Ever hear of John MacArthur? He is a particularly hostile Protestant.

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**

Why should I find that troubling for MacArthur, setter?

**

Setter quotes Phil Johnson:
10 June 2005

**Pedophile Priest Payouts Pass $1 Billion **

…No other religious institution ever has spent so much money to indemnify such widespread debauchery perpetrated by so many of its own officials. Yet this is the one major church in Christendom that has explicitly declared herself "irreformable." ## I don’t** know what this last sentence is quoting - do you ?**

**It would be easier to track down if it were a whole phrase or sentence: but one word ? That’s not much to go on. It could come from anywhere - & not necessarily a Catholic source; it might be a summary of someone’s conclusion about Catholicism: which need not be an accurate summary. Because of these uncertainties, a citation would help. (Obviously, this cuts both ways - the Reformers can’t be fairly dealt with if they are known only by third-hand references either). **Is this what is meant ?

And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.

If so, this passage does not say the Church is irreformable - it says that the dogmatic definitions of the Pope are irreformable; to see why, read the quotation. “The CC is irreformable” =/= "This definition is irreformable"

**The Pope is no more infallible than the Apostles - & no less: for the same reasons, upon the same conditions, with the same help. If it is arrogant to insist that the dogma that Jesus Christ is truly God is irreformable - it is arrogant to insist that the dogma that the Church is unique, is irreformable; not otherwise, AFAICS. The Pope is not an Apostle: but the Church is assisted by the same Spirit Who guided them. ##

Is Johnson making that up, setter?

---

Setter further quotes Phil Johnson:…

---

…Perhaps you don’t like Phil’s tone, and his conclusion, but papal infallibility caused problems for the Church long before MacArthur and Johnson came along, you don’t deny that do you? Do you deny that the core hierarchy of the church is forbidden to marry (with the exception of some coming in from other faiths); I am certain that you would deny that sacramentalism is external, but I find it to be so, and have said that on this forum; certainly you don’t deny that you must follow the teachings of the Magisterium, do you?

---

If you don’t like what Phil said, contact him; you have his blog address.

---

MacArthur is a critic of the Catholic church; so am I; I have never denied that.** ## FWIW - so are many Catholics. This is not new, nor something to be afraid of - unless one believes that to criticise the CC at all is of itself incompatible with the Faith: & it’s not. All dissent implies some sort of criticism of the CC - the converse is not true. To deny that Jesus Christ is truly God is not compatible with being Catholic - but to complain of simony, as several 11th century saints did, is demanded by love for the Church & is faithful to the NT. Dante was a ferocious critic of much in the Church - he has been honoured by several Popes (including Pius IX).

That the Reformers savaged the Church’s corruptions did not make the Reformers less than Catholic - that they reformed the Church at the expense of the Church’s identity, is the problem: there is no point in a reform of the Church that unChurches her; that’s like curing a sore throat by cutting it. One can regard the Reformation as largely good, while thinking it to be fundamentally flawed in a way that the CC, despite its weaknesses, is not; & one can do so without being an institution-worshipper. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…So in summary, we have MacArthur who wrote The Gospel According to the Apostles but not The Gospel According to Rome. We have McCarthy who wrote The Gospel According to Rome but not The Gospel According to the Apostles. And we have a Michuta who wrote The Gospel According to McCarthy, not The Gospel According to MacArthur, Rome, or the Apostles. And of course we have one Phil Johnson but not the other Phil Johnson who wrote the Gospel According to Darwin.

Phil P
Neither which should be confused with either of the aforementioned Phil Johnsons! :yup::nope: :banghead::whacky:

**For those of us unfamiliar with the USA religious scene - could those statements have bullets added ? Then everything would be all clear **​

**Like this: **

• MacArthur who wrote The Gospel According to the Apostles
  - but not The Gospel According to Rome.
• We have McCarthy who wrote The Gospel According to Rome
  - but not The Gospel According to the Apostles.
• And we have a Michuta who wrote The Gospel According to McCarthy,
  **- not The Gospel According to MacArthur, **
  **- Rome, **
  - or the Apostles.
• And of course we have one Phil Johnson
  - but not the other Phil Johnson who wrote the Gospel According to Darwin. ##

 

[pnewton]

Do you deny that the core hierarchy of the church is forbidden to marry?

How about objecting to the intellectual dishonesty that throws celebacy into the problem with pervert priests. Anyone with a lick of knowledge about sexual crimes knows that the vast majority of sexual crimes are committed within families. Being sinlge makes one statistically far less likely to be a pedophile than if one is married. I have dealt with hundreds of these perverts and most are the fathers. Other family members come in second.

 

[PhilVaz]

PhilVaz << Then there is John G. McCarthy, author of The Gospel According to Rome >>

Sorry I got myself so confused. :whacky: There is no John G. McCarthy who is a fundamentalist anti-Catholic. There is no Philip R. McCarthy either. No John Michuta but there is a John Ankerberg. I can’t keep these guys straight.

It is James G. McCarthy and John F. MacArthur. So sorry… :whacky:

Phil P

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

There is no John G. McCarthy who is a fundamentalist anti-Catholic.

Give it time. There seems to be a new anti-catholic springing up every week. This statement might not hold true this time next week.

 

[PhilVaz]

RC << Give it time. There seems to be a new anti-catholic springing up every week. This statement might not hold true this time next week. >>

Hee hee, we need James G. Keating writing The Gospel According to Geneva, or Karl G. McCarthy, The Gospel According to Jerusalem, or James G. MacArthur, The Gospel According to Kalamazoo on Elvis sightings. So confusing.

Phil P

 

[sandusky]

Gottle-of-Geer:

Would you say that he is the sort of person who would be open to being told that his idea of Catholicism is based on dodgy foundations?

It is not that simple Michael. What one man dismisses as a dodgy foundation, another man holds as a strong conviction. But to answer your question, I would say probably not.

I am certain that the perception among Catholics is that protestant beliefs concerning the RCC are made in a vacuum; while that is true for some, it is not true for all. MacArthur is a voracious reader with a formidable library, and the Master’s Seminary, with its formidable library, is on the church grounds, and it is open to anyone who wishes to use it.
Gottle-of-Geer:

I’m not suggesting for one second that he is not both sincere & honest - but sincerity & honesty, essential though they are to worship “in spirit and in truth” don’t guarantee accuracy.

I understand that, Michael. History is available for the reading. On the Catholic side, protestants are said to be ignorant of it; while on the protestant side, Catholics are said to be ignorant of it; that is the human condition.
Gottle-of-Geer:

It’s not the fact of his opposition to Catholicism that is the problem (ISTM), so much as the reasons given: because the Mass & the Catholic priesthood really are not built upon the rotten foundations he (like so many others) supposes. And ISTM that Christians - Catholic, Protestant, whatever - ought to be only too glad to find that the forms of Christianity they criticise are not as rotten as they suppose.

There is only one true Christianity, Michael, not many forms of it; that is why the way is said to be narrow, and that there are few who find it.

With respect to your statement concerning the rottenness of a foundation, the Levitical system was meticulously dictated by God to Moses; the ritual law was clearly inaugurated.

However, no such meticulous dictation is given in the NT for a new ritual system.

Hebrews is quite clear: Christ was manifested to put away sin for all time by a one time sacrifice; when He had done that He sat down; the ritual is done away with; ritualism cannot save because it was never intended to save, but to point to the only who is able to save. Salvation, by eternal decree, is by grace alone, through faith alone in God alone.
Gottle-of-Geer:

Is there a way in which Catholics can disarm the suspicions many Protestants have of us?

You are asking me to speak for a great number of people; I am unable to do that; however, I am not suspicious of Catholicism; I have a definite view of Catholicism, and it is not based upon suspicion.
Gottle-of-Geer:

IOW - what would it take for anti-Catholics to accept that someone can be:
• 1. Catholic
• 2. sane, rational, intelligent
• 3. sincere & truthful
• 4. able to believe Catholic teaching
Such Catholics do exist, in plenty - but they seem to be the ones who don’t get read. IOW - one does not need to be stupid, irrational, ignorant, insincere or dishonest to be Catholic. One can believe it with the eyes of one’s mind being wide open; & without being dupes.

A large question. I find most Catholics to be sane, rational, intelligent, sincere, truthful, and able believers of Catholic teaching, but as you said above, that does not guarantee accuracy.

People are free to read who and what they want to read.
Gottle-of-Geer:

We cannot prove we are not “judicially blinded” as per 2 Thessalonians 2; but since no human being can prove this, Catholic or not, we have to take one another’s form of Christian faith & discipleship seriously, even though we ourselves don’t accept it.

That is a future event; if the man of lawlessness comes in your lifetime, and you follow him, you have been judicially blinded; if you don’t follow him, you have not been judicially blinded.

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I have never heard of this fellow before I started reading this thread. Doesn’t sound any different that a lot of anti Catholics Protestants. As a former Protestant that went to at least three different denominations, I don’t remember one Pastor saying “What are you doing here? The Catholic Church down the street is the true church!!”

Anyway, I just wanted to chime in on the comments around the “payoff” of $1 billion. Talk about your no win situation. If the Church does nothing to make amends she is slagged, if she trys in a small way to make amends people like those quoted on this subject use it to attack her anyway.

My thoughts are simple: There will always be issues in the Clergy because it is made up of men with all of their fallen nature. The Lord Jesus chose Judus as one of his twelve.

I would like to know if anybody knows of the statistics comparing pedophilia/molestation frequency amongst Priests with that of School teachers or Doctors or the population in general.

I also take issue with the asertation that if Priests were allowed to marry all the problems would go away. Didn’t some married Protestant Minister just get caught with male prostitutes? Besides the “no marrying” is a dicipline not a doctrine, and in fact there are married priests.

 

[setter]

Why should I find that troubling for MacArthur, setter?

Setter quotes Phil Johnson:Is Johnson making that up, setter?

Setter further quotes Phil Johnsonerhaps you don’t like Phil’s tone, and his conclusion, but papal infallibility caused problems for the Church long before MacArthur and Johnson came along, you don’t deny that do you? Do you deny that the core hierarchy of the church is forbidden to marry? I am certain that you would deny that sacramentalism is external, but I find it to be so, and have said that on this forum; certainly you don’t deny that you must follow the teachings of the Magisterium, do you?

If you don’t like what Phil said, contact him; you have his blog address.

MacArthur is a critic of the Catholic church; so am I; I have never denied that.

My initial point on this thread was debunking the lies of Fidelis directed at the person of MacArthur. Criticize his, and Johnson’s positions concerning the church all you want, many people do that, and I read most of them.

But when you state lies about the person, and the church—as Fidelis did—I will correct you.

Addressing the OP topic: MacArthur and Co. are blatantly “hostile” in content and tone in bashing and attacking the Catholic Church. You seem to be in denial regarding this and that uncharity, mean spiritness, vile and frothing content is never the fruit of the Holy Spirit or of the Lord. Period.

At a minimum, MacArthur and Co. are failed disciples of Christ in need of repentance and counter-examples of the Gospel and what it means to model Christian character and charity to all.

In all honesty, you need to ask yourself, then from what spirit is such ill-conceived content and tone coming from? …and allow the Holy Spirit to lead you to all truth (and charity).

 

[lak611]

In all honesty, you need to ask yourself, then from what spirit is such ill-conceived content and tone coming from? …and allow the Holy Spirit to lead you to all truth (and charity).

I agree. And I pray that the Holy Spirit may convict Mr. MacArthur of his sins and lead him into the Truth of the Gospel, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Would you say that he is the sort of person who would be open to being told that his idea of Catholicism is based on dodgy foundations?

sandusky:

It is not that simple Michael. What one man dismisses as a dodgy foundation, another man holds as a strong conviction. But to answer your question, I

would say probably not.

I am certain that the perception among Catholics is that protestant beliefs concerning the RCC are made in a vacuum; while that is true for some, it is not true for all. MacArthur is a voracious reader with a formidable library, and the Master’s Seminary, with its formidable library, is on the church grounds, and it is open to anyone who wishes to use it.

## I’m not talking about matters on which there may be more than one POV - such as religious convictions, or people’s tastes in (say) food; but about the difference between fact & fiction. It is a fact, not something debatable, that steel is not edible. It is a fact, not opinion, that the Olympics were not held at Berlin in 2000 BC. It is equally a fact, not imagination, opinion, or a matter of religious conviction, that Macarthur’s account of Babylonian religion is fiction - & can be shown to be fiction: so it would be honest to avoid passing it off as true: especially since it used to misrepresent the religion of others - in this case, Catholics. I wasn’t referring primarily to his mistakes about Catholic doctrine, but to his pseudo-history about Babylon. I should have made my meaning plain to begin with

**It goes without saying that there are plenty of well-informed people on both sides - I wasn’t always a Catholic. **Surely it’s possible to criticise the CC without using those fictions ? Most Protestant critics of the CC have managed it. ##
Originally Posted by Gottle-of-Geer:

It’s not the fact of his opposition to Catholicism that is the problem (ISTM), so much as the reasons given: because the Mass & the Catholic priesthood really are not built upon the rotten foundations he (like so many others) supposes. And ISTM that Christians - Catholic, Protestant, whatever - ought to be only too glad to find that the forms of Christianity they criticise are not as rotten as they suppose.

**

sandusky:

There is only one true Christianity, Michael, not many forms of it; that is why the way is said to be narrow, and that there are few who find it.

**## **I said Christianity - not “true” anything. Is it not important to avoid misreporting what others believe ? I would have though it was basic courtesy & equity to avoid that. Even the heathen do as much. **

**And as a matter of fact, there are many forms of Christianity - I’m very happy to say that one author who taught me respect for other Christians was a Calvinist. Or aren’t there Calvinists, & Anglicans, & Baptists ? Of course there are. People may not approve of them all - but they all exist; & that, not squabbling about “who’s right”, is the point: that **they all exist; not whether they should - which is not for man to say in any case ISTM ##
**

Hebrews is quite clear: Christ was manifested to put away sin for all time by a one time sacrifice; when He had done that He sat down; the ritual is done away with; ritualism cannot save because it was never intended to save, but to point to the only who is able to save. Salvation, by eternal decree, is by grace alone, through faith alone in God alone.

**## **Everyone knows that place in Hebrews, or they should - it is no objection to the Mass at all. ****## **
**

You are asking me to speak for a great number of people; I am unable to do that; however, I am not suspicious of Catholicism; I have a definite view of Catholicism, and it is not based upon suspicion.

** ## Good - some writing is; which is understandable ##

People are free to read who and what they want to read.

If they are going to describe the religion of others they have a moral duty to take all possible means within their power to get their facts right - so that freedom is regulated by moral duty. It is a very serious matter indeed to say what is false about the religion of others. Whether one loves a religion, or thinks it to be evil, is immaterial: we are not free to say what is false. Ever.​

 

[sandusky]

Gottle-of-Geer:

If so, this passage does not say the Church is irreformable - it says that the dogmatic definitions of the Pope are irreformable; to see why, read the quotation. “The CC is irreformable” =/= “This definition is irreformable”

He has misrepresented that point.

## I’m not talking about matters on which there may be more than one POV - such as religious convictions, or people’s tastes in (say) food; but about the difference between fact & fiction. It is a fact, not something debatable, that steel is not edible. It is a fact, not opinion, that the Olympics were not held at Berlin in 2000 BC. It is equally a fact, not imagination, opinion, or a matter of religious conviction, that Macarthur’s account of Babylonian religion is fiction - & can be shown to be fiction: so it would be honest to avoid passing it off as true: especially since it used to misrepresent the religion of others - in this case, Catholics. I wasn’t referring primarily to his mistakes about Catholic doctrine, but to his pseudo-history about Babylon. I should have made my meaning plain to begin with

Yes, the specific helps; I assume you are referring to Hislop’s book. You’ll find snail mail and e-mail addresses here to which you should send your complaint.
Gottle-of-Geer:

I said Christianity - not “true” anything. Is it not important to avoid misreporting what others believe ? I would have though it was basic courtesy & equity to avoid that. Even the heathen do as much.

I did make the distinction, and I agree with you: one should take every precaution to avoid misrepresenting what others believe.
Gottle-of-Geer:

Everyone knows that place in Hebrews, or they should - it is no objection to the Mass at all.

I did not present it as an objection to the mass, how can the writer object to something he doesn’t know? The point of the writer is that no further propitiatory sacrifice is required. Do you disagree with the writer on that point?
Gottle-of-Geer:

If they are going to describe the religion of others they have a moral duty to take all possible means within their power to get their facts right - so that freedom is regulated by moral duty. It is a very serious matter indeed to say what is false about the religion of others. Whether one loves a religion, or thinks it to be evil, is immaterial: we are not free to say what is false. Ever.

Gone is the “I’m not suggesting for one second that he is not both sincere & honest - but sincerity & honesty, essential though they are to worship “in spirit and in truth” don’t guarantee accuracy” Have you forgotten your statement concerning guarantees of accuracy? You are not asking for moral responsibility, but moral perfection; and you are equating moral responsibility to moral perfection; IOW, apples to oranges.

We should demand perfection of ourselves, and our leaders, but it is naïve to think that you are going to get perfection in every instance; “the best of men are men at best.”

 

[a_priori]

John MacArthur is a garden-variety dispensationalist. When I was a protestant one of my pastors had served with MacArthur’s church. I once believed it too.

There were no dispensationalists until J.N. Darby started expressing himself around 1830.

If one studies Church history with an open mind (not presupposing what one is attempting to prove) the truth of the historical Catholic Church will become clear.

 

[Church_Militant]

Lies almost mess up a man’s marriage.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Gottle-of-Geer:

• Everyone knows that place in Hebrews, or they should - it is no objection to the Mass at all ##

**

sandusky:

I did not present it as an objection to the mass, how can the writer object to something he doesn’t know?

So why does you use those things in Hebrews as an objection ? ##**​

**

sandusky:

The point of the writer is that no further propitiatory sacrifice is required. Do you disagree with the writer on that point?

****## No, I accept the entire argument & teaching of the writer of Hebrews as permanently valid; as fully now as then. What I don’t accept is the validity of its use as an argument against the Mass, because accepting Hebrews as God’s Word written (which it is), does not require the conclusion that the writer’s words have any weight at all against the Mass. **

**And they don’t - they strike at the Levitical economy of sacrifice: not at the Mass - which is propitiatory, because the Death of Christ is; it is the same Sacrifice, so it cannot have different effects from that which it is. All that differs, is the manner: the Eucharist presents many times over what was enacted & fulfilled at Calvary perfectly, uniquely, once & for ever. The Mass no more multiplies Calvary, than the coming of men to Jesus on different occasions multiplied Him. **

**Yet that passage, like others (Boettner presents many) is commonly adduced by Protestants, including Macarthur, as a weighty argument against the Mass. Which is why I implied that it was an objection in my post - for he treats it as one. **

**I am not sure what you mean by “How can the writer object to something he doesn’t know?” So if you could clarify, I’d be grateful; thank you. ## **
Gottle of Geer:

• If they are going to describe the religion of others they have a moral duty to take all possible means within their power to get their facts right - so that freedom is regulated by moral duty. It is a very serious matter indeed to say what is false about the religion of others. Whether one loves a religion, or thinks it to be evil, is immaterial: we are not free to say what is false. Ever.
  **

sandusky:

Gone is the "I’m not suggesting for one second that he is not both sincere & honest - but sincerity & honesty, essential though they are to worship “in spirit and in truth” don’t guarantee accuracy

**" Have you forgotten your statement concerning guarantees of accuracy? You are not asking for moral responsibility, but moral perfection; and you are equating moral responsibility to moral perfection; IOW, apples to oranges.

sandusky:

We should demand perfection of ourselves, and our leaders, but it is naïve to think that you are going to get perfection in every instance; "the best of men are men at best."

**## It’s not gone, & I haven’t forgotten it; I stand by it, & by the words you quote. I am not asking for anything unusual or heroic or difficult, but for what any Christian who takes it upon himself to describe a belief he does not accept ought to do as a matter of course. I don’t understand why it is so hard to see that Christians take up a great moral responsibility by describing a religion in order to criticise it; especially those who are pastors. Don’t pastors need to get their facts right ? Surely they do. Sometimes, this is not possible - but it often is: & there is no lack of books about Ancient Iraq (as it now is) by people far better-informed than Hislop could be; in English, & readily available; sometimes in paperback. **

I’m not asking for perfection, but for avoidance of demonstrable inaccuracy. Even the heathen do as much - should not the Righteousness of Christians, Who is Christ Himself, exceed theirs ?

---

Thank you for the contact info ##

 

[sandusky]

Gottle-of-Geer:

So why does you use those things in Hebrews as an objection ?

Forgive me. My brain outdistanced my fingers.
Gottle-of-Geer:

No, I accept the entire argument & teaching of the writer of Hebrews as permanently valid; as fully now as then. What I don’t accept is the validity of its use as an argument against the Mass, because accepting Hebrews as God’s Word written (which it is), does not require the conclusion that the writer’s words have any weight at all against the Mass.

I disagree with you Michael. No further need of sacrifice means what it says.
Gottle-of-Geer:

And they don’t - they strike at the Levitical economy of sacrifice: not at the Mass - which is propitiatory, because the Death of Christ is; it is the same Sacrifice, so it cannot have different effects from that which it is. All that differs, is the manner: the Eucharist presents many times over what was enacted & fulfilled at Calvary perfectly, uniquely, once & for ever. The Mass no more multiplies Calvary, than the coming of men to Jesus on different occasions multiplied Him.

We are at an impasse Michael; no more sacrifice means just that.
Gottle-of-Geer:

Yet that passage, like others (Boettner presents many) is commonly adduced by Protestants, including Macarthur, as a weighty argument against the Mass. Which is why I implied that it was an objection in my post - for he treats it as one.

No more propitiatory sacrifice Michael.

Where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sins (Heb 10:18)

For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified (10:14)

He sits at the right hand of God waiting until that time that His enemies be made a footstool for His feet (10:12-13).
Gottle-of-Geer:

I am not asking for anything unusual or heroic or difficult, but for what any Christian who takes it upon himself to describe a belief he does not accept ought to do as a matter of course. I don’t understand why it is so hard to see that Christians take up a great moral responsibility by describing a religion in order to criticise it; especially those who are pastors. Don’t pastors need to get their facts right ? Surely they do. Sometimes, this is not possible - but it often is

I understand your frustration, Michael. You really should write to one of the addresses that I provided.

 

[lak611]

There were no dispensationalists until J.N. Darby started expressing himself around 1830.

Who was J.N. Darby?

 

[AlegreFe]

Who was J.N. Darby?

John Nelson Darby

 

[rtconstant]

Who was J.N. Darby?

An english evangelist who lived in the 1800’s and was first to espouse the theological outlook known as dispensationalism. For awhile he was an Anglican minister but eventually he broke away and discovered his theory of the “secret rapture”.

His theories were embraced by Cyrus Scofield of The Scofield Reference Bible fame. Scofield was instrumental in spreading dispensationalism throughout North America. Today it is a sort of default theology for Evangelicals (there are exceptions) especially the Baptist and Pentecostal sects.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**

Forgive me. My brain outdistanced my fingers.

**## That’s OK. ##

**

I disagree with you Michael. No further need of sacrifice means what it says.

**## Agreed.

**I’m not trying to persuade you, but to explain. Of course we disagree: it could hardly be otherwise. I’m not looking for agreement, but for accuracy in understanding; for as there is going to be disagreement, people may as well know what it is they disagree with. What they believe positively, is their (& God’s) business: what they reject is not quite so private, because it often (as in the present case) involves a description of what others believe. When that rejection involves a (mis)description, howwever well-intentioned, it is of legitimate concern to those who are said to hold the rejected belief. **

**Nor am I trying to attack, so I apologise unreservedly if anything I’ve said has in any way “come over” as an attack, whether on you or Macarthur. I want to clear up misunderstanding, that’s all. **##

**

We are at an impasse Michael; no more sacrifice means just that.

**

No more propitiatory sacrifice Michael.

Where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sins (Heb 10:18)

For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified (10:14)

He sits at the right hand of God waiting until that time that His enemies be made a footstool for His feet (10:12-13).

**## Agreed - but none of this affects the doctrine on the Eucharist. Since I already believe what Hebrews says, to quote its statements in reply is unnecessary - they don’t deny or refute or undermine anything the CC believes either. **
They do OTOH set forth the uniqueness & finality of the work of Christ. Since this is essential to the Church’s teaching, it is anything but a problem ##
**

I understand your frustration, Michael. You really should write to one of the addresses that I provided.

**## Thanks, but I’m not - & I shall. ##