Are we attacking the wrong sola scriptura?

[Contarini]

Sir_William:

Because Protestants have chosen to adopt a canon that was created much later, they have no choice but to discredit the authority of the original canon and ergo, any such authority.

Funny. Catholics seem fond of arguing both that Protestants must accept the authority of the Catholic Church because we accept the same canon that you do, and that we unreasonably reject the authority of the Church because we don’t accept the same canon that you do. You can argue this, of course, because we accept the same NT canon and reject the same OT canon. But that’s hardly fair. Your point is much more valid than the argument usually made on a false premise (that Protestants wholly accept the Catholic canon). But it still isn’t valid, because our rejection of the authority of the Catholic hierarchy preceded our rejection of the full authority of the deuterocanonicals, not the other way round. Scholars throughout the history of the Church had questioned whether the deuteros had the same authority as other books. Luther’s relativization of the authority of the Church enabled him to put that dissenting scholarly tradition into practice. Unfortunately, most Protestants have gone way too far, rejecting the deuteros altogether from the canon.

Sir_William:

Unfortunately, that leaves them in the troublesome spot of not being able to authenticate any bible including their own.

I agree that those Protestants who try to explain Biblical authority without reference to the Church’s authority are in a tough spot. That, however, is irrelevant to my argument, since I do no such thing.

Sir_William:

Try as you might, you cannot succesfully sever the bible from the Church; you would have as much luck building a castle in mid-air.

Absolutely. But I don’t try to do any such thing, and an increasing number of Protestants agree with me. Hence Mathison’s book to which Madaglan referred initially.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[michaelp]

Contarini:

But why do we need to be maximally certain? Do you live in the same universe I live in? In my universe, I see no reason whatever to believe that God has any interest in giving us maximal certainty. On the contrary, a large degree of uncertainty seems to be an important part of the probation which we all experience in this life. So I don’t see that this is a strong argument.

External to whom or what? To Scripture? I’m not sure what that means. (Or do you mean “external to us”?)

I don’t dispute that we accept the canon of Scripture on the basis of the Church’s testimony. I dispute that we need a doctrine of the Church’s infallibility in order to find her testimony reliable.

That remains to be proven. Why do we need infallibility to avoid relativism? Unless by relativism you simply mean the lack of absolute certainty. In which case I think it’s unavoidable, and the attempt to avoid it is a kind of hubris.

I didn’t dispute that it was useful. Lots of things would be useful. A bright angel with wings a hundred miles long descending from heaven every morning to announce God’s will in a voice of thunder would be very useful. Sinless Popes (or any other kind of church leaders) would be very useful. But that doesn’t make them necessary, and it certainly doesn’t make them real. I don’t see how narrowing the scope of possible options can possibly be necessary, as opposed to useful. Let’s say that with infallibility we have seven options, while without it we have 200. How can you prove that it is necessary to have seven rather than 200? It may more difficult to live with 200, but it’s as possible as to live with seven.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Does “departing from infallibility” mean rejecting infallibility or departing from a doctrine infallibly defined? If the former, I’m not sure how you can speak of departing “too much.” We either have infallibility or we don’t. Either way, I remain to be convinced of your claim t hat these dreadful consequences necessarily follow.

In Christ,

Edwin

Edwin, what a great articulation of your position. I agree fully. Thanks.

Michael

 

[teajay]

Contarini:

But why do we need to be maximally certain? Do you live in the same universe I live in? In my universe, I see no reason whatever to believe that God has any interest in giving us maximal certainty. On the contrary, a large degree of uncertainty seems to be an important part of the probation which we all experience in this life. So I don’t see that this is a strong argument.

Perhaps I should define what I mean by maximal certainty. I mean the greatest certainty that we are humanly capable of having in the circumstances. It doesn’t mean indisputably certain. It permits uncertainty, but not so much as have exclude a clear foundation on which to base our faith.

The historical events of the Old and New Testament, as well as the inspired text itself, are evidence enough for me that God does want us to have the maximum certainty possible of our salvation. Why do all these things if not to inform us of the necessary pre-conditions of our salvation?

Contarini:

External to whom or what? To Scripture? I’m not sure what that means. (Or do you mean “external to us”?)

I don’t dispute that we accept the canon of Scripture on the basis of the Church’s testimony. I dispute that we need a doctrine of the Church’s infallibility in order to find her testimony reliable.

External to the Bible itself. Church testimony is an example. We both agree on the necessity of external evidence of the identity of Scripture then.

Contarini:

That remains to be proven. Why do we need infallibility to avoid relativism? Unless by relativism you simply mean the lack of absolute certainty. In which case I think it’s unavoidable, and the attempt to avoid it is a kind of hubris.

Edwin, I’m not a scholar and this isn’t a thesis that I’m writing. I apologize if I incorrectly used certain academic terms. I’m really just a simple Catholic posting on a message board in a casual manner.

My point was that we need some foundation to reason upon. Infallibility simply means objectively true. Having an objectively true foundation from which to reason will give us a better chance of drawing true inferences and making true conclusions.

An example would be the coming of Jesus. Jesus, as God, speaks objective truth. But all us non-gods can only subjectively interpret what he says. But having His words leaves us in a better position to discover His truth than without it. That to me is an example, of how something infallible allows us to be more certain than we can be without something infallible, even if we ourselves can’t infallibly understand it.

Contarini:

I didn’t dispute that it was useful. Lots of things would be useful. A bright angel with wings a hundred miles long descending from heaven every morning to announce God’s will in a voice of thunder would be very useful. Sinless Popes (or any other kind of church leaders) would be very useful. But that doesn’t make them necessary, and it certainly doesn’t make them real. I don’t see how narrowing the scope of possible options can possibly be necessary, as opposed to useful. Let’s say that with infallibility we have seven options, while without it we have 200. How can you prove that it is necessary to have seven rather than 200? It may more difficult to live with 200, but it’s as possible as to live with seven.

But don’t you see that that logic is as harmful to your own case as it is to mine? Why give us the Bible at all? Why reveal himself? Why not let us reason on our own? All these things make us more certain and all these things come from God. Can’t we then reasonably infer that God want us to have some certainty?

The fact is that we didn’t work it out on our own. God revealed Himself and in such a way that we can discover what is necessary for our salvation. I would assume you agree with me on that. You simply feel the Bible is sufficient to achieve that end, whereas I don’t. Even though you appear to deny it, I think our logic is quite similar. You have simply come to a different conclusion.

CONTINUED

 

[teajay]

Contarini:

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Does “departing from infallibility” mean rejecting infallibility or departing from a doctrine infallibly defined? If the former, I’m not sure how you can speak of departing “too much.” We either have infallibility or we don’t. Either way, I remain to be convinced of your claim t hat these dreadful consequences necessarily follow.

Again, I’m not a scholar, so forgive me for any imprecision.

To answer your question, I mean departing from a doctrine infallibly defined.

If you believe the Bible is infallible, and that its serves a necessary purpose, then you may unknowingly be agreeing with my broad point (not necessarily my conclusion though). If I remember correctly, I framed my statement to apply to apply equally to Protestants and Catholics. For Protestants it applied to the Bible, whereas for Catholics, to the Church (which includes the Bible). I didn’t expect anyone to disagree with my basic point that some form of infallible documentation is necessary (that is, the Bible).

Contarini:

In Christ,

Edwin

If you are interested in a sophisticated discussion of this subject, I suggest you check out some weblogs also.

Pontificator (an Anglican priest I believe) had a lively discussion of the subject but it died down a while ago (see comments thread). If you check out the site you will find some other posts on the topic.

And Michael I don’t understand why you say you “agree fully” with him when he apparently contradicts some of your previous comments. Isn’t the Bible infallible? And necessary? Then isn’t infallibility therefore necessary?

 

[st_felicity]

Contarini:

I don’t dispute that we accept the canon of Scripture on the basis of the Church’s testimony. I dispute that we need a doctrine of the Church’s infallibility in order to find her testimony reliable.

So what is your assertion? That the Church (the Catholic Church) is correct without infallibility?

That she’s right about some things and not right about others?

If she’s not infallible, and we “dislike” a particular teaching or we “don’t agree” for one reason or another, we can decide that she’s wrong on that count, though she may be right on other things. Where is the guidance in that? I become my own authority and I am making the decision as to what is correct. I have no guidance; I am left to my own devices.

God gave small children parents, for the same reason He gave us the Church. I know that my teenage sons think they should be able to stay up to 11 on a school night. They insist they are right—that it would do them no harm, that my rule of 10PM is too hard—they’re not tired—what difference does one hour make? But I know better. I know the ramifications of a poor night’s sleep, I know how their thinking will be clouded if they consistently stay up too late, I know that too little sleep can lead to illness. I am the authority over them so as to guide them in matters they may not like or understand, but are in their best interest—this is the proper order of things.

Yes, there are bad parents, but the Catholic Church is a good Mother. She is consistent and reasonable—and doesn’t bend to the will of her bratty children. If we cannot rely on the authentic authority of Mother Church, we are like the children in The Lord of the Flies (aptly named).

That is one reason Sola Scriptura is impossible—It’s like saying a book on good parenting is the same thing as the mother herself.

 

[st_felicity]

Why do we need infallibility to avoid relativism? …In which case I think it’s unavoidable, and the attempt to avoid it is a kind of hubris.

“You” think…that’s my point exactly…where is the hubris, here? “I think” to be excessively confident in one’s own interpretation of Sacred Scripture and the will of God is hubris.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

michaelp:

Very good point. I have asked this many times on this site. It is often ignored.

You misrepresent the facts, Sir. Your posts have not been ignored.

The reality is that people have generously given you explanations, argumentations, and cites. The reality is that you have evaded the points or questions posed in those posts and instead chosen to make a plethora of new unrelated posts. When you have tired of that, you asked nonsensical rhetorical questions such as Can-you-interpret-the-Magisterium and then posted a wink smiley at the end of your question.

I personally am not going down this road again with your new found ally, because we have already differentiated in quite some detail the difference between the Catholic claims for authority and the Protestant claims for authority. The material posted by your new found ally is just another tautology. Same old same old without variation. Just because someone new is posting the tautology doesnt mean it is not a tautology.

michaelp:

Here (on this thread) you will probebly get attacked since you express it so well.

He may have his posts brought under scrutiny and challenged. If he misbehaves, as you have done, he may receive more robust responses.

michaelp:

But I completely agree.

How can your new found ally be sure your agreement is not temporary?

michaelp:

Admitingly, there have been many Catholics on this site who have conceded that the best that they can do is moral certianty, not infallible certianty.

Evidence? Examples?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

michaelp:

Could it be the assertations are not mine??? You can go here and see what I teach: www.thetheologyprogram.com. Actually, you can watch it if you would like.Michael

Well, well, well: what you teach. This is not the first time you have attempted to draw us onto websites offering material which you teach.

You, Sir, have consistently ignored what we have attempted to offer you in response to your comments about the teachings of the Catholic Church. Instead you have tautologized, evaded, and posted How Do You Interpret the Magisterium? With a winkey.

Discussions are based on good faith. Your method of being in these discussions does not demonstrate good faith. It demonstrates your misguided conviction that Catholics must be corrected and guided to your own personal, individual, private, unverifiable truth.

When you demonstrate good faith then perhaps more of us might take an interest in what you are teaching. However, michaelp, I have explained this to you before. Since you have not amended your ways, our objections to your mistreatment of us can only be falling on ears that you have rendered impervious to the music of human expression.

 

[Mickey]

The teaching of heretics: angels of death. The one who receives them loses his soul.

Now therefore, son, listen to me: do not approach the doors of lawless men nor stroll into their traps, lest you be snared. Keep your soul aloof from false knowledge. For indeed I have often spoken with them; their dark teachings I have tracked down, and the venom of asps have I found in them. There is no prudence and there is no wisdom in their teachings. All who receive them will perish, and those who love them will be filled with evils. I have seen the fathers of these dogmas, and in the desert I plunged in with them. For the enemies of the Lord met up with me, and demons–through their teachings–struggled against me, and I did not see true light in their words.
ST EVAGRIUS OF PONTICUS

 

[Ani_Ibi]

michaelp:

michaelp:

Felicity, you don’t have to become angry just because I am not convinced of most of the arguments.

This attribution of emotion (as opposed to reason) to others has been a pattern of yours, michaelp. Far be it from you to admit to engaging in these discussions in a manner which falls far short from good faith. When ignoring what we say fails; when responding to one point by posting an unrelated point fails; when tautology fails; when posting How-Do-You-Interpret-The-Magisterim-and-the-winky fails; then you consistently project your own misbehaviour onto others. You claim that people are attacking you. Correction, Sir: people are calling you on your highhanded behaviour.
VernHumphrey:
If you say the Magisterium has to be interpreted, you don’t understand what the Magisterium is. And your lack of understanding is willful – the Magesterium is a Catholic concept. It is not what you persist in saying it is – you are trying to force your concept on the Catholic Church, and then attacking the Church for that concept.

michaelp:

Vern, if someone disagrees with you it does not mean that they are automatically wrong. You do not necessarily have all the right information. If you think you do, then you need to stay out of discussions, since discussion require at least two. I happen to understand exactly what the Magistirium is (it is not that hard) and believe that all information must be interpreted by definitions of the rule of aquisition of knowledge.

Examine your repartee with Vern here. Your claim to understand the Magisterium is unsupported. Your appeal to ‘the rule of acquisition of knowledge’ is neither set out nor supported. Moreover, rather than defend your indefensible version of what the Magisterium is, you then dictate to Vern that Vern is the one being unilateral (as opposed to you) and that Vern, therefore should leave the discussion.

In one fell swoop, Sir, you have demonstrated your own unilateralness, highhandedness, and desire to conduct this discussion on your terms by eliminating those who disagree with both your views and your behaviour. Not very charitable of you.

michaelp:

I would never accuse anyone of such a thing.

Correction: You have frequently made accusations. St felicity points out one instance by means of this post:

st_felicity:

Do not marginalize my posts by assigning an emotion to them, or by implying that I am not firm in my facts. The posts speak for themselves–as do yours.

I am still waiting for you to quote an attack from me–there is no such animal. I consider a false accusation an attack.(emphasis mine)

michaelp:

You have become VERY uncharitable all of the sudden and I don’t know why. Ani always has, but you have jumped on her train.

Correction is not a lack of charity. Moreover: **Mote?**Log?

Continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

michaelp:

You must understand that their are true disagreements and there will continue to be.

Must understand? What a revealing turn of phrase. Quite condescending imho. While it may be true that there are true disagreements in general between the Evangelicals and the Catholic Church, this is irrelevant. The disagreement vis a vis yourself has not been between Evangelicals in general and the Catholic Church in general. It has been far more personal than that.

Your constant references to your own teaching have made it far more personal than that. Having said that, you cannot hide in numbers, Sir. To attempt to do so once again shifts the emphasis from your personal responsibility onto someone else: Projection, evasion, disingenuous behaviour: that imho has been characteristics of your pattern.

michaelp:

I don’t get upset because you don’t come to believe the way that I do.

No, you get sarcastic and you (attempt to) triangulate. I believe the upset among Catholics is not because you believe something different from what we believe. The upset springs from the manner in which you prosecute your beliefs while ignoring or misrepresenting ours.

Continued…

 

[st_felicity]

Quote:

Originally Posted by michaelp
Admitingly, there have been many Catholics on this site who have conceded that the best that they can do is moral certianty, not infallible certianty.
Ani Ibi:
Evidence? Examples?
Ani—maybe he’s referring to this? Maybe he remembers the content a little differently. I said if we reduce it all down to “interpretation” it deconstructs religion into nothingness and becomes relative reader-response criticism…I didn’t deny that we humans can only know what we know—but then again—the Magesterium is not a person—it is a body of people with a special charism from God (Biblically backed).

FROM: “How Sufficient is the Scripture?” Thread in Apologetics Forum

st_felicity:

You are relying on your (fallible) Biblical interpretation to give you moral certainty that you are right–Catholics rely on faith in God’s promise

to the teaching offices of His Church to interpret. I trust God’s Truth more than I trust my own. You appear to trust human reason.

I recognize you will say that I am wrong when I say I am not doing what I say I am and that I AM rather relying on my own interpretation of what I believe the Magesterium to be–but that is where we run smack into faith. I find more credibility to that which I have faith in than in what you have faith in–(i.e. *" This person is absolutely justified and morally obligated to act upon his certianty. To no do so, he or she would be insane. But, the fact remains, that this person is not infallibly certian.") *Isn’t that what you are saying, really?

I guess this is an impass–I am morally certain that the Magesterium is right–you are morally certain your own hermeneutics are right. Again, forgive me if I go with the one who has the added benefit of unambiguous Biblical passages that certify credibility to the Church that can trace itself to Jesus’ feet, and does NOT contradict unambiguous Biblical passages that state personal interpretation is a no-no.
Maybe when he sees me write “faith” it registers as a concession to the point that my finite mind cannot contain the Infinite Mystery that is God–In a way, he’s right. We creatures cannot “know” God until we are in union with Him in Heaven–and even then He is greater than we. But that is why God gave us FAITH–it provides us with the ability to be certain…

I think he also forgot…

michaelp:

Quote:

But your understanding of the Magisterium is fallible, since you are fallible. Therefore, you are essentially in the same place as me. Fallibly trying to understand an infallible text (you the Magisterium, me Scripture). Sometimes it is self evident, sometimes it takes some work.

st_felicity:

'Round and 'round we go…Where it stops, nobody knows!!!

The circularity of this argument is almost as infinite…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

michaelp:

I just leave it in God’s hands and try to be gracious.

Again, we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Highhandedness is not graciousness.

michaelp:

But when the rhetoric turns to attack (as it always it with Ani–for that is all she seems to have), then the discussion necessarily comes to a conclusion.

I, like other people on this board, have standards about how people behave towards me. You seem to think that your posts are an exception to this rule. You seem to think that your posts are ‘special.’ They are not. Your posts were received with equanimity, until you demonstrated a pattern of disingenuous disrespect for the posts of others.

When you disrespect a standard once, that can be discussed and moved on from. When you disrespect a standard consistently, then that indicates that discussion doesn’t work with you and that the disagreement cannot be moved on from. It indicates what I have expressed to you many times before: that it is your way or the highway.

You prove your point (to yourself) by means of impasse which you methodically engineer.

Mtr01 points to your pattern by means of this post:

mtr01:

I (along with the others) have picked up this recent trend of yours. It’s one thing to be unable to respond to all the posts written to you (I fully understand), but it’s quite another to make a claim on one thread, not to respond to evidence to the contrary, then to make that same claim on another thread…and still not respond in any meaningful way when the same counter-evidence is provided.

St felicity also points to your pattern by means of this post:

st_felicity:

Michael…Many of us here on the forum give you the benefit of the doubt…but when your responses start to pile up on the side of willful ignorance (or rather obstinance, or perhaps something more nefarious…), we can’t help but reassess our original assumptions about you.

For example…(and this is just since I’ve bothered to take note…)

How Sufficient is the Scripture?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=37044

Is Eucharistic Adoration Idolatry

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=41001

The Sola Scriptura link you offered earlier in this thread

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthre…hlight=michaelp

Heck!!! I even offered to talk about it on your Grammatico-historical ground…and you ignored it…(don’t bother now…)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=41866

You parade your knowledge around as if you are an authority in and of yourself–but "conveniently “don’t understand” or fail to “see the connection” to the point of willful ignorance. Furthermore, you state repeatedly that you “have been clear” and the poster challenging you needs to check out other threads, or re-read some vague post of yours earlier in the thread…this is a pattern. Don’t be surprised that people are catching on–change you tactic or change your name if you want dialogue again.

Continued…

 

[st_felicity]

Ani–I honestly think he gets the point.

He did apologize to me (maybe others are also deserving of a little charity). But let’s not take it too far…either he gets it or he doesn’t.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

michaelp:

I don’t have anything against you. I happen to disagree very strongly with your beliefs, but that is life. If you don’t want to talk to be about it in a real and charitable manner, fine. Be like Ani and alienate yourself from such discussion.

I have not alienated myself from this discussion. Perhaps it is your hope that I remove myself from this discussion as it was your hope that Vern would remove himself from this discussion. I yet may do so but only as I choose, not as you dictate.

michaelp:

But I suggest that you llok to Phil, Pax, Dennis, and Lisa and learn from them how to converse with people with whom you disagee, don’t follow Ani.

I suggest that the onus is not on any of us to learn how to converse with people. I suggest that it is you who are at grievous fault with respect to your own behaviour. And I suggest that your participation in these discussions has been unilateral. As I have said before: your way or the highway. Unilateralness is not a charitable position, Sir.

You will have found all of us to have been extraordinarily patient with you, Sir. It has been you who have engineered your fall from esteem. A position which then allows you to blame, (attempt to) cut loose, and demonize not only us, but the teachings of our Church. A position which I suspect you formed long before discussing anything with us. An anti-Catholic position.

**Rules of Conduct (3rd time): **

**4. Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda. **

**5. Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board. **

 

[Ani_Ibi]

michaelp:

THrough PMs Felicity and I have been discussing these issues. I should not have rebuked her in public.

Earier, I wrote this to Felicity:

You have become VERY uncharitable all of the sudden and I don’t know why. Ani always has, but you have jumped on her train.

I am sorry for saying this. I should not have. Please forgive me.

I don’t have anything against you. I happen to disagree very strongly with your beliefs, but that is life. If you don’t want to talk to be about it in a real and charitable manner, fine. Be like Ani and alienate yourself from such discussion. But I suggest that you look to Phil, Pax, Dennis, and Lisa and learn from them how to converse with people with whom you disagee, don’t follow Ani.

I am apologizing for this as well.

God bless,

Michael

I am happy to see your apology. I remind you that you have apologized to me twice so far. Then within 24 hours you returned to the same behaviour for which you apologized. I trust that your apology to st-felicity is genuine, heart-felt, and turns you around towards a walk married to your talk.

http://www.lisaslighthouse.org/images/PerpetuaFelicity.jpg

 

[st_felicity]

Ani Ibi:

I am happy to see your apology. I remind you that you have apologized to me twice so far. Then within 24 hours you returned to the same behaviour for which you apologized. I trust that your apology to st-felicity is genuine, heart-felt, and turns you around towards a walk married to your talk.

http://www.lisaslighthouse.org/images/PerpetuaFelicity.jpg

I hope so too…Hey, thanks for putting up my girl! I wish we had Avatars…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

st_felicity:

Yes, there are bad parents, but the Catholic Church is a good Mother. She is consistent and reasonable—and doesn’t bend to the will of her bratty children. If we cannot rely on the authentic authority of Mother Church, we are like the children in The Lord of the Flies (aptly named).That is one reason Sola Scriptura is impossible—It’s like saying a book on good parenting is the same thing as the mother herself.

Yes, the Catholic Church is a good mother.



**Madonna of Mercy
**1308-10
Tempera on wood, 154 x 84 cm
Pinacoteca Nazionale, Siena
by Simone Martini
Italian painter, Sienese school (b. 1280/85, Siena, d. 1344, Avignon)

 

[Ani_Ibi]

st_felicity:

“You” think…that’s my point exactly…where is the hubris, here? “I think” to be excessively confident in one’s own interpretation of Sacred Scripture and the will of God is hubris.

Interesting word hubris. My poor mind recognizes the word from Class&Bib at university. Was it not Electra’s father Agamemnon who stepped on a carpet intended for the gods or for a particular god? I think the stepping on the carpet was hubris. Hubris was a certain kind of pride: that reserved for human folk transgressing the jurisdiction of divine folk.

I forget the story. I think Agamemnon was killed by Clytemnestra and Aegisthus. When Orestes grew up, he returned from exile and, with Electra helping him, killed Clytemnesra and Aesgisthus. Then seven curses (furies) followed him everywhere. Finally Orestes admitted his crime to the gods or particular god and the seven curses were turned into seven graces.

So, Greek scholars: please feel free to correct me.

Regardless of accuracy, I do remember two things from this story. One is that particular definition of hubris and the other was that, by admitting one’s hubris to God, one can be freed of curses. More accurately: one’s curses become useful and therefore become graces.

 

[jphilapy]

Ani Ibi:

Must understand? What a revealing turn of phrase. Quite condescending imho. While it may be true that there are true disagreements in general between the Evangelicals and the Catholic Church, this is irrelevant. The disagreement vis a vis yourself has not been between Evangelicals in general and the Catholic Church in general. It has been far more personal than that.

Ani I keep seeing you load into Mikes words things that he didn’t say. This attitude you point out is clearly your own. You are the one who is very condescending.

And quite simply you don’t allow Mike the dignity of disagreeing and for that fact the dignity of being persuaded. You instead resort to attacking him personally. So this is the way of peace? Fabrication?

Jeff