[Polycarp]

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?

[Catholicguy]

It is clear, therefore, that the Pope to ingratiate himself with the Jews has publicly voiced an opinion contrary to the faith, and that therefore all Catholics are bound not to accept this error; and indeed to reject it completely.. This is further enforced by what the Council of Florence taught in the same Bull,

"It (the Catholic Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Mat. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

This really isn't difficult. Is the Pope "voicing an opinion contrary to the Faith" or not? If we are to give folks the "benefit of the doubt," why is it these sites never give the benefit of the doubt to the Pope but rather give space to those that attack the Pope and conclude he is, essentially, heretical? Who is supposd to get the benefit of the doubt here? The Pope or the author of the charge the Pope is, essentially, heretical?

There clearly is a double standard operating here and I am pointing that out. Narses can post from sites that habitually attack the normative Mass, an Ecumenical Council and the Vicar of Christ but I must give him the benefit of the doubt? Why? He has never indicated, in any of these articles posted from sites that oppose the Pope, that he disagres with a single word in any of the articles. Come on... To be frank, that is baloney; and it is baloney long ago gone bad.

narses seems to trust you. Please tell him the Pope is not a heretic.

I don't think the Pope a heretic. I think it insane for putative Catholics to "give the benefit of the doubt" to the charge he might be. And I think the Pope, believe it or not, has as much a right to expect to receive the benefit of the doubt at least as much as Narses demands for himself.

I will post an editorial from Seattle Catholic to give folks an idea of their orientation.