misinterpretations and misapplications of Vatican II

[pnewton]

If you read these, I believe you will begin to understand what is happening in the Church.

On the other hand, these documents are not unfamiliar to the Holy Father, his bishops and the Curia. They have all studied (and lived) the results of Vatican II longer than 13 years. But I think the critical issue is that the Holy Father has been given a singular charism for the leadership of the Church. This is something that we must always weigh when we think we have discovered some great truth that appears to contradict the direction of the Church. If is the Church of Jesus and guided by the Holy Spirit. Even when human sinfulness enters in, it is far better to trust the Holy Spirit to guide through the storm than every sailor on board to start paddling in the direction they think best.

 

[StTommyMore]

On the other hand, these documents are not unfamiliar to the Holy Father,

I should say so, especially considering that a young theologian named Joseph Ratzinger was instrumental in drafting Dei Verbum

 

[At_Trent]

I had never thought of it this way, but it makes sense. SP did not make front page on the NY Times.

In our own Franciscan family, friars spend months reading SP and writing to Major Superiors with questions. Major Superiors were going back to friar theologians to find the answers. It’s not as black and white as people think it is. It was not the best explained document put out by Rome, especially for religious communities that have priests, which is most religious communities.

You really cannot count those who are trying to understand the rules as being opposed or those who have barely heard about SP either.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks for sharing that. We don’t see that sort of description of doings within an Order very often.

Drives me nuts (I know, short trip ) to keep hearing there is little interest in the EF within a parish or community, when it’s not taken into account the people aren’t even aware of the SP. No wonder

 

[JReducation]

How do you interpret the dogma of ‘One Church’ against the "they are true Churches’?

That’s easy. Let’s look at the Catholic Church. Is it truly one Church? No. There are 23 Apostolic Churches that make up the Catholic Church. The largest is the Roman Church, but it’s one of many. What makes us one Church? All of us can trace our heritage back to the Apostolic Church. The Oriental Catholic Churches even have their own code of Canon Law. Our unity is preserved through our unity with the Apostles and the successor of Peter. As long as we maintain that communion, we can exist as 23 sui-iuris Catholic Churches, with one Pontiff. The key words here are unity in faith and sacrament and sui iuris (self-governing), which protects our autonomy.

The Orthodox Churches are Oriental Christians who are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. They have valid orders directly from the Apostles. Just like the Oriental Catholic Churches, they are in full sacramental communion with the rest of the Catholic Churches. They even have Catholic counterparts. There are Greek Catholics and Greek Orthodox. Both trace their origins to the Pauline ministry. This is why they are legitimate Churches.

They recognize our legitimacy and we recognize theirs. In fact, there are no longer any excommunications or anathemas against the Orthodox nor do they have any more excommunications or anathemas against the Church of Rome. Gradually, both sides have lifted all of the excommunications and anathemas. In case of necessity, we can receive Holy Communion in at an Orthodox mass or go to confession to an Orthodox priest and they can do the same in reverse. This happened more often in the Soviet Union where religion went underground. People had to go to mass and confession where ever they could find a validly ordained priest with faculties. The Orthodox are validly ordained and have faculties. There are no questions about validity or licaity (sp?). The Oriental Churches, Catholic and Orthodox, do not get their faculties from the Bishop of Rome. They get them from the Patriarchs who govern them. Only the Roman Catholics get faculties from the bishop of Rome and the Roman bishops at the diocesan level.

Yes, they are true Churches and they are truly Apostolic. Hopefully, someday the issue about the primacy of the Bishop of Rome will be settled to the mutual satisfaction of everyone. John Paul II and Benedict XVI have put some suggestions on the table. However, I have no idea where this dialogue is. I’m not very involved with the Eastern Christians. I wish I were, because they have a beautiful history and beautiful mysticism.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Just imagine had we’d all be born with four appendages instead of five. We might be on a ecumenical octal system.

Nahhhhh, I would simply have taught him the Franciscan Crown which uses base 7 and the 8th for the Gloria Patri.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Let’s stop and do a check here.

We do not disrespect any clergymen or religious. This rule applies to the SSPX as well as to any other cleric or religious. You may disagree with them. However, you may not disrespect them while I’m moderator of this forum.

Respect for clergy and consecrated religious is also part of Catholic tradition.

If anyone has anything to say to me about this, feel free to shoot me a PM.

Carry on!

Thomas Casey
Moderator

 

[ProVobis]

On the other hand, these documents are not unfamiliar to the Holy Father, his bishops and the Curia. They have all studied (and lived) the results of Vatican II longer than 13 years. But I think the critical issue is that the Holy Father has been given a singular charism for the leadership of the Church. This is something that we must always weigh when we think we have discovered some great truth **that appears to contradict the direction of the Church. **

Precisely. If we look at the documents of all 21 councils and major encyclicals, we should find no contradictions. Vatican II did nothing to undo Trent or Vatican I or Nicea. “In light of Tradition (or tradition)” means exactly that. There were no compromises with the past. Christ doesn’t change His Church to satisfy a political or a more modernistic agenda.

 

[laszlo]

Keep in mind the saying: “As goes the Church, so goes the world”.

This was the truth until Blessed Pius IX. He concentrated on the earthly physical power of the Church (the papal state) and lost the media, the new power.

Vatican II was an attempt to regain the leading rule, not w/o result, the percentage of the Catholics is still one in every six people, and the quarter of them is still attends the (new rite) Mass regularly.

We must understand that the Church has not any more the power to demand rules. We had to go back to the origins, to the example of Christ: to serve and not to rule the world. He was the King on the tree of shame. He will come us ruler, but not in this time.

 

[Thomas_Aquinas_1]

On the other hand, these documents are not unfamiliar to the Holy Father, his bishops and the Curia. They have all studied (and lived) the results of Vatican II longer than 13 years. But I think the critical issue is that the Holy Father has been given a singular charism for the leadership of the Church. This is something that we must always weigh when we think we have discovered some great truth that appears to contradict the direction of the Church.

But since, as we are told, Vatican II is so often being misinterpreted, we should familiarize ourselves with the errors that were explicitly and formally condemned from the time they first arose, circa 1789, so that we too do not interpret Vatican II in such a way that it contradicts these prior teachings.

The difference between the encyclicals that I linked to, and the documents of Vatican II, is that no one misinterpreted the prior teachings. They were very clear and precise and no one argued about what they meant. They were written using the Scholastic terminology and precise Thomistic language, which is very clear for even the moderately educated. In fact, Pope Pius X said the antidote for the ambiguities of the Modernists was Thomistic philosophy and theology, due to its precision in presenting the truth.

Therefore, by saying we should read the encyclicals I linked to in the last post does not imply that we reject Vatican II outright. What those encyclicals do is shine the clear light of truth on the intellect so that any subtle errors, or misinterpretations, can be avoided. Some of the most often misinterpreted and seeming contradictory parts of Vatican II can be interpreted in accord with what the Church has always taught when you utilize the Thomistic categories and distinctions, which are extremely important in this day and age.

 

[StTommyMore]

But since, as we are told, Vatican II is so often being misinterpreted, we should familiarize ourselves with the errors that were explicitly and formally condemned from the time they first arose, circa 1789, so that we too do not interpret Vatican II in such a way that it contradicts these prior teachings.

The difference between the encyclicals that I linked to, and the documents of Vatican II, is that no one misinterpreted the prior teachings. They were very clear and precise and no one argued about what they meant. They were written using the Scholastic terminology and precise Thomistic language, which is very clear for even the moderately educated. In fact, Pope Pius X said the antidote for the ambiguities of the Modernists was Thomistic philosophy and theology, due to its precision in presenting the truth.

Therefore, by saying we should read the encyclicals I linked to in the last post does not imply that we reject Vatican II outright. What those encyclicals do is shine the clear light of truth on the intellect so that any subtle errors, or misinterpretations, can be avoided. Some of the most often misinterpreted and seeming contradictory parts of Vatican II can be interpreted in accord with what the Church has always taught when you utilize the Thomistic categories and distinctions, which are extremely important in this day and age.

Neither do we want to rely solely on St. Thomas. He is the normative theologian and philosopher of the Church, but he is not the only one worthy of study.

 

[Thomas_Aquinas_1]

I would be in favor of this as no contradictions exist. And “pastoral” and “dogmatic” are not mutually exclusive terms. In fact for something to be truly pastoral, there must be a dogmatic element to it (Ottaviani’s words).

I want to comment on the underlined part above, and I will refer back to it in a future post if we enter into a discussion on religious liberty.

Dogma is the object of the speculative intellect; pastoral practices are the object of the practical intellect.

Now, when we speak of the speculative and practical intellects, it does not refer to two separate intellects, but to the two functions of the one intellect.

The subject matter of the speculative intellects is truth and error as such. It deals with propositions that must be held, or errors that must be rejected.

The subject matter of the speculative intellect is not truth and error per se, but rather good or bad in practice. The speculative intellect deals with the practical application in various circumstances.

Let me give a few examples.

What is true is that no man has a positive right to violate the first Commandment by offering fasle worship. That is a truth that we must hold as a proposition (see Syllabus of Pius IX #15). The adherence to this truth is a function of the speculative intellect.

The *practical intellect * has a different function. It does not pertain to truth and error per se, but to good and bad as it relates to practice. In some situations it may be best for the State to forbid all false worship, which is what the Catholics states often did during the middle ages. The State also has the right to punish those who violate this just law, which is something else that took place during the age of Christendom.

However, in other circumstances (such as today) it may be best for the state to “tolerate” (that is the word that must be used) false worship, since forbidding it outright could result in chaos in society.

Pastoral issues are a function of the practical intellect, not the speculative intellect. Pastoral approaches do not pertain to truth and error per se, but to good and bad in the given circumstances. Pastoral issues are not the subject matter of Papal Infallibility since they to not pertain to truth and error, but good and bad.

What you wrote above is correct. It is true that dogmatic teachings are related to pastoral teachings, but they are distinct. The pastoral teachings should be based on dogmatic truths, by applying them to particulat circumstances. In some days it will be more pastorally good to tolerate what is at variance with the truth, while in other days such tolerance could be bad.

But one thing we must keep in mind is that no one ever has a right to do what is wrong. When the State permits a person to do what is evil (such as offer false worship, or have an abortion) we can never say the person has a right to do it. We can only say the evil practice is being tolerated due to the circumstances. If you read the encyclical Libertas (which is one of my favorites) he discusses this near the end.

One final point in anticipation of a counter argument that someone may present. When the State tolerates an evil such as false worship, this is sometimes called a “civil right”. However, a civil right to do what is objectively evil is not a *positive *right; it is only a negative right. The difference is that a positive right affirms that the person has a right to do what they are doing; the negative right simply means the State will not punish a person for the particular evil act. All positive rights either come from God, or are not contrary to God’s laws. A negative right is simply the toleration of an act that is contrary to God’s law, such as false worship which is contrary to the first Commandment, or abortion, which is contrary to the fifth Commandment.

 

[Thomas_Aquinas_1]

As a follow up to my last post, I thought I would quote the following from Pope Pope Leo XIII regarding the tolerance of evil. After condemning the false liberties of modern society, he says this:

Pope Leo XIII, Libertas: "32. The Church most earnestly desires that the Christian teaching, of which We have given an outline, should penetrate every rank of society in reality and in practice; for it would be of the greatest efficacy in healing the evils of our day, which are neither few nor slight, and are the off spring in great part of the false liberty which is so much extolled, and in which the germs of safety and glory were supposed to be contained. The hope has been disappointed by the result. The fruit, instead of being sweet and wholesome, has proved cankered and bitter. If, then, a remedy is desired, let it be sought for in a restoration of sound doctrine, from which alone the preservation of order and, as a consequence, the defense of true liberty can be confidently expected.

1. Yet, with the discernment of a true mother, the Church weighs the great burden of human weakness, and well knows the course down which the minds and actions of men are in this our age being borne. For this reason, while not conceding any right to anything save what is true and honest, she does not forbid public authority to tolerate what is at variance with truth and justice, for the sake of avoiding some greater evil, or of obtaining or preserving some greater good. God Himself in His providence, though infinitely good and powerful, permits evil to exist in the world, partly that greater good may not be impeded, and partly that greater evil may not ensue. In the government of States it is not forbidden to imitate the Ruler of the world; and, as the authority of man is powerless to prevent every evil, it has (as St. Augustine says) to overlook and leave unpunished many things which are punished, and rightly, by Divine Providence.(10) But if, in such circumstances, for the sake of the common good (and this is the only legitimate reason), human law may or even should tolerate evil, it may not and should not approve or desire evil for its own sake; for evil of itself, being a privation of good, is opposed to the common welfare which every legislator is bound to desire and defend to the best of his ability. …
2. But, to judge aright, we must acknowledge that, the more a State is driven to tolerate evil, the further is it from perfection; and that the tolerance of evil which is dictated by political prudence should be strictly confined to the limits which its justifying cause, the public welfare, requires. Wherefore, if such tolerance would be injurious to the public welfare, and entail greater evils on the State, it would not be lawful; for in such case the motive of good is wanting. And although in the extraordinary condition of these times the Church usually acquiesces in certain modern liberties, not because she prefers them in themselves, but because she judges it expedient to permit them… One thing, however, remains always true - that the liberty which is claimed for all to do all things is not, as We have often said, of itself desirable, inasmuch as it is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights.
3. And as to tolerance, it is surprising how far removed from the equity and prudence of the Church are those who profess what is called liberalism. For, in allowing that boundless license of which We have spoken, they exceed all limits, and end at last by making no apparent distinction between truth and error, honesty and dishonesty. And because the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, and the unerring teacher of morals, is forced utterly to reprobate and condemn tolerance of such an abandoned and criminal character, they calumniate her as being wanting in patience and gentleness, and thus fail to see that, in so doing, they impute to her as a fault what is in reality a matter for commendation.** But, in spite of all this show of tolerance, it very often happens that, while they profess themselves ready to lavish liberty on all in the greatest profusion, they are utterly intolerant toward the Catholic Church, by refusing to allow her the liberty of being herself free".**

 

[StTommyMore]

I think it is an error to make the claim that Protestants offer false worship. They offer incomplete worship, but not false worship. They worship the One True God, and depend on Him for their salvation. Likewise Jews worship the same God, but in an incomplete manner, but not false.

 

[laszlo]

I think it is an error to make the claim that Protestants offer false worship. They offer incomplete worship, but not false worship. They worship the One True God, and depend on Him for their salvation. Likewise Jews worship the same God, but in an incomplete manner, but not false.

Yes.

At least in theory. In fact there are some Catholics, some Protestants and some Jews who worship themselves of their friends; that is false worship.

 

[StTommyMore]

Yes.

At least in theory. In fact there are some Catholics, some Protestants and some Jews who worship themselves of their friends; that is false worship.

This is true, but we have to distinguish between the interior piety of individuals and the formal tenets of the ecclesial communities.

 

[Thomas_Aquinas_1]

I think it is an error to make the claim that Protestants offer false worship. They offer incomplete worship, but not false worship. They worship the One True God, and depend on Him for their salvation. Likewise Jews worship the same God, but in an incomplete manner, but not false.

The Church teaches that all forms of worship that were not authorized, approved and sanctioned by God fall into the category of false worship. The only worship that has been sanctioned by God during the days of the New Testament is the worship of the Mass. Therefore, all other forms of worship are, by definition, false worship:

Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 1146. How may the first Commandment be broken?

A. The first Commandment make be broken by giving to a creature the honor which belongs to God alone; by false worship; and by attributing to a creature a perfection which belongs to God alone.

Q. 1148. How do we offer God false worship?

A. We offer God false worship by rejecting the religion He has instituted and following one pleasing to ourselves, with a form of worship He has never authorized, approved or sanctioned."

That has been the constant teaching of the Church. In the following quote, Pope Gregory XVI states that it is only possible to worship God truly in the Catholic Church:

**Pope Gregory XVI: **“You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that very article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation. The words of that celebrated disciple of the apostles, martyred St. Ignatius, in his letter to the Philadelphians are relevant to this matter: “Be not deceived, my brother; if anyone follows a schismatic, he will not attain the inheritance of the kingdom of God”. Moreover, St. Augustine and the other African bishops who met in the Council of Cirta in the year 412 explained the same thing at greater length: “Whoever has separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how laudably he lives, will not have eternal life, but has earned the anger of God because of this one crime: that he abandoned his union with Christ”. Omitting other appropriate passages which are almost numberless in the writings of the Fathers, **We shall praise St. Gregory the Great who expressly testifies that this indeed is the teaching of the Catholic Church. He says: “The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her will not be saved”. **Official acts of the Church proclaim the same dogma. Thus, in the decree on faith which Innocent III published with the synod of Lateran IV, these things are written: “There is one universal Church of all the faithful outside of which no one is saved”. Finally the same dogma is also expressly mentioned in the profession of faith proposed by the Apostolic See, not only that which all Latin churches use, but also that which the Greek Orthodox Church uses and that which other Eastern Catholics use. We did not mention these selected testimonies because We thought you were ignorant of that article of faith and in need of Our instruction. Far be it from Us to have such an absurd and insulting suspicion about you. But We are so concerned about this serious and well known dogma, which has been attacked with such remarkable audacity, that We could not restrain Our pen from reinforcing this truth with many testimonies” (Summo Iugiter Sttudio).

Since Protestants are 1.) heretics who are 2) outside the Church and 3.) offer God worship he has never sanctioned, their worship is certainly false. This is not a subjective judgment on the disposition of the individual Protestant (which God alone can judge), but an objective judgment on the form of worship.

**Catechism of Pius X: **

10 Q. Who are they who do not belong to the Communion of Saints?

A. Those who are damned do not belong to the Communion of Saints in the other life; and in this life those who belong neither to the body nor to the soul of the Church, that is, those who are in mortal sin, and who are outside the true Church.

11 Q. Who are they who are outside the true Church?

A. Outside the true Church are: Infidels, Jews, heretics, apostates, schismatics, and the excommunicated.

14 Q. Who are heretics?

A. Heretics are those of the baptised who obstinately refuse to believe some truth revealed by God and taught as an article of faith by the Catholic Church; for example, the Arians, the Nestorians and the various sects of Protestants.

continue

 

[Thomas_Aquinas_1]

continuation

Regarding the Jews, although their worship was initially sanctioned by God, if they were to offer it today, it would be false worship since the purpose of their worship was to point to Christ, and if it is offered today, it is an implicit denial of Christ, as St. Thomas teaches.

St. Thomas: I answer that, As Augustine states (Cont. Mendac. xiv), “a most pernicious lie is that which is uttered in matters pertaining to Christian religion.” Now it is a lie if one signify outwardly that which is contrary to the truth. But just as a thing is signified by word, so it is by deed: and it is in this signification by deed that the outward worship of religion consists, as shown above (Question [81], Article [7]). Consequently, if anything false is signified by outward worship, this worship will be pernicious.

"Now this happens in two ways. In the first place, it happens on the part of the thing signified, through the worship signifying something discordant therefrom: and in this way, at the time of the New Law, the mysteries of Christ being already accomplished, it is pernicious to make use of the ceremonies of the Old Law whereby the mysteries of Christ were foreshadowed as things to come: just as it would be pernicious for anyone to declare that Christ has yet to suffer. In the second place, falsehood in outward worship occurs on the part of the worshiper, and especially in common worship which is offered by ministers impersonating the whole Church. For even as he would be guilty of falsehood who would, in the name of another person, proffer things that are not committed to him, so too does a man incur the guilt of falsehood who, on the part of the Church, gives worship to God contrary to the manner established by the Church or divine authority, and according to ecclesiastical custom. Hence Ambrose *Comment. in 1 ad Cor. 11:27, quoted in the gloss of Peter Lombard] says: “He is unworthy who celebrates the mystery otherwise than Christ delivered it.” For this reason, too, a gloss on Col. 2:23 says that superstition is “the use of human observances under the name of religion.”

From this we can see why Pope Gregory XVI, quoting Gregory the Great, wrote: “The holy universal Church teaches that it is not possible to worship God truly except in her and asserts that all who are outside of her…”, because only in the Catholic Church do we offer God the worship he Has approved and sanctioned.

 

[StTommyMore]

You cannot call all Protestants heretics. It just cannot be done. You have to remember ecclesiology has developed significantly since Trent. Our Magisterium is living, and develops organically. It is not dead and frozen in 1546

 

[Thomas_Aquinas_1]

You cannot call all Protestants heretics. It just cannot be done. You have to remember ecclesiology has developed significantly since Trent. Our Magisterium is living, and develops organically. It is not dead and frozen in 1546

The quote I provided was from the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X, a 20th century catechism. And what Pius X wrote did not begin at Trent. It is what the Church has always taught.

**Catechism of Pius X: **

14 Q. Who are heretics?

A. Heretics are those of the baptised who obstinately refuse to believe some truth revealed by God and taught as an article of faith by the Catholic Church; for example, the Arians, the Nestorians and the various sects of Protestants.

But we don’t need a catechism to tell us that Protestants are heretics. It is common sense. What is a heretic? A heretic is a person who denies a dogma of the faith. Protestant sects deny many dogmas of the faith, which makes them heretics. If Protestants are not heretics, then there has never been any heretical group.

Regarding ecclesiology, the following 20th century Catechism teaches us who belongs to the Church.

**The Catechism of Pius X: **

9 Q. State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church?

A. To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptised, to believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church. …

12 Q. The many societies of persons who are baptised but who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not, then, belong to the Church of Jesus Christ?

A. No, those who do not acknowledge the Roman Pontiff as their Head do not belong to the Church of Jesus Christ. …

13 Q. How can the Church of Jesus Christ be distinguished from the numerous societies or sects founded by men, and calling themselves Christian?

A. From the numerous societies or sects founded by men and calling themselves Christian, the Church of Jesus Christ is easily distinguished by four marks: She is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

14 Q. Why is the Church called One?

A. The true Church is called One, because her children of all ages and places are united together in the same faith, in the same worship, in the same law; and in participation of the same Sacraments, under the same visible Head, the Roman Pontiff.

15 Q. Can there not be several Churches?

A. No, there cannot be more than one Church; for as there is but one God, one Faith and one Baptism, there is and can be but one true Church.

18 Q. Why is the Church called Catholic?

A. The true Church is called Catholic, or Universal, because she embraces the faithful of all times, of all places, of all ages and conditions; and all peoples are called to belong to her. …

20 Q. And why is the true Church called Roman?

A. The true Church is called Roman, because the four marks of Unity, Sanctity, Catholicity and Apostolicity are found in that Church alone which acknowledges as Head the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter.

21 Q. What is the constitution of the Church of Jesus Christ?

A. The Church of Jesus Christ has been constituted as a true and perfect Society; and in her we can distinguish a soul and a body.

22 Q. In what does the Soul of the Church consist?

A. The Soul of the Church consists in her internal and spiritual endowments, that is, faith, hope, charity, the gifts of grace and of the Holy Ghost, together with all the heavenly treasures which are hers through the merits of our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, and of the Saints.

23 Q. In what does the Body of the Church consist?

A. The Body of the Church consists in her external and visible aspect, that is, in the association of her members, in her worship, in her teaching-power and in her external rule and government.

24 Q. To be saved, is it enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic Church?

A. No, to be saved it is not enough to be any sort of member of the Catholic Church; it is necessary to be a living member.

25 Q. Who are the living members of the Church?

A. The living members of the Church are the just, and the just alone, that is, those who are actually in the grace of God.

26 Q. And who are the dead members?

A. The dead members of the Church are the faithful in mortal sin.

27 Q. Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?

A. No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.

The above represents the teaching of the Church with respect to ecclesiology, and no pretended developement can contradict it. True developement only adds clarity to what has always been believed; it never contradicts what has been previously taught.

 

[Judge_Mental]

You cannot call all Protestants heretics. It just cannot be done. You have to remember ecclesiology has developed significantly since Trent. Our Magisterium is living, and develops organically. It is not dead and frozen in 1546

What was true in our religion 1000 years ago is true today. What you’ve said is a recipe for ‘making it up as you go along’.

Our Church has the fullness of the truth. Anyone who thinks Protestantism has anything to offer only needs look at stuff like this blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100073636/episcopal-church-leader-polygamy-is-sort-of-ok-in-africa/

Run … far … away. And don’t look back. Hell is still a possibility for us all. Even after the 1960’s.