[Dr. Eckleburg]

I only challenge the veracity and question why your "link" only links to FR and why no original source of the article can be found...Everyone can connect the dots for themselves.

Why would I know? Ask MarkOMalley, the Roman Catholic who posted the link.

Or ask "Catholic Dossier" the site Mark linked to. Maybe they pulled it.

The fact is you told us Father Baker's article was inaccurate as to RCC beliefs, suspicious that the link itself was fake.

I can imagine the surprise when you realized a Roman Catholic had posted the thread and that the link, Father Baker, and all the "another Christ" claptrap was actual RCC doctrine.

On the latter we agree.

This pattern repeats daily around here. When an RC is in obvious, clearly-observed error, do they say "excuse me?" Do they reconsider their statements? Do they revise their remarks according to the truth?

No. They keep repeating the error in defiance of the printed page and our own lying eyes.

It would be funny if it didn't take away time better spent almost anywhere else.

Again, if you find fault with Father Baker's RCC catechism lesson, talk to the Roman Catholic Mark OMalley about the Roman Catholic article he posted from a Roman Catholic website written by a Roman Catholic priest.

"'Another Christ'...in both his professional and private life."

[Petronski]

The article in fact no longer appears at the original source.

[Natural Law]

"The fact is you told us Father Baker's article was inaccurate as to RCC beliefs, suspicious that the link itself was fake."

The most fake thing is your scholarly ethics. Even in this simplest level of peer review you are found woefully lacking. Nugget mining and selective publication of only corroborative information really paints you personally in a bad light and actually aids your antitheses in that you would resort to those tactics to prove your case. It suggests that even you do not believe your argument.

[Petronski]

I can imagine the surprise when you realized a Roman Catholic had posted the thread and that the link, Father Baker, and all the "another Christ" claptrap was actual RCC doctrine.

Neither "another Christ" nor "alter Christus" appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Fr. Baker's article does not appear at the original source.

Whose doctrine do you claim this to be?

[NoGrayZone]

I don’t think it is about changing the few minds here, but the “lurkers” who are reading this thread, as someone unselfishly pointed out to me.

We have provided scripture upon scripture to back up our words. They have provided NONE.

From that, I have come to the understanding that is is NOT they whom we are trying to spread the word to, but those that are following along.