St. Robert Bellarmine and the Pope-Heretic Question

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Pax et Caritas,

The heretic Bishop in question here; he is not occult. If he was occult, NOBODY would know it.

You are using the term “occult heretic” erroneuosly.

SFD

I haven’t been following the thread too closely so mabye I did not understand exactly what ya’ll were talking about. My point was, it looked like mgrfin was saying that an occult heretic does retain jurisdiction, which is exactly contrary to what he said before.

BTW, did you notice the new thread I started which was direct to the Sedevacantists? I’m waiting to see how they will answer the questions posed, which (given their position) they should be able to answer very easily.

 

[SFD]

What is the justification of disparaging a pope by ‘reducing him’ to a non-papal status. This is an impossibility. As a matter of fact, an heretic bishop does not lose the power of his office, as St. Robert says. He can still consecrate other bishops, ordain priests validly. So can fallen priests, either in personal serious sin, or even heresy, he can validly say the Mass, etc. St. Robert said ‘no’, but he was wrong.

You are confusing valid orders with jurisdiction. They are not the same thing.

Yes, he can validly do these things; but he CANNOT licitly do these things. He does them OUTSIDE the communion of the Church.

A public heretic is outside the Church by definition. He cannot HOLD OFFICE IN HER because HE IS NOT A MEMBER of the Church.
Catholic Encyclopedia:

The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

VII. VINDICATION OF THEIR TEACHING
The first law of life, be it the life of plant or animal, of man or of a society of men, is self-preservation. Neglect of self-preservation leads to ruin and destruction. But the life of a religious society, the tissue that binds its members into one body and animates them with one soul, is the symbol of faith, the creed or confession adhered to as a condition sine qua non of membership. To undo the creed is to undo the Church. The integrity of the rule of faith is more essential to the cohesion of a religious society than the strict practice of its moral precepts. For faith supplies the means of mending moral delinquencies as one of its ordinary functions, whereas the loss of faith, cutting at the root of spiritual life, is usually fatal to the soul. In fact the long list of heresiarchs contains the name of only one who came to resipiscence: Berengarius. The jealousy with which the Church guards and defends her deposit of faith is therefore identical with the instinctive duty of self-preservation and the desire to live. This instinct is by no means peculiar to the Catholic Church; being natural it is universal. All sects, denominations, confessions, schools of thought, and associations of any kind have a more or less comprehensive set of tenets on the acceptance of which membership depends. In the Catholic Church this natural law has received the sanction of Divine promulgation, as appears from the teaching of Christ and the Apostles quoted above. Freedom of thought extending to the essential beliefs of a Church is in itself a contradiction; for, by accepting membership, the members accept the essential beliefs and renounce their freedom of thought so far as these are concerned.

But what authority is to lay down the law as to what is or is not essential? It is certainly not the authority of individuals. By entering a society, whichever it be, the individual gives up part of his individuality to be merged into the community. And that part is precisely his private judgment on the essentials: if he resumes his liberty he ipso facto separates himself from his church. The decision, therefore, rests with the constitutional authority of the society–in the Church with the hierarchy acting as teacher and guardian of the faith. Nor can it be said that this principle unduly curtails the play of human reason. That it does curtail its play is a fact, but a fact grounded in natural and Divine law, as shown above. That it does not curtail reason unduly is evidenced by this other fact: that the deposit of faith (1) is itself an inexhaustible object of intellectual effort of the noblest kind, lifting human reason above its natural sphere, enlarging and deepening its outlook, soliciting its finest faculties; (2) that, side by side with the deposit, but logically connected with it, there is a multitude of doubtful points of which discussion is free within the wide bounds of charity–“in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus charitas.” The substitution of private judgment for the teaching 915006b.htm">magisterium has been the dissolvent of all sects who have adopted it. Only those sects exhibit a certain consistency in which private judgment is a dead letter and the teaching is carried on according to confessions and catechisms by a trained clergy.

mgrfin,

YOUR understanding of heresy is opposed to that of the Church…as the above CE quotes show.

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

St. Robert is not implying that his personal sin is what would hinder the sacrament. He is saying that the person would lack the ecclesial jurisdiction to do such things, which would indeed effect the validity of at least some of the sacraments (unless there was an emergency situation).

What he said it true: manifest heretics do not possess ecclesial jurisdiction, since they are separated from the Church; and ecclesial jurisdiction is necessary for them to administer the sacraments legally, and sometimes validly.

You are accusing the Pope of a canonical crime. The Pope cannot be subject to a canonical crime. And even if he were, he would be entitled, like any other ecclesiatic to a canonical trial. He couldn’t lose his office latae sententiae, even if he could be guilty of a canonical crime.

And the burden of proof rests upon the person who makes the allegation, for that is all it is, an allegation. You cannot lose an ecclesiatical office by allegation. Canon 1526

Moreover, the Holy Father is not subject canonical penalties. He is above the Canon Law of the Church.

If you believe otherwise, please quote to me from the Code where this is proven.

Once ordained or consecrated, a priest or bishop can always act validly, maybe not licitly. Again, such would not afffect the validity. Belarmine is wrong on this.

peace

 

[SFD]

Bp. Gasser is refuting the objection “w**e wish to make the extreme opinion of a certain school of theology a dogma of Catholic faith.” He does this by asserting that Pighius’ opinion is not “extreme”, as his detractors assert, but shared by such a great authority as Bellarmine, and called certain.

He begins by referring to Bellarmine because the French clergy (incorrectly) cite Bellarmine as the authority for their dissenting views regarding the draft to Pastor Aeternus. He quickly dismisses the “things that are said about the opinion of Bellarmine,” by the French clergy as untenable.

Bp. Gasser then states, “As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused…” But why are they unjustly accused? At this point you expect him to cite the Draft of Pastor Aeternus to defend his case, but he doesn’t. What does he do instead? Instead of referring back to the words written in the Draft, he refers to the opinion of Pighius being affirmed by Bellarmine, showing that it was not an “extreme” opinion as the French clergy asserted.

Gasser explained, “*…the Deputation is unjustly accused…*For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy…this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine.” So the ONLY reason cited by Gasser for being unjustly accused was not something from the Draft, but that it was not an “extreme” opinon but what Bellarmine himself defended.

He has not mentioned anything about the teaching presented in the Draft of Pastor Aeternus in his defense. At this point he has ONLY refuted the notion that the opinion was “extreme.”

After citing the opinion of Bellarmine, Gasser drew his conclusion directly from Bellarmine’s teaching in bk. 4, ch. 6. This is clear from the beginning of his next sentence: “**From this, it appears…”

**Notice that he is now drawing his conclusion, not based upon citations from the Draft, but ONLY based upon Bellarmine’s teaching, thereby showing that it was not simply an “extreme” opinion, not JUST Pighius’, not JUST one theological school, but also the conclusion proved by Bellarmine himself in bk. 4, ch. 6.

Bp. Gasser’s conclusion in full is:
Is it your thesis that what Gasser means by stating "Bellermine adduces in the fourth place" is not referring to a text written by Bellarmine, but instead is the Draft of Pastor Aeternus?

To me it seems clear that whatever the “fourth place” means, it MUST be something that Bellarmine authored himself and where he “adduces” (ie. proves), and in that “fourth place,” as Gasser confirms, Bellaermine “correct himself.” It this fourth place is indeed referring to the fourth session of Vatican I, please explain how it is Bellarmine who “adduces” and how in the “fourth place” he “corrects himself.”’

Since Gasser prefaces the entire sentence with “From this…” I can only conclude that he is speaking about what immediately preceded it. If so, then what Bellarmine “adduces” (proves) in the “fourth place” must either be referring to a text of Bellarmines’ own making, either the one “cited by the reverend speaking” or the one cited by Gasser, De pontifice Romano, bk 4. ch. 6, as these were the only things spoken of immediately preceding Gasser’s preface, “From this…”

As I understand it, the bk 4 ch 6 of De pontifice romano is the place where Bellarmine “adduces” (proves) the opinion just referred to by Gasser, as is seen from the chapter title: “De pontifice ut* est particu*laris quaedam persona.”

Dave,

This is incorrect. Give me some time to sort through what you wrote so I can respond to each point properly.

Do you have the full text of Chapter IV of Vatican I on Papal Infallibility that contains the relatio?

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

I figured you did. But if St. Robert is right [and I think he is], then it is impossible for the duly elected pope to teach heresy or promulgate universal discipline which is dangerous to the faith. If this is the case, then the dispute over whether a pope is duly elected ought to be based upon history before and after the election of Cardinal Roncalli, using principles common to the study of history. It should not be based upon an a priori and subjective conclusion of the orthodoxy or heterodoxy of what he taught well after his election was universally accepted, since this is the ultimate question under dispute. ."

DAVE:

Okay, let’s get down to specifics. The name of Angelo Cardinal Roncalli has been mentioned in your post.

A very large litho of the good Cardinal as John XXIII hangs in my study.

Somebody is accuing him of heresy? Really?

And what heresy is that? What did he say that was heretical?

And, we don’t have to wait for a Pope’s election to be accepted worldwide. When we accepts the Office in the Conclave, he is then pope.

When the Cardinal delegate announces on the balcony of St. Peter’s, “Habemus Papam” it is already over. He was Pope before this.

Okay, I would like to hear the heresy of Cardinal Roncali, or John XXIII?

peace

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

You are accusing the Pope of a canonical crime. The Pope cannot be subject to a canonical crime. And even if he were, he would be entitled, like any other ecclesiatic to a canonical trial. He couldn’t lose his office latae sententiae, even if he could be guilty of a canonical crime.

And the burden of proof rests upon the person who makes the allegation, for that is all it is, an allegation. You cannot lose an ecclesiatical office by allegation. Canon 1526

Moreover, the Holy Father is not subject canonical penalties. He is above the Canon Law of the Church.

If you believe otherwise, please quote to me from the Code where this is proven.

Once ordained or consecrated, a priest or bishop can always act validly, maybe not licitly. Again, such would not afffect the validity. Belarmine is wrong on this.

peace

Firstly, I have no idea what you are talking about since I didn’t accuse the Pope of anything.

Secondly, regarding the underlined sentence above, a Priest or Bishop requires jurisdiction to validly absolve. If he doesn’t have jurisdiction, the absolution is not valid.

 

[mgrfin]

Firstly, I have no idea what you are talking about since I didn’t accuse the Pope of anything.

Secondly, regarding the underlined sentence above, a Priest or Bishop requires jurisdiction to validly absolve. If he doesn’t have jurisdiction, the absolution is not valid.

You are incorrect. A priest or bishop requires jurisdiction to absolve LICITLY. His absolution is VALID however.

Refer to canon 976, concerning absolution in danger of death. Any priest or bishop can absolve a dying person regardless of the bishop’s or priest’s crime. Regardless of the crime! If a pope doesn’t like a canonical law or penalty, he can change it, or abrogate it - he is over the law! There is not one canon in Canon Law which restricts or constrains the Holy Father.

Heretical bishops and priests operate constantly in the external forum. Their acts of episcopal consecration, and priestly ordination, and the Sacrifice of the Mass, and conferral of other sacraments are VALID, even though illicit.

That is why the controversy concerning the Holy Father is nonsense. He loses no power of his Office, regardless of his personal sins.

Also, the reason for this is that the Sacrament of Orders confers an ‘indelible mark’ on the soul of the ordinand. The power conferred comes by virtue of the Sacrament of Orders, not Canon Law.

So, we rightly say: “Tu es sacerdos in aeterum”.

peace

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

You are incorrect. A priest or bishop requires jurisdiction to absolve LICITLY. His absolution is VALID however.

Wrong again. Jurisdiction is required for the Priest to absolve, not only licitly, but also validly. If you claim to ahve a degree in theology, surely you must know that.

Refer to canon 976, concerning absolution in danger of death. Any priest or bishop can absolve a dying person regardless of the bishop’s or priest’s crime. Regardless of the crime! If a pope doesn’t like a canonical law or penalty, he can change it, or abrogate it - he is over the law!

By saying a Priest without normal jurisdiction can absolve in an emergency situation is to argue by way of exception. The general laws is that normal jurisdiction is required.

Jurisdiction is required either way, but in an emergency situation the Church supplies jurisdiction. In normal situations jurisdiction must be delegated by the bishop in order for a Priest to absolve validly. In the case of an emergency the Church supplies the jurisdiction (ecclesia supplet).

That is why the controversy concerning the Holy Father is nonsense. He loses no power of his Office, regardless of his personal sins.

I’m not arguing on the SV side, since I am not a Sedevacantist. However, personal sinfulness is different that heresy. Public heresy places a person outside of the Church, while moral sinfulness only removes sanctifying grace. Mortal sin does not nullify the validity of the sacraments, but being a heretic and outside of the Church can with some sacraments, since some sacraments required jurisdiction for validity.

Also, the reason for this is that the Sacrament of Orders confers an ‘indelible mark’ on the soul of the ordinand. The power conferred comes by virtue of the Sacrament of Orders, not Canon Law. So, we rightly say: “Tu es sacerdos in aeterum”.

peace

Yes, but outside of emergency situations something more than just being a Priest is required to validly absolve. It the Priest does not possess the necessary faculties, his absolution is not only illicit, it is also invalid.

 

[mgrfin]

Okay, so where are we?

Let’s wrap this thing up.

The Holy Father cannot commit a formal canonical crime of any kind, including heresy, since the Holy Father is above Canon Law. No canons constrain or restrict him. He can change the law at will, since it serves him and the Church.

The Holy Father does not stand convicted of any canonical crime. None has been put forth. If one had, there is a presumption of innocence according to Canon Law. He continues to hold his Office.

St. Robert Bellarmine and his friends were wrong. Bishops and priest can continue to exercise their office VALIDLY, although not licitly. They can continue to absolve, consecrate, bless, preach, ordain, etc. This is a question of VALIDITY, not liceity.

Finally, although the question has been asked several times, no one will tell the rest of us what sin, what crime has been committed by Pius IX, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul VI, and Benedict XVI that one should say the Chair of Peter is vacant.

That of course could not be possible that the Chair is vacant unless the Holy Father resigned or died. His election to office automatically brings the Papacy, and it is not dependent up an popular acceptance. “Habemus Papam” is enough.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Wrong again. Jurisdiction is required for the Priest to absolve, not only licitly, but also validly. If you claim to ahve a degree in theology, surely you must know that.

Jurisdiction is required either way, but in an emergency situation the Church supplies jurisdiction. In normal situations jurisdiction must be delegated by the bishop in order for a Priest to absolve validly. In the case of an emergency the Church supplies the jurisdiction (ecclesia supplet).

I’m not arguing on the SV side, since I am not a Sedevacantist. However, personal sinfulness is different that heresy. Public heresy places a person outside of the Church, while moral sinfulness only removes sanctifying grace. Mortal sin does not nullify the validity of the sacraments, but being a heretic and outside of the Church can with some sacraments, since some sacraments required jurisdiction for validity.

Operating under canon 976, they act VALIDLY AND LICITLY. Outside Canon 976, they operate VALIDLY but illicitly.

By saying a Priest without normal jurisdiction can absolve in an emergency situation is to argue by way of exception. The general laws is that normal jurisdiction is required.

Yes, but outside of emergency situations something more than just being a Priest is required to validly absolve. It the Priest does not possess the necessary faculties, his absolution is not only illicit, it is also invalid.

Operating under canon 976, they act VALIDLY AND LICITLY. Outside Canon 976, they operate VALIDLY but illicitly.

The Church can supply the jurisdiction to act licitly. But in the case where someones Ordination was invalid, by virtue, say of improper form, the Church cannot supply for lack of form

If a priest uses grape juice in place of wine, the Church cannot supply for the imperfect matter.

The power of Orders can be exercised by mere performance of the act contemplated. The priest or bishop cannot have the power of Orders one minute, and then not the next.

It should be clear to you that excommunicated bishops operate all the time. Some of these Traditionalists bishops have been consecrated outside of the authority of the Holy See.

Lapsed, fallen away, resigned priests offer the Sacrifice of the Mass daily; they absolve people of their sins. That they do it illicitly, does not mean they do it invalidly.

The power of Orders results in the Sacramental indelible mark on the priest or bishop by virtue of ordination and consecration.

Please quote me a source which says they act invalidly. Robert Bellarmine is wrong.

The sacraments operate ‘ex opere operato’. By the very performance of the act. Liceity is a matter of Canon Law only.

PS There must be lots of Sedevacantists hiding out on this site. Why is the matter so important that site after site is created to argue this. They cannot come out into the daylight. Kind of like termites, hiding in the dampness and the dark.

peace

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Okay, so where are we?

St. Robert Bellarmine and his friends were wrong. Bishops and priest can continue to exercise their office VALIDLY, although not licitly. They can continue to absolve, consecrate, bless, preach, ordain, etc. This is a question of VALIDITY, not liceity.

peace

St. Thomas Aquinas: "A twofold power is required in order to absolve from sins, namely, power of order and power of jurisdiction. The former power is equally in all priests, but not the latter. And therefore, when our Lord (John 20:23) gave all the apostles in general, the power of forgiving sins, this is to be understood of the power which results from receiving orders, wherefore these words are addressed to priests when they are ordained. But to Peter in particular He gave the power of forgiving sins (Matthew 16:19), that we may understand that he has the power of jurisdiction before the others. But the power of orders, considered in itself, extends to all who can be absolved: wherefore our Lord said indeterminately, “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them,” on the understanding that this power should be used in dependence on the power given to Peter, according to His appointment".

 

[mgrfin]

St. Thomas Aquinas: "A twofold power is required in order to absolve from sins, namely, power of order and power of jurisdiction. The former power is equally in all priests, but not the latter. And therefore, when our Lord (John 20:23) gave all the apostles in general, the power of forgiving sins, this is to be understood of the power which results from receiving orders, wherefore these words are addressed to priests when they are ordained. But to Peter in particular He gave the power of forgiving sins (Matthew 16:19), that we may understand that he has the power of jurisdiction before the others. But the power of orders, considered in itself, extends to all who can be absolved: wherefore our Lord said indeterminately, “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them,” on the understanding that this power should be used in dependence on the power given to Peter, according to His appointment".

I don’t have a reference at the moment.

Council of Trent Sess VII canon 12, however:
-If any one saith, that a minister, being in mortal sin,-if so be that he observe all the essentials which belong to the effecting, or conferring of, the sacrament,-neither effects, nor confers the sacrament; let him be anathema

Kindly provide the reference from St. Thomas: Article, question, etc.

thanks

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I don’t have a reference at the moment.

Council of Trent Sess VII canon 12, however:
-If any one saith, that a minister, being in mortal sin,-if so be that he observe all the essentials which belong to the effecting, or conferring of, the sacrament,-neither effects, nor confers the sacrament; let him be anathema

Are you reading my posts, or just skimming them? Like I said a few posts ago, I understand that mortal sin does not nullify a sacrament, but we are not talking about a Priest being in mortal sin. We are talking about jurisdiction.

Kindly provide the reference from St. Thomas: Article, question, etc.

Here’s a link to the section of the Summa: newadvent.org/summa/5020.htm

 

[mgrfin]

Are you reading my posts, or just skimming them? Like I said a few posts ago, I understand that mortal sin does not nullify a sacrament, but we are not talking about a Priest being in mortal sin. We are talking about jurisdiction.

]

You are not reading my posts. Let get charitable, like your name says.

I don’t have a reference at the moment. The best I could do was to quote Trent, saying that sin does not invalidate the administration of a sacrament.

It is not exactly what l want, but it is all I have with my limited resources. Maybe some priest or teacher out there with a Catholic moral theology textbook could chime in.

What I am saying is common teaching in the Catholic Church.

peace

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

You are not reading my posts. Let get charitable, like your name says.

I don’t have a reference at the moment. The best I could do was to quote Trent, saying that sin does not invalidate the administration of a sacrament.

Do you know why I asked if you were reading my post, or just skimming them? ** BECAUSE I HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY THAT I KNOW A PREIST BEING IN MORTAL SIN DOES NOT INVALIDATE A SACRAMENT. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT A PRIEST IN MORTAL SIN. I AM TALKING ABOUT JURISDICTION, WHICH IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUE **

If you wer reading my post you would not keep giving the same reply, which does not apply to the point I am making.

What I am saying is common teaching in the Catholic Church.

Which is why I understand it.

We are talking about jurisdiction, not mortal sin. Outside of an emergency situation, a Priest must have jurisdiction to absolve validly… not just licitly, but validly.

Here’s one more quote from St. Thomas from the same link I provided above.

St. Thomas: “But since, as stated above, the use of this power [absolution] requires jurisdiction which inferiors derive from their superiors, it follows that the superior can reserve certain matters to himself, the judgment of which he does not commit to his inferior; otherwise any simple priest who has jurisdiction can absolve from any sin”. newadvent.org/summa/5020.htm

 

[mgrfin]

Do you know why I asked if you were reading my post, or just skimming them? ** BECAUSE I HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY THAT I KNOW A PREIST BEING IN MORTAL SIN DOES NOT INVALIDATE A SACRAMENT. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT A PRIEST IN MORTAL SIN. I AM TALKING ABOUT JURISDICTION, WHICH IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUE**

If you wer reading my post you would not keep giving the same reply, which does not apply to the point I am making.

Which is why I understand it.

We are talking about jurisdiction, not mortal sin. Outside of an emergency situation, a Priest must have jurisdiction to absolve validly… not just licitly, but validly.

Here’s one more quote from St. Thomas from the same link I provided above.

St. Thomas: "But since, as stated above, the use of this power [absolution] requires jurisdiction which inferiors derive from their superiors, it follows that the superior can reserve certain matters to himself, the judgment of which he does not commit to his inferior; otherwise any simple priest who has jurisdiction can absolve from any sin". newadvent.org/summa/5020.htm

St. Thomas Aquinas is speaking in the 13th Century. I haver already read the quote you are referring to.

There is no need to shout at me. I can read.

Check out the number of apostate bishops there are, including Sedevacantists. How many Traditionalist bishops who ordained illicitly but validly.

The Catholic Church would hold their ordinations and consecrations to be valid.

The whole issue of Anglican orders has to do with the validity of their priesthood - that is that the proper matter and form of ordination was used.

Everyone agrees that Anglican orders are illicit - they were done without jurisdiction. The issue with them was were the Orders valid. Even though they were in schism, their orders could have been valid.

Leo XIII argued that their Orders were invalid because of a problem with the Matter and Form of the Sacrament. Not because they did not have the proper delegation, which they did not.

A number of Anglicans have had themselves consecrated or ordained by Old Polish Catholic bishops who are in schism. These consecrations and ordinations are certainly illicit, but they certainly are valid.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Okay, the next issue:

The Holy Father cannot commit a formal canonical crime of any kind, including heresy, since the Holy Father is above Canon Law. No canons constrain or restrict him. He can change the law at will, since it serves him and the Church.

The Holy Father does not stand convicted of any canonical crime. None has been put forth. If one had, there is a presumption of innocence according to Canon Law. He continues to hold his Office.

peace

 

[VARC]

St. Thomas Aquinas is speaking in the 13th Century. I haver already read the quote you are referring to.

There is no need to shout at me. I can read.

Check out the number of apostate bishops there are, including Sedevacantists. How many Traditionalist bishops who ordained illicitly but validly.

The Catholic Church would hold their ordinations and consecrations to be valid.

The whole issue of Anglican orders has to do with the validity of their priesthood - that is that the proper matter and form of ordination was used.

Everyone agrees that Anglican orders are illicit - they were done without jurisdiction. The issue with them was were the Orders valid. Even though they were in schism, their orders could have been valid.

Leo XIII argued that their Orders were invalid because of a problem with the Matter and Form of the Sacrament. Not because they did not have the proper delegation, which they did not.

A number of Anglicans have had themselves consecrated or ordained by Old Polish Catholic bishops who are in schism. These consecrations and ordinations are certainly illicit, but they certainly are valid.

peace

I don’t think your reading Pax’s posts very carefully. You’re way out in left field.

 

[mgrfin]

I don’t think your reading Pax’s posts very carefully. You’re way out in left field.

Obviously you are wrong. I am spot on.

peace

 

[VARC]

Obviously you are wrong. I am spot on.

peace

No you are not. Pax is discussing jurisdiction and you quoted Trent refering to mortal sin. You are fighting a straw man that you created.