From:   MX%"gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu" 14-OCT-1995
To:     MX%"nemo@ludens.elte.hu"
Subj:   Our Dialog

Dear Ferenc,

I am sending this through to you by email before cleaning
it up and posting it.  There are two reasons for this.
(1) The dialog has become very extended (almost a 1,000
line message).  (2) It seems that you actually _are_
seeking truth and trying to understand some of the
strange and sorry events of Catholic history.  Let
me know if you would like to continue the conversation
on s.r.c. (if so, then we will have to cut the posts
down to smaller portions), or if you would prefer to
do it through email.

  <nemo@ludens.elte.hu> wrote:

>I had in mind <does the Bible use the words "is being renewed"?>

No.

>You may have understood it as a question: <can you deduce it from
>the Bible>?  The distinction is of great importance, because this

Yes.

>expression annoys most Protestants, as if Catholics taught that the
>Calvary isn't a completed, ever-valid, ever-fresh, unique, unrepeatable
>act of atonement and the only way to God but it has to be "renewed"
>in the Eucharist. That is, it does not remind US of the cross, but

Whose fault is it if they do not understand clear exegesis?
I can recommend a number of books that explain the mind of
the Catholic Church on the Eucharist.

>it reminds the FATHER. As if Catholics believed that the cross fades
>over the years, and God tends to view us with less compassion and love
>unless we perform a religious act to refreshen the sacrifice.

Is this your understanding of why Catholics hang crucifixes
in their parish buildings, homes and offices?  If the word
"renew" bothers you, then use a better one, such as the one
I normally use - "re-present."  This term is more descriptive
as well.

>the former two Testaments shed less light
>if they are not subjected to the fixed viewpoint of the RCC.

I think you are catching on now.  Good man!

>:Who says that they are already forgiven?
>
>Among others, Jesus:

  <15 Gospel citations deleted>

I looked these over but did not see any evidence there
that the sins I will commit _tomorrow_ are already
forgiven.  What I read in these verses are some applications
to specific cases and persons, and also some peripheral
information, but nothing that informs me that my future
sins are already forgiven before I have even confessed,
repented of, and been sorry for them.

>: Mine are not. Those of my Catholic friends are not.  Not, that is,
>:until they are sacramentally absolved by penance.
>
>A legal category. Compared to the above scriptures, it seems
>sophisticated, meticulous, pharisaic, man-made and institutional.

Maybe to you it does.  But there is quite a bit more to the story
than simple sacramental penance.  Certainly it is _the_ efficacious
sacrament of forgiveness after baptism and prior to impending death,
but there is also a type of non-sacramental forgiveness that I left
unmentioned.  Perhaps you would find the doctrine of the "act of
perfect contrition" less pharisaical?  Let me know.

>:The sacrifice of the cross re-presented daily all over the
>:world (Mal 1:11) makes this forgiveness possible.
>
>No. The once and forever accomplished sacrifice of the cross
>makes possible that we are forgiven by God. (Eph 1:7)

But how is this forgiveness applied to people's souls
today, by your reckoning?

>:His flesh is real food and His blood real drink - it indeed
>:nourishes him who feeds on it.
>
>Provided that he is worthy... so how can we apply it to the
>forgiveness of sins?

Through the sacrament of penance.

>I guess you have some scriptural support for this theory...
>(Reminding God of the sacrifice)

None comes immediately to mind, except for some passages
from the OT, like Gn 9:15, 16; Lv 26:42; Ezek 16:60; and
maybe the Roman Canon:

  ...Almighty God, we pray that your angel may take this
  sacrifice to your altar in heaven....

  ....Remember, Lord, those who have died and have gone
  before us marked with the sign of faith...

>#0. Question: How can I have my sins forgiven?

  <quoted text of mine deleted>

>So the answer is: by applying the Eucharist to our sins.

Wrong answer.  The correct answer is: by applying the
merit won by Christ on the cross to the soul of the
one who has been absolved of his mortal sins prior
to approaching the altar.

>a) Can't the "renewal of the sacrifice" be "applied" to the sins in
>a way which doesn't include eating and drinking it?

The "renewal" is not applied to the sins, but to the soul.
This application is known as an increase in sanctifying
grace.  It is absolution that is applied to the sins.  The
sacrifice of the Mass is what makes the absolution efficacious
here and now.

>Answer: No.

Sins are forgiven in the sacrament of penance.  The
sacrament of Eucharist serves to make this forgiveness
possible here and now.

>Conclusion: However rapidly can I make my way round the
>steps [0]->[1]->[2]->[3]->[4]=[0], my whole life isn't enough to
>achieve my goal, that is, forgiveness of sins, with your method.

Actually, the contrivance you have put together above
looks more like _your_ method than like the Catholic
Church's method.  I hope you are not embarrassed by
your display above.  We all make mistakes in the
arithmetic from time to time.

------------------------------------------------------------------

>" this decree [D 714] *only* applies to those who _had been_ Catholics,
>" but who had then left the faith for whatever reason...

I hate to have to say this, but the word "remain" has a fairly
definite meaning:

  Remain.  To continue in a place or condition...  [New
  Webster's Dictionary]

This word presumes that those listed were once a part
of the Catholic Church.  And this makes sense too, in
the context of Florence.  As the gloss on p. 77 of your
TCT indicates, the decree for the Jacobites was the
Catholic Church's attempt to bring these and two other
Eastern groups back into communion with her.

>The warning at least suggests that there were some people committed
>with the responsible service of teaching who used to teach this
>unchristlike conclusion (mentioned above). I am sure that the source

Right.  But the magisterium never taught this as dogma.

>of their error is in some way connected with the "coloured language"
>of the authoritative pronunciations of old, which had the basic aim of
>convincing, as you insist on it.

Yes, of convincing Catholics to remain in the Church and not
revert back to what they may have been prior to baptism.

>And whoever compares the language of councils in the Middle Ages
>with that of Vatican II can testify that while the anathemas didn't
>reoccur, the whole attitude towards the dissenting opinion - which is
>amply reflected by the wording - has become milder with regards to
>the mentioning of possible consequences.

But by definition, the tone of Vatican II *must* differ
from that of the ecumenical councils that defined dogma,
for Vatican II defined _no_ new dogmas, contrary to
Florence.  From Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 1:

  The sacred Council has set out to impart an ever-
  increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful;
  to adapt more closely to the needs of our age those
  institutions which are subject to change; to foster
  whatever can promote union among all who believe in
  Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call all
  mankind into the Church's fold.

Thus we see that the purpose of Vatican II was primarily
_pastoral_ and not dogmatic.  Everyone concerned would
do well to keep that in mind when reading the documents
produced by that council.

I must also point out that Vatican II was not intended
to change any dogmas.  The documents point this out very
clearly.  Dignitatis Humanae, n. 1, is typical of this
emphasis:

  So while the religious freedom which men demand in
  fulfilling their obligation to worship God has to do
  with freedom from coercion in civil society, it leaves
  intact the traditional Catholic teaching on the moral
  duty of individuals and societies towards the true
  religion and the one Church of Christ.

And of course we know by Lumen Gentium n. 8 wherein
this Church of Christ subsists.

>To be concrete, no hellfire or eternal damnation are mentioned when
>the Council deals with the Jews or "pagans". (I am not sure whether
>this very word still applies.)

>I'll put this decree on your screen until you manage to say something
>about the Jews, schismatics, etc. going to everlasting fire.

How about this?  If the Catholic Saints Cyprian (circa 250, Ep.
72, 22, ANF 5), Ambrose (4th century, De obitu Val. 51) and
Augustine (De bapt. IV, 22-30, NPNF I, 4) all contributed to
Pope Piux IX's teaching on invincible ignorance in 1854 and 1863
(D 1647, 1677), then what more do I have to say about Jews,
etc. going to everlasting fire that I did not already say in
my previous article?  Did you review TCT 174 and 178, as I had
requested in that post?  Evidently you either did not read
these paragraphs or you did not understand what you read.
Also, Pope Innocent III is ascribed to have written a
letter to the Archbishop of Cremona in the 12th century
which provides the Catholic interpretation of (and
even translates) St. Augustine's understanding of "baptism
of desire," as written in his "On Baptism: Against the
Donatists" (cited above).  Therefore we have papal recognition
of this doctrine 3 centuries prior to the decree for the
Jacobites.  As I recall from looking last night, Pope Innocent's
letter is n. 388 (or 385) of the Denzinger documents, but TCT
does not include it.  One last point, St. Aquinas in part III
(q. 62, a. 2, I think) of his Summa Theologica wrote in the
mid-13th century (again, 200 years prior to Florence) about
the Catholic doctrine of invincible ignorance and baptism
of desire.  Thus you are putting yourself out on a limb
by trying to assert that Florence was unaware of this doctrine.

It should be painfully obvious by now that "remains"
means "remains," and that the decree for the Jacobites
pertains only to Catholics who choose to leave and to
_remain_ outside the Church in full cognizance of and
consent to their action.  What do you think the intent
of the Spanish Inquisition was if not to bring Catholics
(the wrong way) back to the faith?

>:Turning one's back on the faith is considered as serious an offense
>:against God today as it was five centuries ago.
>
>In theory, I agree. My concern is:
>To what extent did(n't) <being a Protestant and holding to Luther's
>teaching> fulfill the criteria of "turning one's back on the faith" in
>the 17th century, and how does(n't) it mean that now?

Point me to some doctrine here, so I can figure out
what you are talking about.     :)

>"  ...However, one cannot charge with the sin of separation
>"  those who at present are born into these communities and
>"  in them [dissenting communities which had become separated
>"  from full communion with the Catholic Church] are brought
>"  up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts
>"  them with respect and affection as brothers.
>
>Why did the Council write this? In the 17th century, having in mind
>the Orthodox Church (schism in 1054) this argument would have been
>valid, too. And yet the mutual excommunications were withdrawn
>only in this century! The 1st Vatican Council went on anathematizing

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are both Churches of
men, not of angels.  Evidently it was men resisting the
promptings of the Holy Spirit who were responsible for
the delay in forgiveness.

>those who reject the Trent canon of the Bible, among others most
>Protestants. But why, if once they were continally taught to do so?
>(thus "getting into the state of invincible ignorance")

I do not understand this question.  But I have a
question for you.  Why do so many non-Catholic
Christians hate (anathematize?) the Catholic faith?

>:I do not see the decree damning anyone, but merely warning heretics
>:of the folly of rejecting a faith they once embraced.  If you think
>:that the Church has ever damned anyone by name to hell, produce the
>:evidence or retract your assertion.
>
>Excuse me... I'll use your post as source :-)
>
>"  Therefore, of the one and only Church [there is]
>"  one body, one head, not two heads as a monster, namely, Christ
>"  and Peter, the Vicar of Christ and the successor of Peter, the
>"  Lord Himself saying to Peter: "Feed my sheep" [John 21:17].
>"  He said "My," and generally, not individually these or those,
>"  through which it is understood that He entrusted all to him...

You have not shown me any names yet.  Who has the Church
damned by name to hell?

>Here you are. Quite obvious. No distinction is made between the state of
>sheep, semi-sheep and non-sheep. Furthermore, Boniface left no room
>for the later explanations including "not full communion", etc.

This sentence was evidently left out because it is irrelevant,
superceded by the conclusion of the bull, and not _de fide_.
So why include it?  I type fast, but why waste even a few seconds
entering non-essentials?  By consensus of all commentators I
have read on what does and does not constitute the _de fide_
portion of Unam Sanctam, it is only the concluding sentence
of the bull that is considered a new definition.  The gloss on
p. 73 of your copy of TCT alludes to this.  There are other
dogmatic elements in the bull, primarily in the first sentence,
but the only _new_ definition promulgated by Unam Sanctam was
the last sentence.

>OTOH, this sentence plainly contradicts your attempts at interpreting
>the most offensive sentence ("...subject to the Roman Pontiff") as one
>meaning that <whoever belongs to Christ by baptism is somehow subject
>to the pope, for he is Christ's vicar and the chief dispenser of
>sacraments>. No, this in Unam Sanctam goes the other way round:
><Whosoever doesn't accept belonging to the pope is not Christ's sheep.>

The statement made by Boniface that you quote is _not_
infallible.  It is not _de fide_.  It is _not_ a dogma.

>Notice that Boniface didn't even hint at being subject to him without
>knowing it; this statement simply wouldn't have been effective when
>applied to the pope's enemies. So he stressed the "submitting" side,
>as it is proven by the excerpt about "Greeks and others".

I only accept the statements that the Church binds me
to accept, and the one you quote above is not binding
on me or on anyone else.  I find only the first and last
sentences of the bull to be binding on me.  The rest of the
bull either points to the Apostles' Creed (which binds
as well) or to non-dogmatic opinions.

The English language is not the issue here, but the
mind of the Church is.  If you wish to know how the
Church thinks, then you will have to invest the effort
to do so.  I can point you here and there, but the
real work must begin inside of yourself.

>:The most she has ever done is to excommunicate persons who cease to
>:be Catholic in their public profession of what they believe.
>
>And their followers born in dissented communities, too, even centuries
>after the "founder"'s death.

Please establish this from magisterial documents.

>:  The purpose of colorful language in those days was to remind them
>:of the fate that might await them should they remain outside the body
>:of faith which they had previously sworn allegience to.
>
>No matter to whom these utterances apply, it's all the same
>detestable how popes used to exploit Europe misusing their "spiritual
>primacy". This language was a means of intimidation, of banning the
>opposing conviction, thus a blood-covered "spiritual sword".

Perhaps it was this.  To the extent that popes' abused
their authority, I distance myself from their actions,
and JPII has recently apologized for their mistakes in
governance.

>And let me remind you of "Greeks or others" and "Jews and pagans".
>In what way did they swear allegiance to the Church or the pope?

By being baptized into the Church.

>Maybe implicitely: through accepting the creed or by the keeping the Old
>Testament or because they believe in an "unknown god", respectively?
>In this case, when did they cease to do so, that the pope "had to"
>"excommunicate" them?

A history book would help you out here.  I can recommend
several on the Inquisition.

>:>Saying that the sacraments are of NO effect outside the Catholic Church
>:>ruins half of Unitatis Redintegratio.
>
>:How so?  The decree was addressing only the sacraments that are repeatable,
>:not those that cannot be repeated.
>
>TCT didn't have a comment on this. How should I have known it?

Well, dare I answer this?    ;-)

I commend you in your search for truth.  Keep up the
good work, but do not limit your search to only one
or two Catholic resources.  Expand your horizon to
include all kinds of literature: Catholic, Protestant,
Jewish, pagan, whatever you wish.

>:Besides, as I said above, the sacrament of Eucharist most certainly
>:*is* of benefit to those outside the Catholic Church because all are
>:_able_ to be nourished in faith as a consequence of it.
>
>But alas, Protestants, having no valid apostolic priesthood, cannot
>participate in the "application of the sacrifice" of Calvary to the
>forgiveness of sins, because D 2300 testifies that only the priest
>is appointed to offer the "sacrifice of Mass" in its fullness; so they
>are still in their sins. Or have I misunderstood your words?

Yes, you do misunderstand the profundity of the sacrament.
The sacrifice of the Mass _makes possible_ the forgiveness
of sins here and now.  It does this by re-presenting the
sacrifice of Christ to the Father and to us.  The latter
was commanded us by Christ.  The former is known to us by
the Apocalypse and other revelation.

Forgiveness of sin is possible extra-sacramentally; i.e.,
by an act of perfect contrition.  Anyone is capable of
making this act so long as they have received the grace
of God to do so.  All they need do is cooperate with this
salvific grace, without even knowing that the Eucharist
makes forgiveness possible here and now, and their sins
may be forgiven.  The follow-on requirement for Catholics
is sacramental confession if possible, but this is likely
of little consequence to a non-Catholic.

>Once again: first you argue for the necessity of the "sacrifice of
>Mass" in forgiveness of sins. Then again you testify that the reason
>why the Church is necessary for salvation is that the "sacrifice of
>Mass" is validly offered there. Then you make a 180 degree turn, and
>say that they are all able to be nourished in faith as a consequence
>of it. But how on earth can it be, if they are still in their sins,
>before it, during it and after it?

Baptism forgives of all sin: original and actual.  It
constitutes the first infusion of sanctifying grace to
a wanting soul.  The re-presentation of Calvary to the
Father and to us makes possible all forgiveness here
and now.  Should a Catholic fall into a condition of
mortal sin subsequent to receiving baptism, he must
discern the body and blood on the altar and _not_
partake of the Eucharist until he has regained the
sanctifying grace he has lost.  He does this by
either sacramental penance or an act of perfect
contrition.  Once back in the state of sanctifying
grace, he is again free to bring his gift to the
altar (an offering of his labor, his intentions and
his very self) and eat the bread of life.

>Theologically: is the Lord's Supper celebrated by the Protestants
>really the ("transsubstantiated") flesh and blood of Christ?

No.

>Unitatis Redintegratio 22:
>"According to our belief, they [dissented western communities] haven't
>"preserved unviolately - mainly because the lack of Holy Orders - the
>"full richness of the mystery of Eucharist. In the Lord's Supper they,
>"nevertheless, remember the death and the resurrection of the Lord:
>"thus confessing that it means life-giving communion with Christ, and
>"they look forward to His glorious coming.
>                             (trans. from Hungarian)

My translation looks quite a bit different from this, with
greater emphasis on the fullness of unity which flows from
baptism, and noting that the Protestants have not preserved
the "proper reality" of the eucharistic mystery in its
fullness.  These are important distinctions which you left
out of your excerpt.

>(Context: what can play the role of the subjects on which Catholics
>can begin a dialogue with the dissented western communities, and not
>the "validity" of the Protestant celebration. Once a priest told me
>that one can't apply the word "valid" or "invalid" to it, for it is
>not a intended to be a sacrifice at all.)

The priest is correct.  Invalid Orders cannot a valid
sacrifice make.

About subjects of dialog, I suppose that concordances in
understanding of justification, sanctification, and other
matters relating solely to Christ may find profitable
expression.  But we are still miles apart on doctrines
about communion of saints, prayer, worship, the last
things, certain matters of moral theology, authority in
the Church, and other significant topics.

>Remember also "Whoever doesn't eat my flesh..."

What am I to remember about this?

>One of the most valuable testimonies of Vatican II that some
>doctrines can be taught with a slightly "different emphasis" than
>formerly. Surely you are convinced that there is no change in
>dogmas, and try to prove it with this quotation. But I, who see
>not only "different emphasis" but serious changes in application
>of the dogmas (eg. ecumenism - what prevented the RCC in greeting it
>around 1920?), so I would only see my suspicions (about the changing
>dogmas) being justified when reading your excerpt.

I ask you again.  Show me a dogma that has changed.
By the way, it must have been someone else who spoke
of "different emphasis," for these are not my words.
I do not believe that Vatican II had a different
emphasis from other ecumenical councils.  Only its
purpose was different.

>: For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put
>: in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church..
>
>Did Trent emphasize this imperfect communion? (I really don't know.)

I would have to take another look at exactly what was
said there.  Since I am doing this through email, I
will look it up at home if you are truly interested.
But actually, why should I begin at Trent?  I have shown
you above that this doctrine has been _de fide_ from
the beginning (I consider St. Cyprian to be pretty near
the beginning).

>In the times of Donatist error, as I know, the matter was whether
>re-baptism was necessary for former heretics. Or did Augustine
>write sg about accepting <present> heretics as brethren?

I doubt it.  But _formal_ heretics are fully aware
of their choice against the Church; _material heretics
(such as modern Protestants, Jews, pagans and others)
are not.  The former are culpable for their error,
whereas the latter are not.

>Questions:
>(1) Who is prefigured by Noah?

The pope.

>(2) Did the times change in such a vigorous way that this solemn
>    warning towards those who exist outside the "ark" shouldn't be
>    repeated anymore? (Has the flood passed?)

Invincible ignorance was an infallible doctrine held
from the beginning of the Church.

>(3) Has the great ark since then "launch" small arks that derive their
>    efficacy in the missionary work from her? (Can excommunication be
>    interpreted with this simile?)

These "small arks" exist mostly in the condition of _material_
heresy.  Thus, the vast majority of their crew are not guilty
of formal sin and therefore may or may not be united to the
Catholic Church by unspoken desire.  I have no way of distinguishing
the condition of these souls.

>Maybe it tries to conceal some details of which the Church is
>in a certain way "ashamed", saying "reviving anathemas wouldn't serve
>the common good". But I ask: if (un)religious indifference has grown
>so high, why doesn't the pope reminding these reluctant people of
>their future fate (unless they return to the bosom of the Church)?

Because of charity in the face of rampant _material_  heresy?

>I'm struggling with this issue, as you can see from my post...

Right.  I do understand your position.  It is a common
one not only among Protestants, but among many of the
U.S. and Western European Catholic clergy.  These clergymen
are for the most part lost, but JPII is working hard to
reform this travesty.

>And please, don't quote here Vatican II about "not full communion", etc.
>I require something including the word "salvation" of you.

How about this?

  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.  [CCC n. 816; UR 3]

And then there is this:

  In their religious behavior, however, men also display the
  limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

     Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become
     vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth
     of the Creator for a lie, and served the creature rather
     than the Creator.  Or else, living and dying in this world
     without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.

   [CCC n. 844; LG 16; cf. Rom 1:21, 25]

And we also have this:

  Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council
  teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is
  necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator
  and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body
  which is the Church.  He himself explicitly asserted the
  necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at
  the same time the necessity of the Chburch which men enter
  through Baptism as through a door.  Hence they could not
  be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded
  as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to
  enter it or to remain in it.  [CCC n. 846; LG 14; cf.
  Mk 16:16, Jn 3:5]

>:I tried to explain something away?  Me?  Membership *by Catholics* in
>:the Catholic Church *is* necessary for salvation.  It always has been.
>
>By Catholics? See my problems with "Greeks or others", etc.

These "Greeks or others" that are referred to in the
decree for the Jacobites are Catholics who left the
fold for some other "faith."  It is to these that the
decree appertains.  Check on the history of the times.

>Sorry, I haven't read it before posting this article. I don't have it
>at home, but as soon as I have access to it, I'll study it.

:)   You may have a hard time finding it.  I only threw it
in there as a "ringer."  Sorry about that.   :-(     I did
include the salient point of the encyclical, though.  Don't
waste any time looking it up.  However, if you are able to
get your hands on one of the older Denzinger documents, I
can direct you to the paragraph number of the excerpt
contained in there.

>teachings were condemned as heretical. Do you think this left
>them in the state of invincible ignorance? (see below the phrase
>"oppose the definitions")

It is true that the Church had condemned their teachings
as heretical.  She even excommunicated (and worse) those
who taught these heresies.  But she also had to recognize
the truth of invincible ignorance which had been believed
from the beginning, as shown above.

>and definitions of that Church" are added. But isn't it the very
>thing what Protestants do all the time?

Yes.  But the vast majority of them do this from a position
of *ignorance*.  Review my excerpt from the Catechism (n. 846)
above, especially the last sentence.

>"Therefore, no one who knows that the Church has been divinely
>"established by Christ and, nevertheless, refuses to be a subject
>"of the Church and refuses to obey the Roman Pontiff, the vicar
>"of Christ on earth, will be saved.

Yes.  This is what the Second Vatican Council taught as well.

>Or am I to take "knowing" in another, wider sense as "having
>heard of"? Then clearly it can be extended to the Protestants
>without qualification.

Take "knowing" to mean "to believe with all their heart,
with all their strength, with all their soul, and with
all their mind."  This should be a decent analogy.  As
the Church has consistently taught, everyone is required
by the moral law to follow his conscience wherever it may
lead him.  Only we Catholics consider that a conscience
can be faulty; so we insist that all Catholics refer to
an infallible guide for proper formation of their consciences,
and especially in the case of what is referred to as a
"doubtful conscience."

>Catholics never call a dogma what goes contrary to a previous dogma
>but rather say that it sheds new light on it. But the application,
>which is the essence, is turned upside down.

Again, I ask you to find me a dogma that has been turned
upside down.  I have been looking for one for years, but
have come up empty handed.

>Excuse me if I simplify the situation. I live in a country of lies,
>and am accustomed to this kind of speech from the lips of our leaders.
>I say: God bless them, but why do they consider me so gullible?
>The same do I apply to popes. Looking at the fruits, this conviction
>seems not lacking all foundation.

If you say so.

>Because the whole Catholicism is sullied with it.
>The Church became similar to the world, which in itself is a sad
>result.

Maybe in your mind, the whole of Catholicism is sullied
with it.  But in the mind of 1 billion Catholics, we
believe our Church to be the ark of salvation, even if
our membership is composed of a bunch of fallible human
beings who make errors in disciplinary and juridical decisions
throughout the centuries.

>As you could notice, I didn't quote this forgery. Then why do you
>make me read its refutation? I never stated that the king was
>alleged to have received his kingdom  from the pope. OTOH, it's again
>a problem on the surface. The essence, that is, excommunicating those
>who don't acknowledge the primacy (not its way of introduction or
>its proof), still applies.

How do you know this is a forgery?

>Then I pose the question in another way:
>Doesn't the fact that a supporting theory is out of date, mean
>that the primacy became weaker? Doesn't it hang in the air now?

No.

>Oh no... Haven't you read 1Tim 3:1-7 about the necessary virtues of
>bishops? Why not apply it to the popes?

Because, as I repeat here from time to time, the Church
condemned Donatism as a heresy centuries ago.

>"this power" is he himself. The Jesuit Fathers faced a serious dilemma:
>either they quote some church father to support Boniface's
>interpretation and run the risk of becoming ridiculous together with
>him, or they don't say a word and hope that the reader puts up with
>seeing a scriptural reference beside the papal sentence.

So you are judging the Jesuit Fathers of deception, then.  I
see.  Perhaps you need to do some wider reading on the subject.

>But the consequences cannot contradict scripture, otherwise
>the theory is somewhere wrong! This is my concern about Unam Sanctam:
>by various debatable means the pope heaped up such authority which
>served no good; it hinders ecumenism, makes papacy a living fossil,
>and the best way to put it right is to be silent about it.

I wouldn't mind being silent about it, but when the question
is raised, I must rise to answer it.

Best regards,
Randal L. N. Mandock
Catechist
gt7122b@prism.gatech.edu