and they divinize that which is not God.

Will reply to tyhe rest of your post soon.

columba wrote:

Even the Vicar of Christ has no authority to unseat Christ and deem evangelization unnecessary by including those already excluded as already being in the Church.

The Vicar of Christ is abetting and promoting “idolatry”.

The Vicar of Christ is trying to “unseat Christ”.

The Vicar of Christ has “deemed evangelization unnecessary”.

The Vicar of Christ has included “those already excluded as already being in the Church”.

And my suggestion to columba “to make your break official, and stop with the pretense” … “falls on deaf ears.”

Too bad.

It shouldn't come as any surprize if the Lutherans reject communion with the VatII version of church. Not because it's too Catholic (which may have been an obstacle in the past), but because it's too liberal. Like you say Mike, most of these sects believe those articles of faith that constitute the absolute minimum requirement for the potential salvation of the ignorant which include the first commandment, the breaking of which elicited a rebuke from the Lutheran hierarchy to a pastor recently: Maybe the Lutherans are more Catholic than the pope:


Rev. Rob Morris, Lutheran Pastor, Apologizes For Praying At Newtown Interfaith Vigil

Religion News Service | By Caleb Bell Posted: 02/07/2013 8:40 am EST | Updated: 02/07/2013 1:05 pm EST

(RNS) A Lutheran pastor in Newtown, Conn., has apologized after being reprimanded for participating in an interfaith vigil following the shooting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

The Rev. Rob Morris, pastor of Christ the King Lutheran Church, prayed at the vigil the Sunday following the Dec. 14 shootings alongside other Christian, Muslim, Jewish and Baha'i clergy.

Morris' church is a member of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and the denomination's constitution prohibits ministers from participating in services with members of different faiths.

It's not the first time a Missouri Synod pastor has been reprimanded for joining an interfaith prayer service; a New York pastor also was suspended for participating in an interfaith service after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

LCMS president Matthew Harrison wrote in a letter to the Synod that "the presence of prayers and religious readings" made the Newtown vigil joint worship, and therefore off-limits to Missouri Synod ministers. Harrison said Morris' participation also offended members of the denomination.

"After consultation with my supervisors and others, I made my own decision," Morris wrote in his apology letter. "I believed my participation to be, not an act of joint worship, but an act of community chaplaincy."

The Newtown Interfaith Clergy Association hosted the Dec. 16 vigil, which was attended by Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy and President Obama.

In his opening statements at the vigil, the Rev. Matt Crebbin of the Newtown Congregational Church made clear that the participating religious leaders were not endorsing one another.

"We are not here to ignore out differences or to diminish the core beliefs which define our many different faith traditions," Crebbin said, according to a CNN transcript of the event.

Following the 9/11 attacks, Missouri Synod pastor David Benke participated in the Prayer for America interfaith service at Yankee Stadium. Although had the approval of then-LCMS president Gerald Kieshnick, the Synod's Dispute Resolution Panel suspended Benke.

He was reinstated in 2003 by Kieshnick and returned to his post as president of the denomination's Atlantic District.

Harrison wrote in his letter that despite his reprimand of Morris, the Missouri Synod does not unanimously agree on what joint worship is. The denomination is still attempting to define it.

"I am looking forward to working together with (Morris) and others in the Synod to strive for greater unity and consensus among us," Harrison wrote.

The St. Louis-based Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is the smaller of the two largest branches of Lutheranism in the U.S., with almost 2.3 million members. The more liberal Evangelical Lutheran Church of America has 4 million members.

Harrison was unavailable for comment, and Morris declined to comment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/07/rev-rob-morris-apologizes-praying-at-newtown-interfaith-vigil_n_2635576.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

Columba said “It is possible … for a baptized Protestant who had reached the age of reason to remain in ‘imperfect communion’ with the Church by virtue of his Baptism and the faith of his parents he professes in our Lord, the Trinity and the Incarnation, while being inculpably ignorant of any errors he may hold with respect to Papal Primacy and other secondary dogmas”.

Realizing he has backed himself into a corner, columba goes into full spin mode and now says:

I’m saying that no such animal as "imperfect communion" exists. Those who are validly baptized and have not culpably denied any dogma of faith, these remain in perfect communion.

Oh gosh, this is fun.

So where “imperfect communion” was possible for a baptized Protestant who remains in visible communion with his Protestant ecclesial community and professes the same faith of that community, such an “animal as ‘imperfect communion’” no longer “exists”.

Here we go again, the Protestant child who was raised in one of the Protestant ecclesial communities of his parents, comes to the age of reason and professes his faith in Christ (in the Trinity, the Incarnation and Resurrection), and, while not having culpably denied a single Catholic truth, remains in “perfect communion” with the Catholic Church.

OK, never mind that he remains visibly in a non-Catholic ecclesial community, professes the faith of his Protestant tradition; and, according to the Church, he does not “however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety”, and “objectively speaking [he is] in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation.”

Not only that, this alleged “Roman Catholic” who is in “perfect communion” with the Church, who professes the faith of his Protestant ecclesial tradition and does NOT profess the Catholic faith in its entirety”, the Catholic Church teaches that the very “existence” of this ecclesial community to which he visibly belongs is deeply wounded because it has “not retained the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist”, and “injures the Catholic Church … in that it hinders the complete fulfillment of its universality in history”.

And, while the Church considers this same Protestant lad to be in “a gravely deficient situation” due to the fact that the ecclesial community to which he belongs has “not retained the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist” and does not “profess the Catholic faith in its entirety”; colomba calls this “perfect communion”; after all, the invisible Catholic is not aware of having denied a single article of faith, though he cannot participate in the sacramental life of the Church.

Did I already mention that columba says "what gravely deficient situation"? The mature inculpably ignorant lad who is in external unity with a non-Catholic ecclesial community which does NOT profess the Catholic faith in its entirety” is in “perfect communion” with the Catholic Church, having the "fullness of the means of salvation"?

One cannot make this stuff up!

MRyan wrote:
Far from considering the baptized “who … are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety” as “idolaters”, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 15, teaches:

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*)

This just goes to prove how culpably deficient is the VatII knowledge bank when it applies the term "Christian" to a sect which rejects Christ not only in His teachings, but in His sacramental presence in the Eucharist, not to mention the derision in which some of these false sects hold His blessed Mother. As for "honor [of] Sacred Scripture," they do this by deleting from their bible those books which do not correspond with their false beliefs.

You would do well Mike to quote from reliably Catholic documents in support of your position.

MRyan wrote:
I’m confused, columba, for how can “idolaters” who believe “in a man-made Christ”, “lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour?” I mean, how can we “say that in some real way they [idolaters] are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power.”?

You see Mike, I can't say this but you can, because you believe (like your teachers) that such sects can truly love God and can be "joined with us in the Holy Spirit," forgetting that the Holy Spirit supplies grace to even the pagans that would suffice (if corresponded with) to bring them to salvation in and through the Church founded by Christ. Are the mists of confussion clearing yet?

MRyan wrote:
And how can Dominus Iesus actually teach, with the approval of the Pope:

For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church [e.g., Protestant “idolaters”], "salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit"; it has a relationship with the Church, which "according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit".

More ambiguous, fork-tongued speak for those who can thole it which unfortunately they are many. I really don't know how they can teach this but when they speak clearly I'll consider listening.

If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation. ...

Please spare me this. Does it even merit a reply?
OK then, I'll offer one.

Those who believe that the followers of other religions (worshipers of demons as St. Paul explains) are in a "gravely deficient situation" rather than on the edge of an eternal precipice into which they will fall if they depart this life outside the bossom of the Holy Roman Church, then they themselves are in a gravely deficient situation and will render a more strict account to God for having claimed, "We see!" (John 9:41)

And for brevity sake I'll just comment on your highlighted extracts from ECCLESIAL COMMUNION AND ECUMENISM:

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honoured by the name of Christian, but who do not however profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter"

Those who do not "profess the Catholic faith in its entirety" do not profess the Catholc faith at all. Didn't they know that?

The wound is even deeper in those ecclesial communities which have not retained the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist. This in turn also injures the Catholic Church, called by the Lord to become for all "one flock" with "one shepherd"(77), in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of its universality in history.

I think this is heretical. The Church is already One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic; it is not awaiting these marks. It already possess them in all those (few thogh they are) who hold the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, or are we playing a numbers game here?

MRyan wriote:
Columba, if you do not even understand the definition of “idolatry”, why in the world should anyone take you seriously?

I can give you the definition of idolatry and prove that it is you who do not understand what it is or what you are teaching.
The CE in brief explains it thus; Idolatry: To worship a false god or, to render false worship to the true God.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07636a.htm

columba wrote:

“The wound is even deeper in those ecclesial communities which have not retained the apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist. This in turn also injures the Catholic Church, called by the Lord to become for all ‘one flock’ with ‘one shepherd’(77), in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of its universality in history.” (CDF, 1992 Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Some Aspects of the Church Understood as Communion

I think this is heretical. The Church is already One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic; it is not awaiting these marks. It already possess them in all those (few thogh they are) who hold the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, or are we playing a numbers game here?

A promoter of heresy calling a teaching of the Catholic Church (approved by the pope) heretical. How rich.

But please note that the CDF (with the approval of the pope) provides the precise context to this “wound” when it immediately follows with “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of its universality in history.”

In other words, the Church does in fact possess all of the marks of the one true Church, and is not deficient in any of these constitutive elements (or it wouldn’t be the one true Church), but that does not mean that these historical wounds of separation do not “hinder the complete fulfilment of its universality in history”.

But columba is not good with distinctions, so his ignorant charge of “heresy” does not surprise us.

columma wrote:

MRyan wrote:

Columba, if you do not even understand the definition of “idolatry”, why in the world should anyone take you seriously?

I can give you the definition of idolatry and prove that it is you who do not understand what it is or what you are teaching.

The CE in brief explains it thus; Idolatry: To worship a false god or, to render false worship to the true God.

What a crock. You mean the same article that says:

It is reasonable, Christian, and charitable to suppose that the "false gods" of the heathen were, in their conscience, the only true God they knew, and that their worship being right in its intention, went up to the one true God with that of Jews and Christians to whom He had revealed Himself. "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ . . . . . the gentiles who have not the law, shall be judged by their conscience" (Romans 2:14-16). God, who wishes all men to be saved, and Christ, who died for all who sinned in Adam, would be frustrated in their merciful designs if the prince of this world were to carry off all idolaters.

But, allow me to provide the context of columba’s “proof text” from the CE that demonstrates that Protestants are idolaters because they “render false worship to the true God”, when this is absolutely false. Here’s the passage in question:

Idolatry etymologically denotes Divine worship given to an image, but its signification has been extended to all Divine worship given to anyone or anything but the true God. St. Thomas (Summa Theol., II-II, q. xciv) treats of it as a species of the genus superstition, which is a vice opposed to the virtue of religion and consists in giving Divine honour (cultus) to things that are not God, or to God Himself in a wrong way. The specific note of idolatry is its direct opposition to the primary object of Divine worship; it bestows on a creature the reverence due to God alone. It does so in several ways. The creature is often represented by an image, an idol. "Some, by nefarious arts, made certain images which, through the power of the devil, produced certain effects whence they thought that these images contained something divine and, consequently, that divine worship was due to them." Such was the opinion of Hermes Trismegistus. Others gave Divine honours not to the images but to the creatures which they represented. Both are hinted at by the Apostle (Romans 1:23-25), who says of the first: "They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts and of creeping things"; and of the second: "They worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator".

"The specific note of idolatry is its direct opposition to the primary object of Divine worship; it bestows on a creature the reverence due to God alone."

We could go on, but it should be clear by now that columba has no idea what he is talking about, and how totally out of his element he is with these constant broadsides against the Church.

Seriously, the man does not even know what "idolatry" means.

The good news is that only the most craven of home-aloners would be taken in by his foolishness and fly-by-the seat-of-your-pants “theology” and his make-it-up-as-you-go “ecclesiology”.

Columba, you have no idea what the Idolatry actually means, and your accusation of idolatry against Protestants for “bestowing on a creature [Jesus Christ] the reverence due to God alone” is pathetic.

Protestants are not “superstitious”, neither do they worship creatures, images, idols, things or persons. They worship the Trinitarian God and they believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord, and in His Incarnation, Passion, Redemption and Resurrection.

One thing I will not do, columba, is continue to go down this road to Hell where you take your never-ending cheap pot shots against the alleged "Vatican II small 'c' church", for it is a complete waste of time "debating" such glaring ignorance and heresy.

Besides, it only encourages you, and people might tend to think that I take you seriously.

“He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See." (Pope Leo XIII, "Satis Cognitum", 1896)

columba wrote:

Those who believe that the followers of other religions (worshipers of demons as St. Paul explains) are in a "gravely deficient situation" rather than on the edge of an eternal precipice into which they will fall if they depart this life outside the bossom of the Holy Roman Church, then they themselves are in a gravely deficient situation and will render a more strict account to God for having claimed, "We see!" (John 9:41)

More ignorant hubris, for what does columba think "gravely deficient situation" means? It means what Pope Pius XII and the CDF said it means, and we shall cite the former in Mystici Corporis Christi:

We have committed to the protection and guidance of heaven those who do not belong to the visible Body of the Catholic Church, solemnly declaring that after the example of the Good Shepherd We desire nothing more ardently than that they may have life and have it more abundantly. Imploring the prayers of the whole Church We wish to repeat this solemn declaration in this Encyclical Letter in which We have proclaimed the praises of the "great and glorious Body of Christ" and from a heart overflowing with love We ask each and every one of them to correspond to the interior movements of grace, and to seek to withdraw from that state in which they cannot be sure of their salvation. For even though by an unconscious desire and longing they have a certain relationship with the Mystical Body of the Redeemer, they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church. Therefore may they enter into Catholic unity and, joined with Us in the one, organic Body of Jesus Christ, may they together with us run on to the one Head in the Society of glorious love. Persevering in prayer to the Spirit of love and truth, We wait for them with open and outstretched arms to come not to a stranger's house, but to their own, their father's home.

But columba does not even consider that he too is in a “gravely deficient situation” and is “outside the bosom of the Holy Roman Church”, and that he is even more culpable for he has been given the grace of the true faith and has squandered it on heterodox and even heretical private interpretations of dogma and by refusing to acknowledge (let alone submit) to the living authentic Magisterium, upon which he heaps contempt, derision and mockery.

"You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held" [St. Augustine, Sermo cxx., n. 13] (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum).

“If any one shall despise the dogmatic decisions, injunctions, interdicts, sanctions or decrees which have been wisely published by the one who presides over the Apostolic See on behalf of the Catholic faith, ecclesiastical discipline, the correction of the faithful, the punishment of the wicked, or the forbidding of present or future evils, let him be anathema.” (Pope St. Nicholas I, AD 858-867)

The self-professed “fence-sitter” dares to judge the pope and dares to judge as heretical the Church’s teachings, laws and disciplines (and even accuses Pope St. Pius X and Benedict XV of overturning a matter of faith concerning Christian burial with the promulgation of the 1917 code).

… the person who abandons the teaching of the Roman pontiff cannot be within the church; for, on the authority of Augustine and Gregory, obedience alone is the mother and protector of all virtues, it alone possessing the reward of faith. (Fifth Lateran Council)

Columba, you are a sedevacantist, but cannot admit it (though I am sure most sede sects would appreciate it if you remained where you are precariously perched like a fence-sitting vulture peering over the carcasses of a dead “church”, as in “with friends like these …”). You would rather wallow in the façade of righteously attacking the Church from the inside when you are actually hurling your insults from the outside of what you call the false Vatican II small ‘c’ church, over which the false small ‘p’ two-headed monster of a pope presides, while columba remains in the one true non-VCII Church made up of the remnant of “true believers” presided over by the same small ‘p’ two-headed pope, though even columba may suspect that this bit of heretical and fetid swampland may be a bridge too far in selling it as prime orthodox real estate.

But, hey, with a few out-of-context citations from canonists and theologians, and armed with some heretical private revelations about the See of Peter becoming the seat of the anti-Christ, columba can sell anything, at least to himself and a few of the “true-believers” who treat VCI’s Pastor Aeternus, as well as Satis Cognitum and Mystici Corporis Christi as fallible “suggestions”, when each of these magisterial documents infallibly attest to the divine promise He “obtained for Peter that in the fulfilment of his office he should never fall away from the faith”, upon which the entire visible and divinely instituted Church rests; and each of them infallibly attest to the divine promise of our Lord “who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisibly, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth”.

For columba, this is child’s play. These divine promises are true only when we are absolutely certain that the visible Vicar on earth is actually Christ’s true Vicar and not some imposter who has fooled the entire Church (with the exception of the tiny true remnant and remnant fence-sitters) and is intent on destroying the Church through a heretical Council, false liturgies, suspect orders and the mortal sin of communicatio in sacris; and, well, we can never really know if the pope is truly the pope, now can we?

So it up to each of us to vigilantly sift the teachings and disciplines of the visible alleged Vicar for orthodoxy (as we understand it), and then render our thumbs up or thumbs down, and if thumbs down is a bit too scary for some of the true arbiters of truth and tradition, some other finger gesture may be more appropriate.

If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (St. Cyprian of Carthage, circa 251 A.D.)

They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi)

Mike, you are making the job of refuting your doctrinal fallacies easier with each post. I will get to that soon. In the meantime you continue to counter the counter syllabus, the one you say you follow as given by Paul VI. Even though I myself don't follow such a linguistic mess and could justifably consider you a heretic, I refuse to do so. I'd much rather give the benefit of doubt and assume you to be logically compromised and non-culpably infected with the virus of modernism. Even though you should be quarantined for the protection of others, this small forum is close enough to fit the bill. You, on the other hand (like I pointed out to SF), have no excuse for countering your counter syllabus which only goes to prove that you do not even believe your own rhetoric concerning it.

I would consider it an honor if someone who has been anathematized de facto by the Church for proposing heresy, considered me a heretic for remaining in communion with Christ’s visible Vicar on earth, and for defending him and the Church against the scurrilous charge of heresy.

And please do not threaten me with some silly allegation that I “have no excuse for countering [my – meaning, the pope’s] counter syllabus”, for I already know that you have no idea what you are talking about, and that you are too ignorant in such matters to threaten VCII and Pope Benedict XVI (or me) with the charge of heresy.

"Doctrinal fallacies", indeed. My goodness.

MRyan wrote:

columba wrote:
I think this is heretical. The Church is already One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic; it is not awaiting these marks. It already possess them in all those (few thogh they are) who hold the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, or are we playing a numbers game here?

A promoter of heresy calling a teaching of the Catholic Church (approved by the pope) heretical. How rich.

You need to be more specific Mike and identify the heresy you accuse me of.

MRyan wrote:
But please note that the CDF (with the approval of the pope) provides the precise context to this “wound” when it immediately follows with “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of its universality in history.”

Nonsense. Nothing, in time or eternity, can hinder the Church's unversaility. She remains, One, Holy, Catholic/universal and Apostolic regardless of what time in history one confines her too. If a wound at all could be said to exist in the Church it would most notably be found in her individual members who are in grievious sin. No such wound to the Church exists regarding heretics and schismatics as these are outside the Church. The above quote doesn't even make grammatical sense, and you say that defined dogmas need interpretation? Interpret that!

MRyan wrote:
In other words, the Church does in fact possess all of the marks of the one true Church, and is not deficient in any of these constitutive elements (or it wouldn’t be the one true Church), but that does not mean that these historical wounds of separation do not “hinder the complete fulfilment of its universality in history”.

Mike your talents would be put to much better use refuting this nonsense than defending it. This is gonna leave you imbecilic.

MRyan wrote:
But columba is not good with distinctions, so his ignorant charge of “heresy” does not surprise us.

Valid distinctions, yes, but inventing distinctions where none exist is another matter.


Re, Idolatry. Mike said:

The specific note of idolatry is its direct opposition to the primary object of Divine worship; it bestows on a creature the reverence due to God alone."

And this is what I proved when I said that Protestant sects worship a Christ invented in the mind of Luther and therefore give Divine worship to a figment of someone's imagination which is by definition, a creature.

Do Protestants worship the same Christ that Catholics worship? If the answer is yes, we are in a state of perfect communion them. The reason we actually aren't in communion is because we don't worship the same Christ. Enough of this imperfect communion heresy.

MRyan wrote:
We could go on, but it should be clear by now that columba has no idea what he is talking about, and how totally out of his element he is with these constant broadsides against the Church.

I think I've sufficiently shown the logical fallacies in your arguments in my previous posts without repeating them again. I am totally out of my depth when it comes to reconciling irreconcilables, something that you can do with ease. But the price you pay is tremendous. You will never again be able to make a clear statement of truth on anything. Relativism doesn't allow for that.

MRyan wrote:
The good news is that only the most craven of home-aloners would be taken in by his foolishness and fly-by-the seat-of-your-pants “theology” and his make-it-up-as-you-go “ecclesiology”.

If that's what I was really doing you would consider it a virtue, for I would be doing exactly what the new church-of-nice does. The fact that you take exception with the theology of the past (the kind which Fr. Ratzinger said must be dropped), fills me with renewed confidence.

MRyan wrote:
Columba, you have no idea what the Idolatry actually means, and your accusation of idolatry against Protestants for “bestowing on a creature [Jesus Christ] the reverence due to God alone” is pathetic.

I showed you the definition of idolatry and explained clearly how Protestant sects fit the definition. Your rejection of it is what's pathetic. That's why Pope Eugene XIII warned them (as certain) that they "will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her;"

MRyan wrote:
Protestants are not “superstitious”, neither do they worship creatures, images, idols, things or persons. They worship the Trinitarian God and they believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord, and in His Incarnation, Passion, Redemption and Resurrection.

I showed you how they do not believe in the same Christ as the Church. If they believed in Christ they would not disdain His words. If they don't have Christ, the Son of God, as their savior, they don't have God as their Father. Further; if they don't have Mary as their mother, they don't have Christ as their brother. The reason you believe they are true worshipers of God is that you believe in the same Christ as they. Go figure Mike.

MRyan wrote:
One thing I will not do, columba, is continue to go down this road to Hell where you take your never-ending cheap pot shots against the alleged "Vatican II small 'c' church", for it is a complete waste of time "debating" such glaring ignorance and heresy.

I realize I'm on a very narrow road Mike, a road I could never have found had I not stepped outside the post-conciliar box. In that box I found the road much to wide (a fact alone that should inspire the fear of God in any sane person) and the company too fat. (However non PC that may sound, it's only one minor observation amid a thousand others). Now if you wish to interpret Church teaching using VatII council as your yardstick, you go right ahead. I'll work the other way round.

MRyan wrote:
Besides, it only encourages you, and people might tend to think that I take you seriously.

You should give people credit for possessing enough intelligence to decide for themselves. There's nothing overly complicated in anything discussed above and no great theological studies needed to discern the truth. Simple logic will suffice.

MRyan wrote:
I would consider it an honor if someone who has been anathematized de facto by the Church for proposing heresy, considered me a heretic for remaining in communion with Christ’s visible Vicar on earth, and for defending him and the Church against the scurrilous charge of heresy.

Make up your mind Mike. You either believe in de facto excommunications or you don't. I argued (from the Doctors and theologians) that they do exist. You argued they don't. Now your canfirming they do exist.

MRyan wrote:
And please do not threaten me with some silly allegation that I “have no excuse for countering [my – meaning, the pope’s] counter syllabus”, for I already know that you have no idea what you are talking about, and that you are too ignorant in such matters to threaten VCII and Pope Benedict XVI (or me) with the charge of heresy.

Your right Mike. I can't declare you anathema for the same reason I can't Benedict XVI. I lack the authority. I can however hold it as a private opinion. If I did have the authority I'd have you summoned, post haste to the Vatican and have you undergo an intensive study course in logic. That's probably all that it would take to deprogram you. I'd also give you a room with a "nice" (no pun intended) open fire and for fuel you'd have your pick of all the rantings of insane men ever written since 1960. I wouldn't even demand you thank me for it.

columba wrote:

MRyan wrote:
I would consider it an honor if someone who has been anathematized de facto by the Church for proposing heresy, considered me a heretic for remaining in communion with Christ’s visible Vicar on earth, and for defending him and the Church against the scurrilous charge of heresy.

Make up your mind Mike. You either believe in de facto excommunications or you don't. I argued (from the Doctors and theologians) that they do exist. You argued they don't. Now your canfirming they do exist.

If you actually knew the difference between "de facto" and "ipso facto", you wouldn't be making such an ignorant allegation.

This is what I mean, Columba, its a waste of time "debating" such ignorance.

You once again claim to have "proven" that Protestants worship not Jesus Christ, but some craven idolatrous creature of their own imagination, and you have failed miserably. The very CE that you claim as your "proof text" refutes your miserable allegation. You think you can just make it us as you go, but what else is new? And to claim that your allegation is proven by Cantate Domino is a sheer act of desperation and a logical fallacy of the worse kind.

Seriously, please provide a single citation from a pope or other magisterial teaching/condemnation that charges Protestants with idolatry.

And how many times must I repeat the charge of heresy for your denial of Canon XI of the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent before it sinks in? Your so-called rebuttal only confirmed the depravity of your heresy, though a Protestant would have no problem with it whatsoever (except for the part featuring a delayed internal regeneration which must wait until after the particular saint's death and our Lord's Ascension, upon which the saint is bodily resurrected for the purpose of Baptism - he might think that just bit odd).

Sorry to jump in the conversation.....


The two priests who take call ins and e mails of questions on EWTN were asked yesterday by a Protestant (paraphrased as best as I remember): 'since he worships Jesus why is he not on the same path of Salvation as his fellow Catholics?' The one priest with imput from the other priest answered that he should think of Salvation as a Cross. The Protestant has the verical pole in loving, worshiping and praying to Jesus but does NOT have the horizontal pole which is in having the bride of Christ, His Church and all Her teachings for the complete path to Salvation.

I thought that this was a beatiful analogy.


JMJ,

George

Mike,

First of all, not all Protestants worship the "Blessed Trinity." In fact, some of them deny it altogether, such as the Unitarian Universalists. Others deny such things as the Virgin Birth or are Nestorians, denying the hypostatic union. Others deny the Bodily Resurrection. Others, the Second Coming of Christ (a view likely to change when it happens.) The list is nearly endless, as are the variations.

In addition, nearly Protestants believe that artificial contraception is both moral and licit, something which the Catholic Church has condemned as being "intrinsically evil":

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

So, the Magisterium wants us to acknowledge other Christians as being our "separated brethren" who are promoting acts which the Church has condemned as being intrinsically evil? No "conflict of interest" here, I suppose, just church discipline? Fidelity to Divine Law, Nature Law, and Divine Revelation? Fidelity to Jesus Christ Himself? And, to His Vicar?

Perhaps Michael Voris is the one who is walking this "theological tightrope" here? I don't think that the SSPX is too far behind.

On the sedevacantist website it is written critically that Bishop Donald Sanborn formerly with the Society of St.Pius X has said that “Vatican II’s idea of the Church is heretical, since it identifies organized religions of pagans and idolaters with the Mystical Body of Christ.'

I was sure there was nothing in Vatican Council II to suggest this unless one assumed that implicit to us salvation was visible and so an exception. So I asked on the Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus Forum if any one could cite any passage, any text in the Council which indicates this . No one could do so.

Here are the passages (above).

Most Holy Family Monastery website:
Bishop Donald Sanborn: “Vatican II’s idea of the Church is heretical, since it identifies organized religions of pagans and idolaters with the Mystical Body of Christ. The truth is that in no way are pagans and idolaters, as pagans and idolaters, united to the Mystical Body of Christ. If, by some mystery of Providence and Predestination, they [pagans and idolaters] are united to the soul of the Church, and by desire to its body, it is in spite of their paganism and idolatry. It is due to an invincible ignorance of their error.”

Lionel:
Bishop Donald Sanborn: “Vatican II’s idea of the Church is heretical, since it identifies organized religions of pagans and idolaters with the Mystical Body of Christ

Can someone give us an example where Vatican Council II identifies the religions of pagans and idolaters with the Mystical Body of Christ ?
I don't think there is such a passage..

Lionel:
As I thought, Vatican Council II does not contradict the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Unless one assumes not- visible- for- us salvation is physically visible for us.
This could have been the misconception of Bishop Sanborn.

https://catholicforum.forumotion.com/t1028-sedevacantist-website-still-assumes-the-baptism-of-desire-is-an-exception-to-the-dogma-extra-ecclesiam-nulla-salus#9097

This is Mike's error, too, because, he will say, "Well, we cannot observe any adult's salvation." Of course, he is wrong on two counts:

1) Sacramentally baptized infants who die before the Age of Reason. Okay, technically, "not adults," however, they have an advantage over all the non-baptized -- no original sin.

2) Canonized Saints of the Catholic Church. Nearly all of these folks (if not all of them) have been sacramentally baptized and all of them have had explicit submission to the Roman Pontiff.

Point is that Mike will acknowledge that the Catholic Church is a visible society of believers with a visible head, the Pope, Vicar of God. He will also acknowledge that at least some of these visible members are in Heaven, that is, those whom the Catholic Church has canonized. As for the "invisible members," well, the Church has not canonized anyone from that "class" of believers, so its size is simply unknown to us, unlike the canonized saints of the Catholic Church, who number in the thousands.

Jehanne wrote:This is Mike's error, too, because, he will say, "Well, we cannot observe any adult's salvation." Of course, he is wrong on two counts:

1) Sacramentally baptized infants who die before the Age of Reason. Okay, technically, "not adults," however, they have an advantage over all the non-baptized -- no original sin.

2) Canonized Saints of the Catholic Church. Nearly all of these folks (if not all of them) have been sacramentally baptized and all of them have had explicit submission to the Roman Pontiff.

I love it when you accuse me of "error", and then bring forth the salvation of baptized infants as if this has anything to do with those who can profess the faith and desire unity with the Church. And it is precisely that sinless advantage they hold that separates them from adults, and those baptized into other religious traditions who are not externally united to the Church.

And your claim that certain Protestant sects do not worship the "Blessed Trinity" or "deny the Bodily Resurrection" would disqualify them from being "Protestant", which is why there are Unitarian Universalists, Mormons, Deists, Gnostics, etc.

But the POINT IS that no matter how far the Protestant apple has fallen from the tree, they each have one thing in common: Each and every one of them is in a "gravely deficient situation", and the further away from the Church and divine and Catholic faith they are, the more dire is their situation.

You know better than to defend Lionel's "dead men walking" silliness, but here you are accusing me of error for speaking the truth as it is taught by the authentic living Magisterium.

And what is this supposed to mean -- "Canonized Saints of the Catholic Church. Nearly all of these folks (if not all of them) have been sacramentally baptized and all of them have had explicit submission to the Roman Pontiff"?

Is this your meager attempt at disputing a truth about which you accuse me of being in "error"? Really, where is the "error"?

Is this your meager attempt at disputing the fact that the Church recognizes in her solemn liturgy the feast days of the saints with certain of the martyrs having died without benefit of the sacrament? Your private "if not all" opinion that tries to dispute this is entirely irrelevant, for it is a fact that the Church not only accepts these traditions, she honors them in her liturgy precisely as they are written and precisely as they are understood by the saints and the Faithful.

So who are you to accuse me of "error" when your words ring hollow and you've got nothing in your quiver except empty smoke?

Tell us, Jehanne, did St. Robert Bellarmine and The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church "err" by affirming that the Church already considers faith-filled visible catechumens, "who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own", and, "in that way they can be saved.”?

Do you have a problem with that? Do you also see "dead men walking"?

No? Then what are you doing accusing me of "error"? Name the error, or knock it off. Isn't your beef actually with the Catholic Church? Isn't that the divine institution you are really accusing of error when I cite its conciliar decrees and the explanations of the CDF?

What, cat got your tongue?

Jehanne wrote:Point is that Mike will acknowledge that the Catholic Church is a visible society of believers with a visible head, the Pope, Vicar of God. He will also acknowledge that at least some of these visible members are in Heaven, that is, those whom the Catholic Church has canonized. As for the "invisible members," well, the Church has not canonized anyone from that "class" of believers, so its size is simply unknown to us, unlike the canonized saints of the Catholic Church, who number in the thousands.

You speak with a forked tongue, for she certainly has canonized those of that "class" of believers when she "canonizes" unbaptized martyrs. Again, it is IRRELEVANT that you think the saints and the faithful are ignorant yahoos for believing their own eyes, and the eyewitness accounts; the Church accepts their testimony, and accepts them as true; and even includes them in her sacred liturgy.

Have you forgotten already that the faith-filled catechumen is already joined to the Church de facto, if not yet de jure, or do you reject this teaching as well?

Go ahead, Jehanne, tell us that The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church "erred" on a matter of faith by teaching that the catechumen is in fact already joined to the Church; and, should regeneration in water be impossible before death overtakes him, that this same "intention" will assure him of salvation if that intention is as sincere as it appears to be.

Come now, Jehanne, let's hear your assent of the mind and will to this infallible teaching of the Church.

You made an accusation or error, now let's see you make it stick.

Mike,

Here's your error:

A catechumen is NOT EQUAL to a Protestant, Orthodox, Jew, Pagan, infidel, etc.

You act like St. Robert Bellarmine could not recognize an individual who was, in fact, outside the Catholic Church. For you, such a "category" of individuals is nebulous and undefined. Exactly, who, Mike, is outside the Catholic Church? Can you name such an individual? Describe what that person is like? What attributes does he/she possess? Yes, Doctors such as St. Robert Bellarmine knew and understood who was outside the Catholic Church. In fact, the Roman Catechism describes this group of individuals:

Those Who Are Not Members Of The Church

Hence there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church's pale: infidels, heretics and schismatics, and excommunicated persons. Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments. Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anathematised. Finally, excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.

But with regard to the rest, however wicked and evil they may be, it is certain that they still belong to the Church: Of this the faithful are frequently to be reminded, in order to be convinced that, were even the lives of her ministers debased by crime, they are still within the Church, and therefore lose nothing of their power.

So, clearly, in the eyes of the authors of the Roman Catechism, there were several clear, well-defined groups of individuals who were outside the Catholic Church. Being outside the Catholic Church, for individuals such as St. Robert Bellarmine, was more than just some "hypothetical" state of being.

Jehanne wrote:Mike,

Here's your error:

A catechumen is NOT EQUAL to a Protestant, Orthodox, Jew, Pagan, infidel, etc.

What? That’s my ”error” when I maintain NO such thing? Can you show me where I said, or even suggested, that "A catechumen is EQUAL to a Protestant, Orthodox, Jew, Pagan, infidel, etc."? Come on, Jehanne, stop being silly.

How can I be in “error” when I affirm that a faith-filled catechumen (as described in LG 14) is already joined to the Church de facto (by his explicit intention), while the “Protestant, Orthodox, Jew, Pagan, infidel, etc.” are not, and do not have an explicit intention; and when each of the latter is in a gravely deficient situation, some more gravely deficient than others?

Jehanne wrote:
You act like St. Robert Bellarmine could not recognize an individual who was, in fact, outside the Catholic Church.

Is that how I “act”? Really? St. Robert Bellarmine certainly could recognize all of those who were outside the Catholic Church, but also recognized the catechumen as being IN the Church by the fact of his explicit intention (a de facto external member in voto, but not a member in re (de jure).

So, technically speaking, the catechumen is not a “member”, as Bellarmine and Pope Pius XII defined it (externally). But Bellarmine and Pope Pius XII (in his famous allocution) also recognized the simple distinction made by St. Thomas Aquinas on internal incorporation, which gives a broader understanding to being “joined” to the Church. This is why, Jehanne, you will notice that the documents of VCII used “incorporation” as opposed to “membership” almost throughout (though still defining external membership).

Jehanne wrote:For you, such a "category" of individuals is nebulous and undefined. Exactly, who, Mike, is outside the Catholic Church? Can you name such an individual?

Are you serious? Where would you like me to start?

Every single non-Catholic who is not in full communion with the Church is “outside” the Church. The Catholic Sacraments and the elements of Catholic faith they may enjoy do not belong to them, they belong to the Church. So if grace is possible, and the Church says it is, there must be an ontological connection to the Church since grace flows through the Church. Yes, it is difficult to describe this “nebulous” life-line, but that does not detract from the truth of its existence.

Columba heretically asserted that the Holy Ghost does not dispense sanctifying grace outside of the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church, are you going to go down that heretical road as well? You can sure "act like" it.

Jehanne wrote:Describe what that person is like? What attributes does he/she possess?

He is sorta like columba; nothing but contempt for the heretical “VCII small ‘c’ church"; nothing but contempt for the heretical “concilar popes”; and nothing but contempt for the heretical “conciliar magisterium”.

But, at least he does not have contempt for the heretical 1917 Code of Canon Law, but only for a couple of its canons which, he says, overturned an article of faith. Yikes.

He is, in other words, a “visible dead-man-walking”, though I cannot see him. Perhaps Lionel can.

Jehanne wrote:
Yes, Doctors such as St. Robert Bellarmine knew and understood who was outside the Catholic Church.

He certainly did. I’m sorry, is this in dispute? And what about the Catechumen, again? And what about the unbaptized martyr who was also recognized by St. Bellarmine as being IN the Church?

Jehanne wrote:
In fact, the Roman Catechism describes this group of individuals:

Those Who Are Not Members Of The Church

Hence there are but three classes of persons excluded from the Church's pale: infidels, heretics and schismatics, and excommunicated persons. Infidels are outside the Church because they never belonged to, and never knew the Church, and were never made partakers of any of her Sacraments. Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted. It is not, however, to be denied that they are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, inasmuch as they may be called before her tribunals, punished and anathematised. Finally, excommunicated persons are not members of the Church, because they have been cut off by her sentence from the number of her children and belong not to her communion until they repent.

But with regard to the rest, however wicked and evil they may be, it is certain that they still belong to the Church: Of this the faithful are frequently to be reminded, in order to be convinced that, were even the lives of her ministers debased by crime, they are still within the Church, and therefore lose nothing of their power.

So, clearly, in the eyes of the authors of the Roman Catechism, there were several clear, well-defined groups of individuals who were outside the Catholic Church. Being outside the Catholic Church, for individuals such as St. Robert Bellarmine, was more than just some "hypothetical" state of being.

Of course, and these groups are still “outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church”; but the Church, in the Roman Catechism of the Catholic Church (of the same Magisterium), has provided further clarification by expounding upon the idea of "incorporation":

814 From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them. Within the unity of the People of God, a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together. Among the Church's members, there are different gifts, offices, conditions, and ways of life. "Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions." The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity. Yet sin and the burden of its consequences constantly threaten the gift of unity. And so the Apostle has to exhort Christians to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."

815 What are these bonds of unity? Above all, charity "binds everything together in perfect harmony." But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion:

- profession of one faith received from the Apostles;
-common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;
- apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God's family.

816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."

The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation [but only through the Church], whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."

Toward unity

820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time." Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me." The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.

I’m sorry, you were saying something about “error”?

Jehanne
This is Mike's error, too, because, he will say, "Well, we cannot observe any adult's salvation." Of course, he is wrong on two counts:

Lionel:
Yes he will assume that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are visible to us on earth and so they are exceptions to the dogma which says every one needs to be a visible member of the Church, every one needs to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.

Since he can see those cases saved in invincible ignorance it could mean he could see these cases walking near where he lives. Dead men saved and walking in invincible ignorance etc.

I cannot see these cases since for me the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In faith we accept these cases as possibilities, a person could be saved, but they are not explicit for us.

Lionel Andrades wrote:

Jehanne
This is Mike's error, too, because, he will say, "Well, we cannot observe any adult's salvation." Of course, he is wrong on two counts:

Lionel:
Yes he will assume that those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire are visible to us on earth and so they are exceptions to the dogma which says every one needs to be a visible member of the Church, every one needs to convert into the Catholic Church for salvation.

Since he can see those cases saved in invincible ignorance it could mean he could see these cases walking near where he lives. Dead men saved and walking in invincible ignorance etc.

I cannot see these cases since for me the baptism of desire and invincible ignorance are not exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. In faith we accept these cases as possibilities, a person could be saved, but they are not explicit for us.

Frick and Frack, Mutt and Jeff, Pete and Repeat.

Lionel, please do not dare to tell me what I “will assume” when I assume no such silly thing. I’ve refuted this nonsense so many times without a rebuttal of any coherence. These constant repetitions of the same falsehoods simply reveal the incoherence of your false ecclesiology. You are caught-up in a fantasy and have built an entire enterprise around the same false mantra.

Lionel, for the one hundredth time, no can “see” the salvation of adults, and neither do we "assume" the certainty of salvation for the same. And the fact that one CAN be saved (as Cardinal Bellarmine teaches) by the same intention and desire that incorporates the “visible to us catechumen” IN the Church de facto (in voto), for example, does NOT mean that he WILL be saved – so how in the world can you allege that I “assume” that I can see “salvation that is visible to us” of those the Church teaches are already IN the Church de facto, but not de jure, let alone the salvation of those who may be united internally to the Church without being a “visible to us catechumen”?

You have no answer, but can only repeat the same meaningless mantra like someone with turrets or the man who closes his eyes, sticks his fingers in his ears and repeats over and over again the same silly soliloquy.

Your fallacy is built upon a mountain of straw that assumes that Fr. Feeney’s rigorist understanding of the dogma is the understanding of the Church, when this is completely false. But even Fr. Feeney would condemn your “logic” that alleges that exceptions to there is no salvation outside of visible membership in the Church that allow for salvation outside of visible membership in the Church are not exceptions to there is no salvation outside of visible membership in the Church, and would recommend a remedial course in elementary logic for those who do not know the difference between “will” and “can”.

That you “test” your hypotheses by asking a Society priest, for example, if we can “see the salvation” of catechumens or of those saved by baptism of desire, and when he says “no”, you say “aha”, the SSPX priest confirms that baptism of desire is not an exception to the dogma of no salvation outside of visible Church membership, otherwise, we would see “dead men walking”.

Truly appalling logic.

Seriously, Lionel, you need help in getting over this affliction that will not allow you to see the inanity of your thesis. Have you noticed that no one ever actually responds when you repeat these inanities at places like Rorate Caeli? Would you like for me to explain why? Do you think it is your unassailable penetrating logic that leaves them speechless?

They are speechless all right, and simply heed the warning that says do not feed the ego of a man who thinks he is Napoloean, it only encourages him.