au contraire, I do know the difference and can make the distinction, however you are concerning yourself with the wrong person.
I know and accept the primacy of the Pope and respect and practice the faith in its fullest meaning, even though it is extremely difficult.
The gentleman, who I addressed my comments, is emblematic the the Catholics who also “feel” uncomfortable with women not have the right to choose, who “feel” OK about the lapse in Church attendance, about never going to reconciliation, and on and on.
I did not call the gentlemen a dissident or accuse him of being heretical (as you suggest), I merely suggested, being uncomfortable as his is, he would likely be more comfortable being a protestant, particularly as an Episcopalian.
Being that the father and son priests were formerly Episcopalians, I thought the irony was delicious and couldn't resist.
Obviously you missed irony in apologetics school.
Ok, my bad then, I thought the debate was over celibacy and Married Priests. If the debate is over the question of abortion, then that becomes a whole different question as obviously the Catholic CHurch’s teaching on abortion is a Definitive teaching of Catholic Moral Theology.
And I agree, lapse Church attendance is not good and one should go to the sacrament of COnfession for delibarately choosing not to go to Sunday Mass.
I thought the whole issue was regarding the ordination of the Father and Son, both married men, to the Catholic priesthood and not these other issues.
So my bad on this one.
Now on the other hand, if I read post #2 and #3 correctly, and your post where you cited the CCC regarding celibacy, one could come to the conclusion that the entire discussion was indeed about celibacy and married priests and not the issues of abortion, missing Mass, Confession etc, as you say in your last post.
So perhaps as someone who got the “irony in apologetics school”, you can help out as to what is the point of debate between you and the gentlemen you addressed your comments to. After re-reading the thread, it does appear to simple ole me that it was regarding the question of ordination of married men to the Catholic Priesthood vs. celibacy.