Replies

The problem, CG, is you want me to either condemn the writer or condemn myself by a knee-jerk answer. I will not be pushed around like that.

The context for the opinion stated is not complete, I haven't read the documents involved and don't have the time or the knowledge base to evaluate them. Others here are and I look forward to their informed opinions on the subject. If you believe HH cannot express an heretical opinion, you are mistaken. This may or may not be such an instance. HH is certainly entitled to the presumption of orthodoxy and I have said as much in general.

In this instance, since the question you pose is NOT so much what he said, but rather a request that I condemn what someone else said about what he allegedly said, I am suspending my own judgment pending more information.

Clearly, without any need for either great scholarship or any fear of rash judgment, the USCCB's committee effort on the subject is grossly in error. It is, in fact heretical. You didn't like that opinion either as I recall, but it is being echoed by orthodox Catholics of renown worldwide. I really think there are more profitable fields for you to plow CG and I again encourage you to do so. I clearly am an occassion of rash judgment for you and I don't like that. For both of our sake, ignore me please.

Clearly, without any need for either great scholarship or any fear of rash judgment, the USCCB's committee effort on the subject is grossly in error. It is, in fact heretical. You didn't like that opinion either as I recall, but it is being echoed by orthodox Catholics of renown worldwide.

He is right in this regard, CG.

And the one blatant error I pointed out does not disprove the remainder of the article. Much of the article is true.

I think on this article, though it comes from a website known for linking schismatic traditionalists and the author has a known history of statements that could be termed schismatic, you are overstating your case against Narses.

I feel certain that Narses did not realize the point I illuminated before he posted this. Regardless, let's drop it, OK?

You:" Noted. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to post an "Index" of sites that you feel "oppose the Pope". If the evidence you post with that list is compelling, I will cease posting from those sites."

Doesn't this evil accusation by Bro. Alexis and the editorial evince compelling evidence Seattle Catholic opposes the Pope? If so, will you agree to stick by your promise to quit posting from Seattle Catholic?

When the editors of "The Remnant" and "Catholic Family News" signed "We resist you to the face," surely that is sufficent and compelling evidence they oppose the Pope and, if so, does that mean you will keep your promise to stop posting from those sites also?