Was Vatican II Infallible?

[una_fides]

Was Vatican II an infallible council or only an extension of the Church’s ordinary magisterium (non-infallible)? It appears Paul VI who presided over the council sides with the latter view and thus such is the mind of the pope:
“In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document” (Paul VI, General Audience of 12 January 1966).

Since the ordinary magisterium is not guaranteed by the Holy Spirit to be free from error, can the Church revoke the vague passages in Vatican II and reassert her clearer more direct approach as she has used in the past? And if so, do you think she should, and what would be the effect?

 

[jfallaw]

Was Vatican II an infallible council or only an extension of the Church’s ordinary magisterium (non-infallible)? It appears Paul VI who presided over the council sides with the latter view and thus such is the mind of the pope:
“In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document” (Paul VI, General Audience of 12 January 1966).

Since the ordinary magisterium is not guaranteed by the Holy Spirit to be free from error, can the Church revoke the vague passages in Vatican II and reassert her clearer more direct approach as she has used in the past? And if so, do you think she should, and what would be the effect?

For these things are taught with the ordinary
Magisterium, about which it is also true to say, ‘He who hears you, hears
me.’ [Lk 10. 16] --Pius XII, in Humani generis

From everything I’ve been able to learn on the matter, it was NOT infallible, but, as it was approved by Paul VI and his successors, it must be taken as a matter of faith that serious error could not have been introduced, as a pastoral council reaffirms and deepens understanding of those truths the Church has always taught. But, since the Holy Fathers have not definitively made any judgement on VII’s infallibility (as far as I know), it is still open to debate and further clarification (not by us, who are bound only to obey, but by the Magisterium.)

 

[Joysong]

Dear Una Fides,

Is it possible that you have been imbued with the errors circulating among ultra-traditionalists whose motive is to oppose the Council’s decrees? Or is this perhaps just a discussion to clarify those rumored errors?

It is well-known that John XXIII stated several times in his opening address that Vatican II is an Ecumenical Council, the 21st in Church history. Further lengthly study can be found easily in the Catholic Encyclopedia setting forth the particulars of ecumenical councils. This
has been disseminated many times, so I won’t reprint the segments here. All Ecumenical Councils are infallible. Period.

So grievous to me are those researchers of papal documents who take words out of context and use them to deny the truth. Remember our misunderstanding about a certain post’s words concerning my intended meaning, and how they were misread by you?

This is also the case with scripture and all written literature when one is not able to contact the author to learn his intent. Anyone can easily find apparent discrepancies and misunderstand the literal meaning; but in the case of those who deliberately search for ambiguities in order to undermine the authority of the Church, it is deplorable and “monstrous” (to use Gregory XVI’s word).

What is claimed by persons who distort Paul VI’s single isolated sentence is that this is the truth, rather than read his and John XXIII’s many instances where they had spoken to the contrary. I offer these examples:

At last, all which regards the holy ecumenical council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us. Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecumenical council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.
Source

**ECCLESIAE SANCTAE **
Motu Proprio Implementing Four Council Decrees
POPE PAUL VI August 6, 1966
The governing of holy Church, following the conclusion of the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council, demands indeed that new norms be established …
Source

Incidentally, this was a Motu Proprio to implement four of the Decrees. Do you believe M.P.'s are infallible? Traditionalists never fail to quote the M.P. of Benedict XVI as their infallible right to the TLM. Would they erroneously set aside other M.P.'s that they disagree with?

But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements [read his meaning of the word extraordinary as “ex Cathedra” statements, which are rare]

has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man’s conscience and activity …

Source

And this is also the way I read Paul’s words in your OP.
“In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas ** endowed with the note of infallibility”.

It would certainly be wise to have asked the Pope what his intended meaning was, rather than assume his words implied “no infallibility.”

 

[jfallaw]

Dear Una Fides,

Is it possible that you have been imbued with the errors circulating among ultra-traditionalists whose motive is to oppose the Council’s decrees? Or is this perhaps just a discussion to clarify those rumored errors?

It is well-known that John XXIII stated several times in his opening address that Vatican II is an Ecumenical Council, the 21st in Church history. Further lengthly study can be found easily in the Catholic Encyclopedia setting forth the particulars of ecumenical councils. This
has been disseminated many times, so I won’t reprint the segments here. All Ecumenical Councils are infallible. Period.

So grievous to me are those researchers of papal documents who take words out of context and use them to deny the truth. Remember our misunderstanding about a certain post’s words concerning my intended meaning, and how they were misread by you?

This is also the case with scripture and all written literature when one is not able to contact the author to learn his intent. Anyone can easily find apparent discrepancies and misunderstand the literal meaning; but in the case of those who deliberately search for ambiguities in order to undermine the authority of the Church, it is deplorable and “monstrous” (to use Gregory XVI’s word).

What is claimed by persons who distort Paul VI’s single isolated sentence is that this is the truth, rather than read his and John XXIII’s many instances where they had spoken to the contrary. I offer these examples:

Incidentally, this was a Motu Proprio to implement four of the Decrees. Do you believe M.P.'s are infallible? Traditionalists never fail to quote the M.P. of Benedict XVI as their infallible right to the TLM. Would they erroneously set aside other M.P.'s that they disagree with?

And this is also the way I read Paul’s words in your OP.
“In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas ** endowed with the note of infallibility”.

It would certainly be wise to have asked the Pope what his intended meaning was, rather than assume his words implied “no infallibility.”

I, at least, stand corrected!

 

[una_fides]

Joysong,

You cited statements by Pope John XXIII, who called the council, stating that Vatican II was to be an ecumenical as proof that it was automatically infallible. Could it be possible that this ecumenical council was the first that did not possess the charism of infallibility?

There were many factors that set Vatican II apart from every other ecumenical council before. Unlike previous general councils, Vatican II was not called together to deal with any particular issue or to settle any areas of division. It was instead called for “pastoral reasons” and to make the faith relevant to the present culture.

You focused heavily on the first part of the statement made by Paul VI, so I will re-quote it with emphasis on the latter:

“In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.”

The ordinary magisterium is quite different than what every other ecumenical council had invoked prior to Vatican II. If you can cite me a pope that said the council had infallibility or that any council that the Church will ever call together and label as ecumenical will ipso facto be infallible, then your case will be set; otherwise, I think we have to defer to the pope who presided over the council. It appears you think that pope to have a faulty understanding of the same council he gave his approval to, which would have been needed to make it infallible in the first place. If when he accepted the council, he made it infallible by his manifest will, then he either later was trying to deceive people into thinking it was only a teaching of the ordinary magisterium or he was mistaken the whole time. Also it is my understanding that the degree to which the pope manifests his will in accepting a council is the degree to which it is an extent of the Church’s authority to bind.

 

[Joysong]

You focused heavily on the first part of the statement made by Paul VI, so I will re-quote it with emphasis on the latter:

“In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.”

And I will quote it a third way:

In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document."

I assume you did not study the C.E.'s explanation of Ecumenical Councils, so it is fruitless to discuss their nature without your having an understanding. Let’s simply say that the “nature and aims of each document” have the intention of binding the faithful, rather than a general magisterial gathering to dispense its deliberations as a homiletic exercise. Were that the case, the bishops could simply have printed their pastoral “homilies” and would not have taken a vote, nor would they need the final approbation of the Supreme Pontiff.

But we know they DID vote, and each decree WAS promulgated by the Pope. Here’s the required statement whenever the Pope intends to bind the faithful, that is found is on all the documents.

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM

SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

Each and all these items which are set forth in this dogmatic Constitution have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God.

Do you honestly believe the word “dogmatic” means “pastoral”?

 

[una_fides]

Also let me clarify my intention which Joysong called into question. I am not posting this thread because I believe Vatican II to be in error. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied (as some liberals attempt to do) that Vatican II has been misinterpreted and has not been properly implemented. My position is that the problem with Vatican II rests not in the teachings themselves but in the vague wording and nature of the documents as being “pastoral” in nature. Liberals have ran wild with Vatican II and “the spirit of Vatican II” in order to promote their anti-Catholic agenda in trying to turn the Church into anything and everything that she is not. The Church is tradition, not innovation.

I think the key regardless of whether it was or was not infallible is that Vatican II as a council of the same 2000 year old Church absolutely must be interpreted according to the Church’s established tradition. What tends to happen among liberals is that they will try to pit V2’s teachings against past infallible teachings of the Church. Something that is true one day cannot become error the next. Thus, Vatican II can only be properly understood when interpreted according to the context of tradition.

 

[maurin]

Dear Una Fides,

Is it possible that you have been imbued with the errors circulating among ultra-traditionalists whose motive is to oppose the Council’s decrees? Or is this perhaps just a discussion to clarify those rumored errors?

It is absolutely impossible, because the only “Catholics” who reject the Council and its decrees are the same “Catholics” who reject the last 5 Papacies.

Let’s clear it up right now, Joysong. Traditionalists accept the Council as legitimate and as having authority. It is an insult to us who love our Popes and our Church to be portrayed as those “whose motive is to oppose the Council’s decrees.”

We simply reject the so-called “spirit of the Council” which has led to such divisions in the Church.

I must, however, ask: Is it possible that you have been imbued with the errors circulating among the liberal modernists whose motive it is to dilute the 2000 year old Traditions of the Church in the name of the so-called “spirit of Vatican II? and false ecumencism” in order to make the Faith more pleasing to those who departed from It centuries ago?

Pope Paul’s quote in the OP should be clear enough for you: the purpose of the Council was not to declare any new Dogmas or Doctrines, which are declared infallibly.

However, we, as faithful Catholics, are bound by the Council’s Teachings, as we are bound to observe the fasting days (which can be changed), the Eucharistic fast (which can be changed) and a plethora of other disciplines and non-dogmatic or doctrinal teachings.

 

[una_fides]

I assume you did not study the C.E.'s explanation of Ecumenical Councils, so it is fruitless to discuss their nature without your having an understanding.

I’m afraid your assumption is without merit. Just because I do not agree with you does not mean I am not familiar with the Catholic Encyclopedia’s contents on this matter (which I am) nor does the fact that my understanding differs from yours in any way imply that I disagree with the CE.
newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm
The CE’s explanation does not cite or reference a council that sets out to be pastoral in nature, and as cannot be denied, V2 was quite different in nature and content than every ecumenical council in the history of the Church. The CE also explains, “it is the sense of the unchanging Church that is infallible.” Truth is unchanging. Meditate on that fact. What the Church has always believed and taught universally as dogma cannot be somehow undone by improperly interpreting V2.

Let’s simply say that the “nature and aims of each document” have the intention of binding the faithful, rather than a general magisterial gathering to dispense its deliberations as a homiletic exercise. Were that the case, the bishops could simply have printed their pastoral “homilies” and would not have taken a vote, nor would they need the final approbation of the Supreme Pontiff.

By your referencing homilies in comparison with a council makes me wonder (but not assume to the negative ) whether you fully understand what ordinary magisterium means. The Church has the intention to bind the faithful to her laws and other norms as well, but these laws and norms can change and are not infallible by nature. Since Paul VI made it clear that the council did not make any new infallible definitions, then anything dogmatic in the Council is referring to those dogmas already defined and being re-explained and re-applied to modern times. From this understanding, we can conclude that what V2 reiterated from previous dogmatic definitions was in fact infallible; otherwise, it is an extension of the ordinary magisterium, and as such we should obey, but that does not mean the teachings themselves are beyond reform. And by their vague nature, clarification according to the Church’s traditional understanding on several issues is very necessary given the current state of crisis in the Church.

 

[Joysong]

maurin:

It is absolutely impossible, because the only “Catholics” who reject the Council and its decrees are the same “Catholics” who reject the last 5 Papacies.

That is not true in any way, my friend, Maurin. With a single trip to Catholicculture.org for a site review of certain websites marked “danger,” you will quickly see that there are many traditionalists who are not “sedevantist” (i.e., reject the last 5 papacies) but who reject the Novus Ordo Mass and Vatican II documents. It was this type of traditionalist that I was referring to … certainly NOT the loyal, devout, obedient traditionalist for whom I have the deepest respect and fraternity.
The list is long, and you would be surprised to note that these sites are frequently quoted here in the T.C. forum.

Examples:
catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=3155
catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=116&repos=2&subrepos=0&searchid=363765
catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=3026&repos=2&subrepos=0&searchid=363487
catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=3502&repos=2&subrepos=0&searchid=363484
catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=1915&repos=2&subrepos=0&searchid=363497
catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=3455&repos=2&subrepos=0&searchid=366146

Let’s clear it up right now, Joysong. Traditionalists accept the Council as legitimate and as having authority. It is an insult to us who love our Popes and our Church to be portrayed as those “whose motive is to oppose the Council’s decrees.”

As you can observe from the links I provided, I am of no different opinion than Catholicculture who prudently investigates these sites to safeguard the faith of the loyal traditionalist who may be harmed by the information dispensed in them. It in NO way insults you and others who are practicing their faith, and I don’t think you can honestly read that into my words, Maurin. I never implied that whatsoever when I used the term “ULTRA-traditionalists.”

I must, however, ask: Is it possible that you have been imbued with the errors circulating among the liberal modernists whose motive it is to dilute the 2000 year old Traditions of the Church in the name of the so-called “spirit of Vatican II? and false ecumencism” in order to make the Faith more pleasing to those who departed from It centuries ago?

I understand this comment to be your defense mechanism from a wounded spirit, so I forgive the lack of charity in your judgment. Believe what you will.

Carole

 

[Joysong]

Una Fides,

Now that you have informed us of your “clarified position” it tells me that we are not in agreement and I see no purpose in entering a document war, for you are firm in your opinion, as I am in mine. You bear full responsibility, spiritually, for whatever truths or errors you circulate.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Firstly, Catholics are not supposed to ask if something is infallible in order to determine if they will accept it. We are required to submit to all that the Church teaches, whether this be an infallibly defined dogma, or an act of the ordinary magisterium. Pope Pius XII discusses this point in Humani Generis.

The question is, since Vatican II defined no dogmas, and was therefore only infallible when it repeated what the Church has already defined (or at lest what the Church had always taught), is it theoretically possible that it taught error by deviating from what the Church has always taught? Is it possible that it taught, for example, what the Syllabus and a string of Popes formally condemned? Is it possible that God would permit such a thing for good and just reasons (such as for a punishment for sins). And lastly, is it possible that these erroneous points be stricken from the council at some point?

What no one can deny about Vatican II is that it has produce rotten fruits from the very beginning. If it does not in fact teach formally condemned errors, just about everyone who reads it concludes that it does; that is to say, just about everyone who reads Vatican II ends by believing what the Church has formally condemned.

And it is not just the laity who “interpret” it this way. The very Bishops who drew up the documents and who voted on them interpret them as teaching what was formally condemned.

And what’s more, after the council these same Bishops and peritus admitted that Vatican II taught what the Syllabus formally condemned. But for them it was not a problem since Liberals and Modernists believe in “evolution of doctrine” - another formally condemned error. They mistakenly believe, not only that dogmas should be reformulated in an “updated” manner, but that formally condemned errors can suddenly become true and good. Due to the destructive “intellectual cancer” of modernism, the have no problem in adhering to formally condemned error!

These same men went so far as to say that Vatican II was the French Revolution in the Church, as if this was a good thing! The French Revolution was a Masonic Revolution against the Church. It was the French Revolution that brought the separation of Church and state, or the “agnosticizing” of the State. It brought about a “new world order” in that it was a new ordering of the world. No longer was the State to be subordinate to the Church, and to reflect the laws of God as had always been taught, but rather completely separated from it. The “altar and throne” were desroyed and replaced with the illusion of “the will of the people”. The Christian state became the agnostic state, with all of its ill effects. The Syllabus was a formal condemnation of many of the error that came from the French Revolution.

Yet Cardinal Ratzinger himself taught that Vatican II was a “counter-syllabus”, in that it taught as true and good what the Syllabus condemned. He said it was a reconciliation between the Church and the “new world order” brought about by the French Revolution.

Cardinal Ratzinger:** "If one is looking for a global diagnosis of the text [of Gaudium et spes], one could say that it (along with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter-Syllabus **…

[F]irst in central Europe, conditioned by the situation, the unilateral dependence on the positions taken by the Church through** the initiatives of Pius IX and Pius X against the new period of History opened by the French Revolution was to a large extent corrected** via facti. But a fundamental new document regarding relations with the world as it had been since 1789 [the time of the Masonic French Revolution] was still lacking.

In reality, the mentality that preceded the revolution still reigned in the countries with strong Catholic majorities [thankfully]; today almost no one denies that the Spanish and Italian concordats [accords between Church and State] tried to conserve too many things from a conception of the world that for a long time had not corresponded to reality. Likewise, almost no one can deny that this dependence on an obsolete conception of relations between the Church and State was matched by similar anachronisms in the domain of education and the attitude taken toward the modern historical-critical method …

Let us content ourselves here with stating that the text [of Gaudium et spes] plays the role of a counter-Syllabus to the measure that it represents an attempt to officially reconcile the Church with the world as it had become after 1789. On one hand, this visualization alone clarifies the ghetto complex that we mentioned before. On the other hand, it permits us to understand the meaning of this new relationship between the Church and the Modern World. “World” is understood here, at depth, as the spirit of modern times. …

(Les Principes de la Theologie Catholique - Esquisse et Materiaux, Paris: Tequi, 1982, pp. 426-427).

continue

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

continuation

So, if anyone believes that Vatican II did not teach what was formally condemned as an error in the Syllabus, let them take it up with our new Pope. He realizes full well that Vatican II taught what was formally condemned. And let it be said that these errors were not only condemned in the Syllabus. The “modern errors” that arose out of the new “mentality” were condemned repeatedly by a number of Pope, from Gregory XVI in 1832, to Pius X in 1910 - when the errors were pushed underground through the efforts of this sainted Pope. At Vatican II, however, the heretics and their errors emerged once again, this time not to a Pope who condemned them, but to a Pope who said (at the opening speech of Vatican II), that the Church would no longer condemn error, but would use the “medicine of mercy”. We see how well that worked.

I’ll end here with a quote from the Vatican II peritus Yves Congar.

Yves Congar: "It cannot be denied that the affirmation of religious liberty by Vatican II says materially something other than what the Syllabus of 1864 said, and even just about the opposite of propositions 16, 17 and 19 of this document.”

Catholics are now left with a choice. They can believe what Vatican II taught, as interpreted by our new Pope and just about everyone else, and thereby adhere to formally condemned errors; or they can believe what the Church has always taught. Or, they might be able to find a way to interpret the ambiguities of Vatican II in such a way that it agrees with what the Church has always taught. But to do the later, you need to first study and learn what the Church has always taught.

My opinion is that Vatican II was a very just punishment from God. He has allowed the Church to suffer in the past, and He is allowing it to suffer now. In the end, however, He will bring good out of it… but which of us will still have the TRUE faith when that happens? And which of us will have fully embraced formally condemned errors simply because most of our leaders teach them? I think that most will be unable to resist the temptation.

And to answer the question of the OP, I think Vatican II will be condemned by the Church and tossed onto the trash can where it belongs. But that is just my opinion. Until that happens, I will simply interpret it in accord with what the Church has always taught to the extent that it is possible.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

A question came to my mind after posting the above post.

The question is this: In order to be a good and faithful Catholic today, do we have to believe as true what the Church has formally condemned as an error?

 

[Joysong]

Same old carp, Robert. Do you ever intend to quit?

 

[maurin]

That is not true in any way, my friend, Maurin. With a single trip to Catholicculture.org for a site review of certain websites marked “danger,” you will quickly see that there are many traditionalists who are not “sedevantist” (i.e., reject the last 5 papacies) but who reject the Novus Ordo Mass and Vatican II documents. It was this type of traditionalist that I was referring to … certainly NOT the loyal, devout, obedient traditionalist for whom I have the deepest respect and fraternity.
The list is long, and you would be surprised to note that these sites are frequently quoted here in the T.C. forum.

Examples:
catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=3155
catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=116&repos=2&subrepos=0&searchid=363765
catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=3026&repos=2&subrepos=0&searchid=363487
catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=3502&repos=2&subrepos=0&searchid=363484
catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=1915&repos=2&subrepos=0&searchid=363497
catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=3455&repos=2&subrepos=0&searchid=366146

As you can observe from the links I provided, I am of no different opinion than Catholicculture who prudently investigates these sites to safeguard the faith of the loyal traditionalist who may be harmed by the information dispensed in them. It in NO way insults you and others who are practicing their faith, and I don’t think you can honestly read that into my words, Maurin. I never implied that whatsoever when I used the term “ULTRA-traditionalists.”

I understand this comment to be your defense mechanism from a wounded spirit, so I forgive the lack of charity in your judgment. Believe what you will.

Carole

Please, Joysong, don’t understand my comment as a defense mechanism from a wounded spirit–it was as sincere a question as yours. And there is certainly no need for you to forgive the same sense of charity in my question which was as present in and modeled on the same question you asked above. Unless of course you are apologizing for your poor choice of phrasing? Maybe this is why one reads something other than what you intended in some of your posts?

However, I do appreciate your clarification. There certainly are many wolves to be found wearing sheep’s clothing.

I did notice that you haven’t responded to the difference between infallible dogma and disciplines which bind us until/unless they are changed.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Same old carp, Robert. Do you ever intend to quit?

Was that post to me? If so, why not respond to what I wrote. Do you believe, as did Cardinal Ratzinger and Yves Congar, that Vatican II taught the contrary of the Syllabus. In other words, do you believe as they do that Vatican II taught what was formally conemned as an error?

Or will you try to twist their words to mean something other than what they say?

 

[maurin]

Same old carp, Robert. Do you ever intend to quit?

Joysong,

One might think that you are tolerant of all things–except the Traditional understanding of the Faith.

It is quite clear from your myriad of posts that you have a wide ranging and quite a variety of experiences. One would think that you have lived almost 100 years in order to be so familiar with such a diversity of viewpoints.

But we’ll accept this comment above as your defense mechanism from a wounded spirit, and I am sure that Robert will forgive your lack of charity out of love and in the spirit of the increase of Faith, Hope and Charity he prays for with every Rosary prayed.

 

[Joysong]

Maurin,

We have been friends for many months, and I know your name isn’t Robert. Obviously, this was not directed to you, and the person in question knows exactly who I meant.

 

[maurin]

Maurin,

We have been friends for many months, and I know your name isn’t Robert. Obviously, this was not directed to you, and the person in question knows exactly who I meant.

Joysong, we have been acquaintances for many months, and I know that your post wasn’t directed to me-- however this is an example of what I previously posted as a possibility of why one may read into your posts what you haven’t intended. Is it possible that you had chosen an unfortunate ‘turn of phrase?’