Protestant Communion?

[Nyika]

Are there any confirmed Eucharistic miracles outside of the RCC? To my knowledge, there are none whereas there are multiple confirmed Eucharistic miracles within the RCC.

*Note I said “to my knowledge”, which clearly is not infallible.

Yes, I’ve heard people comment that miracles and visions only seem to occur in predominantly RC countries!

 

[KjetilK]

Yes, as it has the right to do and has done so.

But it has not recognized the catholicity of Lutherans.

It looks like to me you are the one yourself recognizing your own catholicity?

It is very hard to discuss on this board. People keep changing tactics. I replied to a specific claim, made by steve b, that you need to be in communion with Rome to be Catholic. I have shown that this is not the case, even by Roman Catholic standards. Therefore steve b cannot say that I’m not Catholic purely on the basis of my non-communion with Rome.

The term is validly consecrated…which the Orthodox have, and which Lutherans have lost.

No, no, no. Some Lutherans, yes, but not others. Lutheranism is a tradition, not a Church. And the Lutheran churches of Scandinavia never lost apostolic succession. I have defended my own apostolic succession before. Just use the search function. If I have apostolic succession, through my bishop, then my Church is a particular Church, and then my Church is Catholic. Even by Roman Catholic standards. Simple logic. That doesn’t mean that the Roman Catholic Church is likely to admit that. But it is not my problem that the Roman Catholic Church is incoherent.

 

[MaryT777]

Yes, as it has the right to do and has done so.

 

[MaryT777]

It is very hard to discuss on this board. People keep changing tactics. I replied to a specific claim, made by steve b, that you need to be in communion with Rome to be Catholic. I have shown that this is not the case, even by Roman Catholic standards. Therefore steve b cannot say that I’m not Catholic purely on the basis of my non-communion with Rome.

No, no, no. Some Lutherans, yes, but not others. Lutheranism is a tradition, not a Church. And the Lutheran churches of Scandinavia never lost apostolic succession. I have defended my own apostolic succession before. Just use the search function. If I have apostolic succession, through my bishop, then my Church is a particular Church, and then my Church is Catholic. Even by Roman Catholic standards. Simple logic. That doesn’t mean that the Roman Catholic Church is likely to admit that. But it is not my problem that the Roman Catholic Church is incoherent.

What nonsense. Hard to take seriously.

Mary.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

What nonsense. Hard to take seriously.

Mary.

Nonsense? How so?

 

[steve_b]

Then what about the Orthodox? The Roman Catholic Church recognises the catholicity of the Orthodox churches.

Don’t take my word for this. Here is an Eastern Rite Melkite Catholic bishop, whose Church in history, went from Catholic, to Eastern Orthodox, back to Catholic.

I’ll let Bp John answer your question

https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

The Orthodox aren’t Catholic nor are they the Catholic Church.
K:

It was the King. Not the pope.

• Christianity didn’t fall from the sky into St Olaf’s arms. Catholicism, was taken to Norway by the Catholic Church. And Catholicism was a part of Norway 500 years before the Protestant revolt.

roman-catholic-saints.com/olav.html St Olaf
K:

In fact, I don’t even think the pope was informed at the time.

The pope is pope over Our Lord’s Church worldwide. That’s how Jesus established Peter’s office.
K:

You shouldn’t read out current historical context back into the Middle Ages. The bishops were british, but probably with Scandinavian heritage.

The Catholic Church brought Christianity / i.e. Catholicism to Britain as well. They were Catholic before they became Protestants
K:

You are misinformed. The word ‘catholic’ is not a denominational term, and the Roman Catholic Church recognises the catholicity of the Orthodox churches.

You’re right. The Catholic Church isn’t a denomination. It is THE CHURCH that Jesus established…

Denominationalism is Prortestantism. It’s a 100% manmade endeavor, it’s not Divinely instituted, and regardless of stripe, is one of the Great Heresiesin history
K:

As to the term ‘catholic,’ that means ‘universal’ or ‘according to the whole’ (Gk. καθολικός, from κατά, ‘according to,’ and ὅλος, ‘whole’). It means holding unto the faith as delivered.

Irenaeus a Catholic Bishop, in ~180 a.d. defined it well

Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 1-3

1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Do you see those qualities? That describes the Catholic Church
K:

It is specified by St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, to be present wherever there is a validly consecrated Bishop:

We’ll come back to this quote in the next entry.

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.”
K:

Here, catholicity is bound first to being in communion with a valid bishop, as we also find in paragraph 21 of [Lumen gentium (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...s/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html), the dogmatic constitution on the Church solemnly promulgated by Pope Paul VI, on November 21, 1964, where the Church and her catholicity is defined as communion with the bishop.
So whereever you find a validly consecrated Bishop, there you find the Catholic Church.

Open [Lumen gentium (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...s/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html) and go to the next section #22. The bishop must also be in union with the Roman Pontiff.

Re: the quote from Ignatius you quote from and the point you try and make, It’s not where the bishop is it’s where Jesus is, “there is the Catholic Church”

here’s the quote again

" Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church"

As an aside, take a look at this link.
news.va/en/news/pope-mass-on-feast-of-st-george-full-text

 

[steve_b]

It is very hard to discuss on this board. People keep changing tactics. I replied to a specific claim, made by steve b, that you need to be in communion with Rome to be Catholic. I have shown that this is not the case, even by Roman Catholic standards. Therefore steve b cannot say that I’m not Catholic purely on the basis of my non-communion with Rome.

And I showed you where you are wrong
K:

No, no, no. Some Lutherans, yes, but not others. Lutheranism is a tradition, not a Church.

True, we agree

It’s a 100% manmade.tradition regardless the stripe.
K:

And the Lutheran churches of Scandinavia never lost apostolic succession. I have defended my own apostolic succession before. Just use the search function. If I have apostolic succession, through my bishop, then my Church is a particular Church, and then my Church is Catholic. Even by Roman Catholic standards. Simple logic. That doesn’t mean that the Roman Catholic Church is likely to admit that. But it is not my problem that the Roman Catholic Church is incoherent.

The Church whose name you’re trying to usurp, has the say in who is Catholic. You can argue all you want. Bottomline, the one you have to convince is NOT me, it’s Jesus when you see Him someday

 

[MaryT777]

And I showed you where you are wrong

True, we agree

It’s a 100% manmade.tradition regardless the stripe.

The Church whose name you’re trying to usurp, has the say in who is Catholic. You can argue all you want. Bottomline, the one you have to convince is NOT me, it’s Jesus when you see Him someday

 

[Elizium23]

The true history of the Church in Norway, from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Not much is known of the morals and religious spirit of the people; it is certain that in the Catholic period much more in proportion was given for purposes of religion than after the Reformation. There are few details of the pastoral labours of bishops and clergy, but the works of Christian charity, hospices, lazarettos, inns for pilgrims, bear ready testimony to their efforts for the advancement of civilization. Nor was learning neglected. As early as the twelfth century the monk Dietrich of Trondhjem wrote a Latin chronicle of the country, and in 1250 a Franciscan wrote an account of his journey to the Holy Land. Norwegian students who desired degrees went to the Universities of Paris and Bologna, or, at a later period, attended a university nearer home, that of Rostock in Mecklenburg. With the abandonment of the old Faith and its institutions was associated the loss of national independence in 1537. As early as 1519 Christian II had begun to suppress the monasteries, and Christian III abetted the cause of Lutheranism. Archbishop Olaf Engelbrechtsen and other dignitaries of the Church were forced to flee; Mogens Lawridtzen, Bishop of Hamar, died in prison in 1542, and Jon Arason of Holar was executed on 7 November, 1550.

The large landed possessions of the Church went to the king and his favourites. Many churches were destroyed, others fell into decay, and the number of parishes was greatly reduced. The salaries of the preachers, among whom were very objectionable persons, were generally a mere pittance. Fanatics of the new belief thundered from the pulpit against idolatry and the cruelty of the “Roman Antichrist”; whatever might preserve the memory of earlier ages was doomed to destruction; the pictures of the Virgin were cut to pieces, burned, or thrown into the water; veneration of saints was threatened with severe punishment. Notwithstanding this, it was only slowly and by the aid of deception that the people were seduced from the ancestral faith. Catholicism did not die out in Norway until the beginning of the seventeenth century. The pope entrusted the spiritual care of Norway, first to the Nunciature of Cologne, and then to Brussels, but the Draconian laws of Denmark made Catholic ministration almost impossible. Whether the Jesuits appointed to Norway ever went there is unknown. A Dominican who reached the country was expelled after a few weeks. The Norwegian convert Rhugius was permitted to remain, but was not allowed to exercise his office. Conditions remained the same later, when the supervision was transferred from Brussels to Cologne, from Cologne to Hildersheim, and thence to Osnabrück.

There was no change until the nineteenth century when the laws of 1845 and succeeding years released all dissenters, including Catholics who had come into the country, from the control of the Lutheran state Church. From the time of its foundation the Lutheran Church had wavered between orthodoxy and rationalism, and was finally much affected by the Pietistic movement, led by Haugue. In 1843 a small Catholic parish was formed in Christiania, and from this centre efforts were made to found new stations. In 1869 Pius IX created an independent prefecture Apostolic for Norway. The first prefect was a Frenchman, Bernard, formerly prefect of the North Pole mission. He was followed by the Luxemburg priest Fallize, later Bishop of Alusa, under whom the mission has steadily developed, although not yet large. Especially noteworthy among the men who of late years have been reconciled to the Church are the former gymnasial rector Sverenson, and the author Kroogh-Tonning, doctor of theology, originally a Lutheran pastor at Christiania. All monastic orders, Jesuits excepted, are allowed, but there are no monasteries for men. On the other hand the missionaries of the female congregations, Sisters of St. Elizabeth, Sisters of St. Francis, and Sisters of St. Joseph of Chambéry, numbering about thirty, have gained useful and active fellow-workers. There are a few thousands of Catholics, for whom there are churches in Christiania (St. Olaf and Halvard), in Bergen, Trondhjem, Fredrikshald, Tromsö, Fredrikstad, Altengaard, Hamerfest. Catholic hospitals exist in Christiania, Bergen, Drammen, and Christiansand, and there is a number of Catholic schools towards which the Protestant population has shown itself friendly. In 1897, for the first time in three hundred years, the feast of St. Olaf was celebrated at Trondhjem.

Dude, you’re Lutheran, and that makes you a Protestant, not a Catholic.

 

[Porknpie]

The term ‘Protestant’ is merely a historical designation, not a theological, dogmatic or denominational one,

Then they should have no problem submitting to the authority of the Pope as Christ’s shepherd on earth, his prime minister.

And they do profess and hold to all 7 sacraments, yes?

 

[Nyika]

Please explain your answer. I don’t understand what you are trying to say?

 

[Nyika]

Don’t take my word for this. Here is an Eastern Rite Melkite Catholic bishop, whose Church in history, went from Catholic, to Eastern Orthodox, back to Catholic.

I’ll let Bp John answer your question

https://melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome

The Orthodox aren’t Catholic nor are they the Catholic Church.

My goodness steveb you certainly seem to know what you are talking about! A reliable source of accurate information to keep us on the right path!

• Christianity didn’t fall from the sky into St Olaf’s arms. Catholicism, was taken to Norway by the Catholic Church. And Catholicism was a part of Norway 500 years before the Protestant revolt.

roman-catholic-saints.com/olav.html St Olaf

The pope is pope over Our Lord’s Church worldwide. That’s how Jesus established Peter’s office.

The Catholic Church brought Christianity / i.e. Catholicism to Britain as well. They were Catholic before they became Protestants

You’re right. The Catholic Church isn’t a denomination. It is THE CHURCH that Jesus established…

Denominationalism is Prortestantism. It’s a 100% manmade endeavor, it’s not Divinely instituted, and regardless of stripe, is one of the Great Heresiesin history

Irenaeus a Catholic Bishop, in ~180 a.d. defined it well

Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 1-3

1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Do you see those qualities? That describes the Catholic Church

We’ll come back to this quote in the next entry.

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.”

Open [Lumen gentium (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...s/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html) and go to the next section #22. The bishop must also be in union with the Roman Pontiff.

Re: the quote from Ignatius you quote from and the point you try and make, It’s not where the bishop is it’s where Jesus is, “there is the Catholic Church”

here’s the quote again

" Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church"

As an aside, take a look at this link.
news.va/en/news/pope-mass-on-feast-of-st-george-full-text

 

[JonNC]

=KjetilK;13223454]It is very hard to discuss on this board. People keep changing tactics. I replied to a specific claim, made by steve b, that you need to be in communion with Rome to be Catholic. I have shown that this is not the case, even by Roman Catholic standards. Therefore steve b cannot say that I’m not Catholic purely on the basis of my non-communion with Rome.

To be honest, Father, after being here for a number of years, and for many threads and posts, perhaps the one issue that one can’t dialogue about is triumphalism. There are Catholics that are triumphalist. There are Independent Fundamentalist Baptists that are, and there are even some Lutherans that are.
Frankly, if steve b wants to claim that only those in communion with the Bishop of Rome are Catholic, he’s welcome to. Then again, there are some protestants that claim we are too Catholic. In both cases, it is really irrelevant to the fact that we are.

Jon

 

[bobnj]

Denominationalism is Prortestantism. It’s a 100% manmade endeavor, it’s not Divinely instituted, and regardless of stripe, is one of the Great Heresiesin history

Edward T. Oakes S.J. - Are Protestants Heretics?

firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2007/12/who-are-you-calling-a-heretic

 

[ComplineSanFran]

To be honest, Father, after being here for a number of years, and for many threads and posts, perhaps the one issue that one can’t dialogue about is triumphalism. There are Catholics that are triumphalist. There are Independent Fundamentalist Baptists that are, and there are even some Lutherans that are.
Frankly, if steve b wants to claim that only those in communion with the Bishop of Rome are Catholic, he’s welcome to. Then again, there are some protestants that claim we are too Catholic. In both cases, it is really irrelevant to the fact that we are.

Jon

Well put, Jon. I believe people could go back and forth for years and not understand each other’s perspective and teachings. It really IS irrelevant. And I’m grateful, in a sense, that it is.

 

[KjetilK]

The Orthodox aren’t Catholic nor are they the Catholic Church.

Your own catechism disagrees. It says that each particular Church is Catholic. And a particular Church is any Church - in or out of communion with Rome - which possess “apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist,” as we see in Dominus Iesus, §17 and Communionis notio, § 17.

Of course you are free to be ‘more Catholic than the Pope,’ but you cannot claim to represent Roman Catholic teaching.

 

[Elizium23]

Your own catechism disagrees. It says that each particular Church is Catholic. And a particular Church is any Church - in or out of communion with Rome - which possess “apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist,” as we see in Dominus Iesus, §17 and Communionis notio, § 17.

Of course you are free to be ‘more Catholic than the Pope,’ but you cannot claim to represent Roman Catholic teaching.

Apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist according to Catholic teaching, not to be self-determined by whatever sect broke off and wants to remain relevant.

And the Catechism does not say that “all particular Churches” are Catholic, it says,

834 Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome “which presides in charity.” “For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord.” Indeed, “from the incarnate Word’s descent to us, all Christian churches everywhere have held and hold the great Church that is here [at Rome] to be their only basis and foundation since, according to the Savior’s promise, the gates of hell have never prevailed against her.”

Therefore only those in FULL COMMUNION with the Holy See are deemed Catholic by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does not apply this label even to the Orthodox. See, for example, Canon Law:

Can. 216 Since they share the Church’s mission, all Christ’s faithful have the right to promote and support apostolic action, by their own initiative, undertaken according to their state and condition. No initiative, however, can lay claim to the title ‘catholic’ without the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority.

Can. 923 Christ’s faithful may participate in the eucharistic Sacrifice and receive holy communion in any catholic rite, without prejudice to the provisions of can. 844.

Can. 1248 §1 The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a catholic rite either on a holyday itself or on the evening of the previous day.

Canon 923 and 1248 have of course been interpreted to mean that one may attend Mass/Divine Liturgy in any of the 24 sui iuris Catholic Churches, since this is the meaning of “any catholic rite” in Canon Law. Attending on a Sunday at an Eastern Orthodox or “Church of Norway” liturgy would in no way count toward your obligation because, guess what? Those liturgies are NOT CATHOLIC.

Of course the Eastern Orthodox claim the title “Catholic” for themselves. It is in the official name of the “Orthodox Catholic Church”. The Catholic Church understands this in the broader sense that “catholic” means “universal” but at the same time does not accept outsiders’ claims to true Catholic identity or communion.

 

[steve_b]

Frankly, if steve b wants to claim that only those in communion with the Bishop of Rome are Catholic, he’s welcome to. Then again, there are some protestants that claim we are too Catholic. In both cases, it is really irrelevant to the fact that we are.

Jon

I see, relativism and indifferentism is alive and well in your answer

 

[steve_b]

Edward T. Oakes S.J. - Are Protestants Heretics?

firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2007/12/who-are-you-calling-a-heretic

excerpts from that article taken in parts separated by (…)

;
"First of all, I wish to stress that I am not trying to ban the word heresy by Catholics when speaking of Protestants out of some wishy-washy ecumenical latitudinarianism, as if dogmas are merely matters of opinion without objective truth value of their own. Nor I am denying that there are genuine doctrinal disputes that have become church-dividing. I have no doubt that the prospect of eventual ecclesial unity can only be achieved when, among other milestones, consensus is reached about the dogmas that separate Christians.
So, in a way, *heresy *can be the appropriate word to use to describe dogmatic disputation but only provided one first gives priority to its etymological meaning, which comes from the Greek word for “choice.” …

But, as I said above, that’s not my point, nor -]I am/-] am I calling Catholics of a conservative bent to ease up on the word…

Having afflicted readers with these night-musings, I wish I could come up with a term that Catholics could use when they want to speak of the church-dividing doctrines of classical Protestantism without having to be either insulting or falling to the trap of “anything goes” latitudinarianism. But I can’t. …

Another complicating matter is what goes by the name of dissent. There, too, I don’t think one is using language exactly when one calls dissenters heretics without further ado. In concrete cases, dissenters and heretics no doubt overlap and even coincide, but sometimes they don’t. Lefebvrists, for example, are clearly schismatics, and they explicitly dissent from key teachings of Vatican II. But I just don’t feel it’s accurate to call them heretics. (And I don’t say this out of any affection for that oddball bunch.) I admit, though, I can’t explain why I feel that way. I am, of course, not mitigating the damage that dissent does to church unity. Cardinal Newman called dissent a sin in one of his sermons, and I agree. But I have trouble calling all forms of dissent by the word heresy"

As you can see, I corrected a typo in the article. I corrected ( -]I am/-] to am I)

Bottomline, I don’t see the article proving what you want it to prove.

Re: Etymologically speaking and also definitionally speaking

Titus 3:10
“As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸν heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

The CCC defines heresy 2089 “*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same”

IOW, combining those two selections, (scripture + Church teaching) after one who has been validly baptised, and then embraces heresy, and refuses to change when admonished, then he/she is condemned by God, as a heretic, because of obstinately embracing and continuing in heresy,

As you can see, Those are Not my words but Paul’s.

 

[JustaServant]

Quote:

Somehow, I have a hard time believing that Jesus would have cared about all this. He doesn’t say,

“This is my body, but only if done by a valid minister with apostolic succession and with valid intent and using valid form.”

Every time I read these kinds of conversations, it seems to be about why church X has valid this and valid that and therefore really has Jesus whereas church Y doesn’t have Jesus (even if they think they do) because they don’t have valid ministers and valid forms, etc. It’s an argument about who’s better than whom, who’s in and who’s out.

thanks-- this is certainly a good summation- of the counsal of TRENT – decision -on a 125 reasons – but

in my experience – from the 1960 and the charismatic movement-- it is easy to find a catholic church or a protestant church – that fits the description of what saint paul wrote to timothy

2 Timothy 3:5

King James Bible
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
holding to the form of godliness but denying its power. Avoid these people!

International Standard Version
They will hold to an outward form of godliness but deny its power. Stay away from such people.

NET Bible
They will maintain the outward appearance of religion but will have repudiated its power. So avoid people like these.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Who have a form of God-worship and are far from his power; remove from you those who are such.

GOD’S WORD® Translation
They will appear to have a godly life, but they will not let its power change them. Stay away from such people.

New American Standard 1977
holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; and avoid such men as these.

Jubilee Bible 2000
having the appearance of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

King James 2000 Bible
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

American King James Version
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

American Standard Version
holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof. From these also turn away.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid.

Hi Alvin.
You want to get a little bit more specific about what you are implying here about Catholics and our Protestant friends, or are you going to hit-and-run again?