Catholic Canons of the Eucharist

[broach972]

Let's start over shall we.

The doctrinal pronouncements of the Council of Trent have not been overturned.  They are very much the doctrines of the Church today.  The reason for the council was to reaffirm what the Church has always known and believed for the past 2000 years.  Doctrines established by ecumenical councils are rarely overturned.  That is why the doctrines of the Church have stood for 2000 years.

Now that I have established this...what is the argument that you are trying to make based on this information?  In other words, what is your issue with the Tridentine edicts?  Granted, you may not agree with the doctrines which came out of the council...that is a given.  But what else bugs you?

Nope that is just what I was trying to establish.

Again thank you for clearing this up and validating my point after pages of pointless and frustrating quibbling.

No problem...anytime.

[broach972]

First of all, you just established that everything Harold has argued is voided of truth. And, you have just established that the Catholic church has infact decreed and not set aside that the rest of us are "anathema" in the eyes of your religion...

Which is in fact the basis of this thread.   

We are not attacking the people who are Catholic, but the doctrines stated that says we are the "damned"...  for not being Catholic and for not "Believing" the same.  I know Harold keeps saying that these statements do not pertain to non Catholics, but that is not true...  I have been doing some searching. And the wording is simple...  It includes anyone who is not faithful to the written dogma of the Catholic Church, both Catholic and non catholics... they really do believe that ANYONE who does not receive the communion as they do, is anathema...  That is why they have that rule not to share communion with those of us who don't believe the same.  Because they believe it is a "damned" situation.  They believe that the way we receive is a "damned" situation also.

Well, now we get to the central issue.  You are absolutely wrong in your assessment.  I was thinking that this is what Charles was getting at.  All he wanted was confirmation that the doctrinal pronouncements of the Tridentine edicts were still in effect, which they are.  Harold is right on some points.  He isn't Catholic, so I don't expect him to hit every mark.  However, he has done a good job in providing the bits and pieces one needs to put this issue in context.  Since I AM a Catholic, I will explain why you are wrong.  It isn't that difficult to do.  One must know something about Canon law, Church doctrine, and history, which I do.  So, let's begin shall we.

I have never established or stated that the Tridentine edicts "established that the Catholic church has infact decreed and not set aside that the rest of us are "anathema" in the eyes of your religion..."  The Catholic Church made no such pronouncement in the first place.  I hate to burst your bubble but the Tridentine edicts were not issued for the sake of current Protesants.  The Tridentine edicts do not establish that non-Catholics are "anathema".  Why is this?  The Tridentine edicts were addressing those Catholics that were clearly rejecting the teachings of the Church during the Reformation.  Historical context is everything.

The majority of Christians were Catholic prior to the Reformation.  You are ignoring the historical context in which the edicts were issued.  The sole purpose of the Council of Trent was to reaffirm the doctrines of the faith, which had stood 1500 years prior to the Reformation.  It was a doctrinal ecumenical council.  However, there are two parts to each canon, a doctrinal pronouncement and a "punishment or penalty," this is where the term "anathema" comes into play.

At the time of the Council of Trent, everyone in Western Europe who was Christian was in fact a Catholic.  No other denominations dominated the religious landscape of Western Europe.  The Council in issuing those edicts reminded the faithful of what the doctrines of the Church were and what the penalty was for refusing to acknowledge the truth of those doctrines.  Catholics were leaving the Church to join Protestant movements, in effect cutting themselves off from the sacraments and thus putting their soul in jeopardy.  These were people who understood what the Church taught, embraced what the Church taught, and frankly turned their backs and headed in a different directions.  Basically what the Council of Trent was saying was "You guys should know better and you know what the potential consequences are for forsaking the Catholic faith."  Anyone who is Catholic knows the seriousness of either being denied the sacraments or forsaking them altogether.  Since many Catholics left during the Reformation, I doubt that could have cared less one way or the other.

I sent a link early on the thread that explains what anathema means within the Catholic Church.  You can find the article at http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0004chap.asp.
I will provide a quote that sums it up quiet nicely:

Later in Church history, this exclusion to provoke repentance received the name "excommunication." Originally, the Church did not differentiate between excommunication and anathema, which is why ecumenical councils have traditionally constructed their dogmatic canons using the formula "If anyone says . . . let him be anathema," meaning that anyone teaching the condemned proposition is to be anathematized or cut off from Christian society.

Among ecumenical councils, this usage began with the first—I Nicea (A.D. 325)—which applied the formula to those denying the divinity of Christ. Since then the formula has been used by all ecumenical councils that have issued dogmatic canons. (Since Vatican II did not issue any dogmatic canons, it never used the term anathema).

Over time, a distinction came to be made between excommunication and anathema. The precise nature of the distinction varied but eventually became fixed. By the time of Gregory IX (1370–1378), the term anathema was used to describe a major excommunication that was performed with a solemn pontifical ceremony. This customarily involved the ringing of a bell, the closing of a book, and the snuffing out of candles, collectively signifying that the highest ecclesiastical court had spoken and would not reconsider the matter until the individual gave evidence of repentance.

Such solemnities have been rare in Church history. They remained on the books, however, as late as the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which provided that, "Excommunication . . . is called anathema especially when it is imposed with the solemnities that are described in the Roman Pontifical" (CIC [1917] 2257 §§ 1–2).

Yet the penalty was used so seldom that it was removed from the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This means that today the penalty of anathema does not exist in Church law. The new Code provided that, "When this Code goes into effect, the following are abrogated: 1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917 . . . 3º any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See, unless they are contained in this Code" (CIC [1983] 6 §1). The penalty of anathema was not renewed in the new Code, and thus it was abrogated when the Code went into effect on January 1, 1983.

While doctrinal pronouncements are not subject to change, the penalites under canon law are subject to change and have evolved over time.  A careful examination of this term also shows that it can only apply to Catholics.  How can the Church excommunicate a Christian who does not belong to the Church?  It simply does not make sense.  If you want "proof."  I am providing a link to the current Code of Canon Law which supports the above statements in the article:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

The article also points out a variety of errors most non-Catholics make about the term that I think are very relevant.  Jimmy Akin is quite an expert in Catholic theology and doctrine.

With this as background, the absurdity of the things said by anti-Catholics about the anathemas pronounced by Trent and other councils is plain. A number of errors are nearly ubiquitous in anti-Catholic writings:

1. An anathema sentenced a person to hell. This is not the case. Sentencing someone to hell is a power that is God’s alone, and the Church cannot exercise it.

2. An anathema was a sure sign that a person would go to hell. Again, not true. Anathemas were only warranted by very grave sins, but there was no reason why the offender could not repent, and those who repent aren’t damned.

3. An anathema was a sure sign that a person was not in a state of grace. This is not true for two reasons: (a) The person may have repented since the time the anathema was issued, and (b) the person may not have been in a state of mortal sin at the time the anathema was issued.

Anathemas—like penalties imposed under civil law—rest on the judgment of the court, which must make its decision based on the evidence presented. It cannot directly examine the conscience of the individual in question. Thus, while anathemas were imposed on account of gravely sinful behavior, this was not a guarantee that it was mortally sinful. For a grave sin to become mortal, it must be performed with the requisite knowledge and consent, and while an offender might have given every appearance of these conditions, they might not be there in reality—e.g., through a hidden cognitive or volitional impediment.

4. Anathemas were meant to harm the offender. No. Anathemas were simply a major excommunication performed with a special papal ceremony, and, like all excommunications, their intent was medicinal, not punitive. The goal was to protect the Christian community from the spread of evil doctrines or behaviors and to prompt the individual to recognize the nature of his actions. While being deprived of the fellowship of the Church is not pleasant, this does not change the fact that the fundamental orientation of excommunications and anathemas is medicinal, not punitive.

5. Anathemas took effect automatically. While the Church does have penalties that take effect automatically (latae sententiae), the penalty of anathema was not one of them.

This should be obvious from the fact that a special pontifical ceremony had to be performed as part of the anathema. Obviously, the mere fact that someone utters a heresy in some part of the world does not cause the pope to suddenly stop what he is doing and perform a specific ritual concerning this person.

The anathemas of Trent and other councils were like most penalties of civil law, which only take effect through the judicial process. If the civil law prescribes imprisonment for a particular offense, those who commit it do not suddenly appear in jail. Likewise, when ecclesiastical law prescribed an anathema for a particular offense, those who committed it had to wait until the judicial process was complete before the anathema took effect.

6. Anathemas applied to all Protestants. The absurdity of this charge is obvious from the fact that anathemas did not take effect automatically. The limited number of hours in the day by itself would guarantee that only a handful of Protestants ever could have been anathematized. In practice the penalty tended to be applied only to notorious Catholic offenders who made a pretense of staying within the Catholic community.

7. Anathemas are still in place today. This is the single most common falsehood one encounters regarding anathemas in the writings of anti-Catholics. They aren’t in place today. The penalty was employed so infrequently over the course of history that it is doubtful that anyone under an anathema was alive when the new Code of Canon Law came out in 1983, when even the penalty itself was abolished.

8. The Church cannot retract its anathemas. Anti-Catholics love to repeat this falsehood for rhetorical flourish. But again, it isn’t true. The Church is free to abolish any penalty of ecclesiastical law it wants to, and it did abolish this one.

The removal of such penalities does not change the infallible nature of the doctrines pronounced at the Council of Trent.  As Jimmy Akin notes:

Thus, when Trent and other ecumenical councils employed anathema sit in regard to doctrinal matters, not only was a judicial penalty prescribed but a doctrinal definition was also made. Today, the judicial penalty may be gone, but the doctrinal definition remains. Everything that was infallibly decided by these councils is still infallibly settled.

This has consequences under current canon law. Those things that are both divinely revealed by God and proposed as such by the Church cannot be obdurately denied or doubted without the offense of heresy (CIC [1983] 751). Heresy does carry a penalty of automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication (can. 1041, 2º), though this does not apply to those who have never been members of the Catholic Church (can. 11), and even then there is a significant list of exceptions (can. 1323).

Mr. Akin even provided citations so that you can look it up yourself.

The rules governing who can partake of the Eucharist has nothing to with whether a person is "damned" or not.  This is simply ridiculous.  Even Catholics cannot partake of communion under certain circumstances.  Anyone who truly understood the nature of the Eucharist and what is means to Catholics would know why this is the case.

In any denomination, actions have consequences.  Catholics are aware of what the doctrines and teachings of the Church are.  No such document states that Protestants are automatically "damned" for what they believe in.  Ironically, you have yet to provide evidence to the contrary.  The Tridetine edicts clearly do not support this notion.

Well, I cannot get any clearer than this.  If you have any questions, I will certainly entertain them.

[kensington]

I hate to burst your bubble

I'm sorry... what bubble is that?   I must have missed the part where we got out the bubbles.   Or were you just being condescending? 

You know you have eluded numerous times to the rudeness of the protestants to the Catholics, and then, you come right out with that. Good job.  You are no different than any of the other "religious" people you claim to defend.  I should have known better.

[broach972]

I have been told to offer proof that the Catholic Church does in fact accept Protestants as our Christian brethren...it is obvious that some of you did not look hard enough.  Please note the following...

From Vatican II...

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964

15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.

WOW!! Well, I think I have proved my case and made my point.  It's great to be back.
Here is the link if you want to read the document in its entirety...

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Thank you for your time...

[broach972]

I hate to burst your bubble

I'm sorry... what bubble is that?   I must have missed the part where we got out the bubbles.   Or were you just being condescending? 

You know you have eluded numerous times to the rudeness of the protestants to the Catholics, and then, you come right out with that. Good job.  You are no different than any of the other "religious" people you claim to defend.  I should have known better.

Kensington, you disappoint me.  I was expecting a massive counterargument.  I wasn't trying to be rude or condescending.  Do you have any other comments about my post?  Do you have any questions?  I am just setting some things straight.  I was challenged to submit an argument proving some assertions wrong, and I have accomplished this.  I would be more than glad to answer any questions you may have.

[kensington]

I hate to burst your bubble

I'm sorry... what bubble is that?   I must have missed the part where we got out the bubbles.   Or were you just being condescending? 

You know you have eluded numerous times to the rudeness of the protestants to the Catholics, and then, you come right out with that. Good job.  You are no different than any of the other "religious" people you claim to defend.  I should have known better.

Kensington, you disappoint me.  I was expecting a massive counterargument.  I wasn't trying to be rude or condescending.  Do you have any other comments about my post?  Do you have any questions?  I am just setting some things straight.  I was challenged to submit an argument proving some assertions wrong, and I have accomplished this.  I would be more than glad to answer any questions you may have.

Hmmm... IF you were sincerely trying to help me rather than just prove me wrong... why are you disappointed?  You were expecting some big argument?  To what end?  '

I know how I have been treated, and I know what people(Catholics) have said to me concerning the communion and all the sacrements... I konw what I know. 

Yes, I asked you to prove what you claim in regards to the original posted documents, I did indeed. Because those were the documents in question, and if you had a problem with them being true, you are the one who should have posted the rebuttal.. not me.

What took you so long?  Why not just post that John Paul remark to begin with?  However, it would be really nice if you could show it to all the masses of Catholics who missed it. If it be true, they sure have no idea of it. They don't walk it, speak it or believe it. Peace.

[kensington]

BTW... can you as a Catholic explain to me or show me how him making this statement nullifies the cannon? 

Is that how it works... A Pope can make a statement in a speech and it sets aside the original canon and dogma of the church? 

But, if you are going to condescend to me, don't bother... I'll remain blissfully ignorant. 

You see, I agree with Harold, for the Catholic dogma has NO authority over me. I am strickly here to support my protestant brothers and sisters and to gain knowledge to "enlighten" my Catholic family and friends who need it.  I appreciate all help... from protestants and Catholics alike.

I'll be noting for them what John Paul said... and I am equally excited to see how they explain that away!

[broach972]

I hate to burst your bubble

I'm sorry... what bubble is that?   I must have missed the part where we got out the bubbles.   Or were you just being condescending? 

You know you have eluded numerous times to the rudeness of the protestants to the Catholics, and then, you come right out with that. Good job.  You are no different than any of the other "religious" people you claim to defend.  I should have known better.

Kensington, you disappoint me.  I was expecting a massive counterargument.  I wasn't trying to be rude or condescending.  Do you have any other comments about my post?  Do you have any questions?  I am just setting some things straight.  I was challenged to submit an argument proving some assertions wrong, and I have accomplished this.  I would be more than glad to answer any questions you may have.

Hmmm... IF you were sincerely trying to help me rather than just prove me wrong... why are you disappointed?  You were expecting some big argument?  To what end?  '

I know how I have been treated, and I know what people(Catholics) have said to me concerning the communion and all the sacrements... I konw what I know. 

Yes, I asked you to prove what you claim in regards to the original posted documents, I did indeed. Because those were the documents in question, and if you had a problem with them being true, you are the one who should have posted the rebuttal.. not me.

What took you so long?  Why not just post that John Paul remark to begin with?  However, it would be really nice if you could show it to all the masses of Catholics who missed it. If it be true, they sure have no idea of it. They don't walk it, speak it or believe it. Peace.

Always a pleasure Kensington...God bless.

[broach972]

BTW... can you as a Catholic explain to me or show me how him making this statement nullifies the cannon? 

Is that how it works... A Pope can make a statement in a speech and it sets aside the original canon and dogma of the church? 

But, if you are going to condescend to me, don't bother... I'll remain blissfully ignorant. 

You see, I agree with Harold, for the Catholic dogma has NO authority over me. I am strickly here to support my protestant brothers and sisters and to gain knowledge to "enlighten" my Catholic family and friends who need it.  I appreciate all help... from protestants and Catholics alike.

I'll be noting for them what John Paul said... and I am equally excited to see how they explain that away!

Kensington, I commend you for opening your mind to new ideas and perspectives.  All I want to do is educate and correct mistakes where they are present.  I am not here to convert but present what the Church truly teaches.  I will be more than glad to answer your question.

The statement from Vatican II did not nullify the Tridentine edicts.  The Tridentine edicts only applied to Catholics who had decided to reject the Church during the Reformation.  Remember what I said, the doctrinal pronouncements still hold true today.  The doctrines of the Church never changed.  What changed was the penalty that was assigned under Canon law for Catholics who rejected the doctrines that were affirmed by Trent.  Canon law can change and has over time.

The Pope cannot just wake up one morning and decide to change the doctrines of the Church.  It just doesn't work that way.  Remember, the doctrines of the Church have not changed for 2000 years.  Doctrines may have been clarified and defined over time but the doctrines of the faith have stood for 2000 years.

[Charles Sloan]

broach972,

Firstly I would like to recommend you either read, or re-read this thread since the arguments concerning Jimmy Akin's article have already been answered. Jimmy is not a church authority nor is his articles infallible dogma according to the roman church. This guys article on anathema has become the Alamo for the catholics and catholic defenders alike, which I find humorous that a non-catholic like me can muster much more catholic doctrine from more crediable sources (like the catechism, vatican, etc.) to support my case.

Besides, no ones arguing if the penalty for being anathema was removed. My topic was exposing that the roman church still considers those anathema or cursed for disagreing with the canons set forth in Trent. Even Jimmy Akins agrees that the doctrinal decree is in place today:

Today, the judicial penalty may be gone, but the doctrinal definition remains.

and

Everything that was infallibly decided by these councils is still infallibly settled.

This sinks the doublespeak of Lumen Gentium.

These are from the very article you quoted broach, are you even reading it? Not to mention I have already posted this response some pages back, so we are just going in circles because of denial of the facts, the decrees of an ecumenical council cannot be overturned.

And for the idea that the canons only apply to catholics or a big smokescreen. The language in every canon starts with "If anyone..." not "If any catholic...".

[Harold]

Broach help me out here.

I have stated that the Council of Trent as church doctrine is still in tact, but has no authority over anyone that is not Catholic.

I, as a Christian, am not condemned of anything unless the official church brings charges against me. Since I am not Catholic, and not under the authority of the Catholic church, they could not charge me with anything.

The penalty of anathema excommunication is no longer in the official Catholic law.

FTL

[broach972]

Broach help me out here.

I have stated that the Council of Trent as church doctrine is still in tact, but has no authority over anyone that is not Catholic.

I, as a Christian, am not condemned of anything unless the official church brings charges against me. Since I am not Catholic, and not under the authority of the Catholic church, they could not charge me with anything.

The penalty of anathema excommunication is no longer in the official Catholic law.

FTL

Bingo!!  Nice use of logic.  Well done.

The doctrines of Trent stand...no doubt.  The penalty attached to those doctrines do not.  They are not the same thing.

[broach972]

broach972,

Firstly I would like to recommend you either read, or re-read this thread since the arguments concerning Jimmy Akin's article have already been answered. Jimmy is not a church authority nor is his articles infallible dogma according to the roman church. This guys article on anathema has become the Alamo for the catholics and catholic defenders alike, which I find humorous that a non-catholic like me can muster much more catholic doctrine from more crediable sources (like the catechism, vatican, etc.) to support my case.

Besides, no ones arguing if the penalty for being anathema was removed. My topic was exposing that the roman church still considers those anathema or cursed for disagreing with the canons set forth in Trent. Even Jimmy Akins agrees that the doctrinal decree is in place today:

Today, the judicial penalty may be gone, but the doctrinal definition remains.

and

Everything that was infallibly decided by these councils is still infallibly settled.

This sinks the doublespeak of Lumen Gentium.

These are from the very article you quoted broach, are you even reading it? Not to mention I have already posted this response some pages back, so we are just going in circles because of denial of the facts, the decrees of an ecumenical council cannot be overturned.

And for the idea that the canons only apply to catholics or a big smokescreen. The language in every canon starts with "If anyone..." not "If any catholic...".

Charles, I cannot make it any clearer than I already have.  I have read the article and understand it quite clear.  It isn't that difficult to understand and anyone with a little knowledge of history and canon law can fit the pieces together.  There is obviously something you are not connecting with that prevents from understanding what Akin and I have tried to convey.  I think that you are having a difficult time distinguishing between actual doctrine and penalties subscribed under Canon law.  They are not the same thing.  I think this is where the disconnect lies.  Jimmy Akin is a well respected individual within Catholic circles and well versed in Catholic theology.

Yes, the doctrines of Trent still apply today.  Some of them are cornerstones of the Catholic faith--they were 1500 years prior to the Reformation.  That was the purpose of Trent--to reaffirm Catholic doctrines threatened by the Reformation.

If you wish to continue to be misinformed, then there is nothing that I can do about it.  It is obvious you are completely ignoring the historical context of Trent.  The reason it starts with "If anyone..." is because everyone was Catholic prior to the Reformation.  Let me repeat this...everyone prior to the Reformation in Western Europe was Catholic.  Even Luther was Catholic.

I would strongly suggest you look at Harold's post.  He isn't even Catholic and he gets the gist of it.

Charles, it has been a pleasure.  No smokescreens are there.  Lumen Gentium is pretty clear.  I came close to going to law school before becoming a teacher.  Perhaps this is why it is so clear to me.  Continue to study and research...it will come to you eventually.

[Ek Pyros]

[quot=broach972]By the way, I am proud of the fact that you are looking at the Catechism...very important.[/quote]The Catechism is important because?...

[Charles Sloan]

Charles, I cannot make it any clearer than I already have.  I have read the article and understand it quite clear.  It isn't that difficult to understand and anyone with a little knowledge of history and canon law can fit the pieces together.  There is obviously something you are not connecting with that prevents from understanding what Akin and I have tried to convey.  I think that you are having a difficult time distinguishing between actual doctrine and penalties subscribed under Canon law.  They are not the same thing.  I think this is where the disconnect lies.  Jimmy Akin is a well respected individual within Catholic circles and well versed in Catholic theology.

Broach,

As I have mentioned repeatedly throughout this thread, the penalty may be gone but even Jimmy Akin admits the doctrinal definition still remains. So those found in doctrinal disagreement with these canons would be considered anathema by the roman church. This is the entire argument, and all that Jimmy is trying to do is redefine the term to make it less offensive and hedge the edicts of Trent so they seem to no longer apply.

I provided a link to two videos I would like you to see:

Protestants and Catholics: Do they Now Agree? (Part 1)
Protestants and Catholics: Do they Now Agree? (Part 2)

Please explain why John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul and Dr. D. James Kennedy all disagree with your claims.

Yes, the doctrines of Trent still apply today.  Some of them are cornerstones of the Catholic faith--they were 1500 years prior to the Reformation.  That was the purpose of Trent--to reaffirm Catholic doctrines threatened by the Reformation.

If they are still in effect today just as they were in 1546-1563, why are you trying to obfuscate what they say?

If you wish to continue to be misinformed, then there is nothing that I can do about it.  It is obvious you are completely ignoring the historical context of Trent.  The reason it starts with "If anyone..." is because everyone was Catholic prior to the Reformation.  Let me repeat this...everyone prior to the Reformation in Western Europe was Catholic.  Even Luther was Catholic.

Wasn't Luther excommunicated January 3, 1521, some 25 years before the first session of Trent was even held? I believe you will find that Pope Pius XII "condemned the new and false opinion of Luther" as anathema with the Mediator Dei in 1947. So I believe you are either misinformed, or being deliberately misleading. Either way that results are the same.

I would strongly suggest you look at Harold's post.  He isn't even Catholic and he gets the gist of it.

I'm not sure what you have going with Harold, or why Harold suddenly became a catholic apologist when he admittedly doesn't care about your doctrines and doesn't agree with what you teach. Forgive me if I desire a more reliable source of information than someone who simply agrees with you to argue with me.

Charles, it has been a pleasure.  No smokescreens are there.  Lumen Gentium is pretty clear.  I came close to going to law school before becoming a teacher.  Perhaps this is why it is so clear to me.  Continue to study and research...it will come to you eventually.

So because you went to law school, you are smart and anyone that disagrees with you is dumb. And anyone who doesn't agree needs to keep studying until they do, regardless if the results of their study refutes all your claims. You cannot refrain from puffing yourself up and putting others down just to make yourself look right, can you?

But in your mind Harold, whereas he admits he doesn't agree with your beliefs, teachings, doctrines, etc. He's right because he agrees with you.

That pretty much settles the argument for me.