Tuesday, July 19, 2016


(Posted by Glaucon Jr)

Archbishop Hon and all you lovers of Christ our God: 

It only took only a few hours after my last post for the NCW propaganda machine to go into high gear and declare me a heretic. Perhaps Diana saw a chance to vindicate herself against a JW contributor for once,  and lo and behold! here's that little treasure wanting to sit at the adult table and give evidence to that. In its way, it's cute, like how a child plays teacher with her stuffed animals and yells  why don't you ever listen to me?!. But since she’s not playing school and believes herself to be competent authority, then I’m afraid it’s a bit more serious than child’s play when souls are at stake.

After a few posts, I've talked about or implied NCW heresy, bad catechesis, illicit liturgy, soul-crushing spiritual formation and direction, and greed. Of all these things, Diana and the mouth breathers on her blog are upset by the suggestion of JungleWatch Nation and the defense of our experience here. No retort for anything else. Really? You want to hitch your wagon to this horse? Ok have it your way.

Apparently, she took exception to the notion that the Israelite nation was born out of the Exodus event, and she spent a fair amount of time contradicting my assertions with her own ideas (or Kiko's or Pius's, I don't know which) on Judaism, sacramental theology, and how the Blessed Mother detracts from Jesus. The whole thing ended with a charming little bit about how I'm in heresy and a false prophet, which is just precious since she began her post by correctly pointing out that  division is from the Devil, and God prefers reconciliation. It's all one giant flaming bag of NCW catechesis sitting at my front door.

(Diana's spirit animal, and boy! is she grumpy!)
  via GIPHY

Let's be clear: She's come looking for the fight and gives her evidence for why I am an enemy of Christ (for so all heretics are). Once she is soundly proved wrong, then that conversation is over, she's proved a liar or frighteningly stupid (or both), and that's that. Afterward, she can go back to insulting deacons aware of their canonical rights and writing about 
the glories and holiness of bishops who have priests deported. Meanwhile, we here at JW will go back to the quiet work of helping undo the damage of the spiritual battery NCW inflicts on everyone around it. 

Now normally I wouldn't care. But for NCW, precision of thought equals false intellectualism and ego; confidence in the Truth equals pride. That doesn't leave much room to talk out the differences. Wouldn't you agree, Archbishop?

They are like bullies on the playground: they throw rocks because they know no other way. If you make them stop, you're persecuting them. If you let them continue, then they do it more, and against others. And so we put our theological foot down and get to business.

BE FOREWARNED: These are very serious charges, and since the defense of my good name is fully my Christian right, I must proceed systematically. However, I will not dawdle on the minutiae. This is so that readers, and especially Archbishop Hon and any in Rome who read this, may know that this is not some diatribe, but orderly, orthodox, and faithful to the Tradition.

I’m not interested in debate as a sport or pastime, nor in winning.  The only thing that matters is the Truth, and because Diana perverts it, I’m obliged by the love of Christ to respond. Hopefully you too, dear reader, will see how clearly the Truth shines. 

Do not become angry or upset about her dismissal of the primacy of the Eucharist, her utter ignorance of Judaism, her lack of comprehension of the scope of salvation history, or her contempt for the Mother of God. These sound harsh, but she either says these explicitly, or she argues such that no other conclusion is possible.  She therefore has no cover behind which to hide. With her own words on her own site, she shows us all that everything we've said all along is true. 

  • If you'd like, skip past her post and read the conclusion, but my defense is in my comments to her post.
  • I don't like excessive quoting from the Catechism, so any citation are listed as CCC #.
  • Below, her text is in black, her quoting me is in blue, and my comments are in red. I have put Brackets are placed to make clear when she accuses.
  • Have fun, and pray for this poor woman. Her mind has been so darkened that I'm thinking she really believes this. And that's more tragic than anything else, for reasons that we'll see at the end
  • Finally, here’s CCC 1363 to put it all in perspective: “In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men. In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them.”

In the jungle, Glaucon Jr. stated that a second way a nation came into being was through "experience."  According to Glaucon Jr.: 

The second way is by common experience of an event that permanently makes the group what it is. When the Patriarch Jacob and his family of 70 or so went down to Egypt, they went to make a life; 400 years later, that life was one of slavery. We all know the story: God sent Moses to lead them out, and they were brought out into the desert, and with them came others—some Egyptians, some Midianites, and some from other tribes and races.

But those who were brought out of Egypt weren’t the same as those who emerged from the desert 40 years later. That original generation grumbled against the Lord and complained that the manna he gave them wasn’t good enough. It didn’t meet their expectations. So in that 40 years of purification, they died and were replaced by those born in the wilderness, raised in the wilderness, dependent on God and His lawgiver-prophet at every turn. And when they came out of the desert, they were no longer a bunch of random tribes.

They were Israelites. They were the people of God.

It was by their shared experience of the Exodus Event that made them Israelites, and that’s why Jews even today celebrate Passover as they do: based on memory and not on blood, it remembers who they are based on the Exodus Event that made them who they are.

Christians are Christians in the same way. We share that common experience of the real, actual event of the Incarnation: the conception, birth, life, passion, death, and resurrection of Christ our God. That is what makes us Christians.  Life in Christ is the full incorporation into Christ in this world and in Eternity.

[DIANA]: Actually, they were Israelites because of the covenant God made to Abraham. The ones who came out of Egypt and the ones who came into the promised land were all descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (whom God named Israel). God had already claimed the descendants of Abraham through Isaac's and Jacob's line "His people" because of the covenant He made with Abraham.  As a matter of fact, when God spoke to Moses, He said, I have seen the affliction of MY PEOPLE in Egypt and have heard their cry (Exodus 3:7).  He called them "my people" even before He brought them out of slavery from Egypt. 

STRIKE ONE: If that’s the case, then the Israelites themselves aren’t THE people of God. God made a covenant with Abraham, and part of that was that he would become the father of many nations. By Diana’s reasoning, then all those descended from all of Abraham’s OTHER sons are also the people of God, especially since they are all of the circumcision too. So besides Israel, that makes the Ismaelites, Edomites, and all descended from Abraham’s other wife Keturah (Gen 25:1-4), like Joksham, Zimram, Medan, Ishbak, Shuah, and Midian and all their kids. Quite a family reunion. And if Diana means only those through his son Isaac as the Son of the Promise, that would still include the Edomites. And if she means only the descendants of Jacob/Israel, then that  interpretation contradicts what she’s been saying all along about circumcision. Either way, she’s just plain wrong. Being an Israelite clearly isn’t grounded in circumcision.  And calling them my people in Exodus 3 is PART OF the Exodus event. Duh.  

[DIANA]: The Israelites who went into the promised land (Canaan) were the children of the old generation who sinned and grumbled against God. These children were still the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  The promised land is a prefigurement of God's kingdom No problem so far. The ones who did not enter the promised land (Canaan) were those who sinned and grumbled against God.. Next is where the confusion starts: This same rule will apply to God's kingdom in Heaven. What does that even mean? Are you saying God’s kingdom is in heaven and you therefore reject the Resurrection of the Dead? I’m sure you don’t mean it that way. Or do you mean that God’s kingdom is on earth? Or earth and heaven? Or in the heart? Or after the Eschaton? What are you talking about? Do you mean mortal or venial, or is it all just sin to you without distinction, which contradicts 1Jn 5:16-17? To tell the truth, I don’t think you’re sure either. The covenant that God made with Abraham was circumcision (Genesis 17:10-19).  We already agreed on this; but from here on it’s not pertinent to the argument since we are talking about Israelites, not Hebrews generally.

[DIANA]: It was through the covenant of circumcision that the Lord God became the God of Israel and the Israelites "His people".  Circumcision was the Old Covenant, and was made in blood.  Those who were circumcised belonged to the family of God. Those who were not circumcised did not belong to the family of God. 

STRIKE TWO: May I suggest CCC 1150 to help remove any other ambiguities? Diana really needs to explain to all those poor Jews that they’ve got it all wrong about Passover. It’s circumcision that makes you an Israelite? Seriously? By the time of our Blessed Lord, millions of Jews came up to Jerusalem from all over the world for what, to commemorate their circumcision? Duh, no. And when does God reveal His personal, Divine Name? He is called El-Shaddai and Elohim, and all manner of things, but he actually makes the point of self-disclosure in Exodus 3, as He commissions Moses to go. That starts the whole cycle: He reveals Himself, He delivers His people, then purifies His people, and He introduces at last acceptable worship to His people.

No, my good girl, the Passover is that act par excellence of the Exodus Event, and that whole deliverance for Egypt is what makes them Israelites (again see CCCn 1363). A child could tell them that. Otherwise, the rest of the Pentateuch is incoherent. God is gradually revealing himself to the Israelites as he more and more disposes them for him in His great love and mercy. In other words, the Divine Pedagogy (used throughout the CCC, eg. 1145). The circumcision is a sign of the covenant with Abraham, but it isn’t the definitive criterion for Israel and her identity.  (go back and re-read STRIKE ONE again if you need to). Even Muslims observe the Abrahamic circumcision, just as the Jews circumcise, but the Exodus Event—particularly since that is where the Law is revealed—isthe hinge for being an Israelite.

[DIANA]: In the same way, Christians belong to the family of God through a covenant that Christ made with us.  Like the Old Covenant, the New Covenant was also made in blood.....the blood of Jesus Christ. Baptism replaced circumcision. Um, I agree that circumcision isn’t valid for us, and you don’t have to quote CERC. Next time just say St Paul’s Letter to the Romans or the Colossians—that’s sorta the whole point. According to the Catholic Education Resource Center:
St Paul also confirms that baptism now replaces circumcision as entry into the New Covenant.  For example, he says, "In Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ.  You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him" (Col 2:11-12).

A HUGE HUGE HUGE STRIKE THREE: Did you catch that? The New Covenant was made in blood (absolutely). Just like in the Old Testament (absolutely). And that Old Testament blood is…guess what?  Circumcision (um…what?). Are you sure you're reading the Bible, or just one of the Jehovah's Witness's handouts? If the blood for the Old Covenant isn’t from circumcision, then where from? The Passover, right? Ah good, then you just proved what I’ve been saying all along. So much for the sacrificial nature of our redemption.

Sigh. No, the Old Testament blood is the blood of the unblemished lamb slain at the Passover meal in preparation for the actual departure from Egypt. That’s why the blood of Christ, the Paschal Lamb, the Lamb who was slain before the foundation of the world, is the only real sacrifice, the only real blood (CCC 1366). He’s not the circumcised Lamb. My goodness, that makes no sense at all. The Passion and Death of the Lord  complete and perfect what was foreshadowed at the Passover.

See the problem, Diana: you’ve hung everything on circumcision, and that's where your catechists have led you into error.  All your quotes about Baptism from CERC are good; it’s just not relevant to what we’re talking about. Baptism does indeed replace circumcision. It does NOT take the place of the Eucharist. That seems to be the problem area for you. You are so wrapped up in being catechumenal in some strange way and making the Eucharist secondary to it that you have made the freedom of Christian life from slavery to sin something unattainable in your minds (in other words, contrary to CCC 1099).

At this point, we’re pretty clear that Diana’s just plain lost here. But since instruction of the ignorant is a spiritual work of mercy, let us attempt to clarify things for all of us, myself included:

[DIANA]: And according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (the bold is mine): 

CCC 1267   Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: "Therefore . . . we are members one of another."72 Baptism incorporates us into the ChurchFrom the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body."73

CCC 1268  The baptized have become "living stones" to be "built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood."74 By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light."75 Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers. 

[DIANA]: The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that through our baptism, we become a HOLY NATION..... God's own people.  Our baptism brought us into God's own family.  

I wholeheartedly agree. Why are you mentioning this, by the way? You’re not contradicting anything I said. Isn't one's Baptism an EVENT? Don't we experience it? Or are you suggesting it's an abstraction? We are Christians because we share in the life of Christ through the actual real-world, real-time EVENT of the Incarnation of God (CCC 1085). This includes Baptism. It includes everything regarding to sharing in His divine life, the common priesthood of believers. For the THIRD time, see CCC 1363.

And we as human beings experience God’s work of salvation in our lives. It is through the loving ACTS of God in history—real events, real encounters, real experiences—that we live in Him in this life: through the reality of the Church, the reality of the Sacraments, the reality of Scripture, the reality of revelation.

[DIANA]: However, it is true that we are sinners.  We are not perfect.  We are not holy. We are not better than anyone else.  We are sinners and no better than the inmates at the Department of Correction.  Nevertheless, through our baptism.... God is our Father.  Mary is our Mother.  Jesus Christ is our Brother. Through our baptism, we are the sons and daughters of God.  

All correct, except one teeny-tiny problem: Jesus is more than our brother, dear child. He is God. Yes, we see in Hebrews 2 that Our Lord calls us his brothers and sisters. And by what authority does He do this? By His personhood in the Trinity that is incarnated. By your statement’s lack of clarity, you’re suggesting that  God is our Father and excepting Jesus from that Godhood speaks VOLUMES about the doctrinal and spiritual mess the NCW and therefore the island is in. With your own mouth, you imply that you are an Arian, and in so doing make yourself a profound heretic. Or did you perhaps mis-state what you meant? That’s the funny thing about theology: if you’re going to teach it, you had better know what you’re talking about and have the wits to be precise in your speech. Otherwise, you lead others and yourself to great trouble. . like right now. And in your calumnious accusation (yes, as in false). Perhaps a quick look at James 3:1 might encourage you to be a bit more careful.

[DIANA]: Do not listen to false prophets who tell you that God's people are born from "experience."  This teaching is heresy.   The Eucharist as a timeless memorial is made present to us, which is an experience of it. The physical reception of the matter of all the sacraments is the physical experience of it. CCC 1363 yet again. No heresy here, just good old fashioned Christianity on the level that even Protestants and Orthodox agree on it. We became part of God's family through our baptism, and we certainly did not give birth to any Junglewatch nation.  The Junglewatch Nation came into existence through their own "experience" exactly as Glaucon Jr. claimed.   

[DIANA]: As for natural religiousity, here is what Pope Francis has to say about it.  The rosary is good and the NCW members pray the rosary.  What they say about Kiko or the catechists telling us when to pray the rosary is false.  The NCW teaches its members HOW to pray.  They teach us that Christ is the center and focus of our prayer, not than the devotion.  If LaPaz wrote falsely, then show us something, anything, that demonstrates that. That should be simple.

-----END CITATION-----

Archbishop Hon and all friends in Christ, Diana makes our case for us again and again. Everything that comes out of her mouth is--to borrow from the Lord when discussing the Pharisees--"white and pure on the outside, but inside full of corruption and dead men's bones." 

And here's why all this matters in her particular case: if a person is wrong on a matter of faith and morals, and they do not know they are wrong, they aren't heretics; they are ignorant. That is not heresy. But if they have been informed again and again, in patience and even to the point of exasperation, then ignorance isn't the issue. We have now moved into heresy. 

In Diana's case, she is either ignorant, or she obstinately refuses the Truth. The Tradition has been presented again and again and again. She even has the Scriptures and the Catechism at her fingertips. Nevertheless, her error persists precisely because she rejects the Fathers, the Doctors of the Faith, and the whole of the Tradition. She is therefore either in formal heresy with her heresiarch Kiko Arguello, or she is a simple-minded soul who doesn't know what she is saying. Or she is insane. Or maybe really really high.

Perhaps all the above mitigating factors are at work. But if not, that leaves heresy, which puts her soul in jeopardy. How? Because all heresy is born of a deforming of what is already good. And that deformity always leads to a theology of destruction, or sacrilegious liturgy, or both.

And based upon the structure of the NCW community, Diana would never ever be writing what she writes without the express permission and approval of her directors—ultimately Fr Pius. It is thus more than reasonable to say that Fr Pius and/or those directing her give full knowledge and consent to her heresy and sacrilege. They are the ones who taught her, and she only parrots what she hears.

Case in point: in writing about the Rosary, Diana cites Pope Francis who spoke on how all devotions and such must be Christ-centered and lead us to Christ and not become the object of worship in itself, and the Pope is right. But was he talking about the Rosary, or is that Diana twisting his words to justify her contempt for the Blessed Mother? Is her formation in NCW such that the Blessed Mother really is considered an obstacle to Christ? And they call themselves Catholic? 

Diana’s own words tell us: to her mind, devotion to the Rosary as practiced by us non-Neo Catholics is not Christ-centered. By extension, then, WE ARE IDOLATORS. There is no other possible  implication. So St Dominic was wrong. St Jean Vianney was wrong. Padre Pio was wrong. St Louis de Montfort was wrong. And let’s not forget St. John Paul 2. Their devotion wasn’t Christ-centered, she makes clear, for they weren't taught at the feet of Kiko Arguello.  All of these and countless other saints propagated the Rosary as Christ-centered from start to finish. Like all the sacramentals, it’s is thoroughly most Christ-centered. Now, Diana says all the saints were wrong, and she’s the one who’s right. So now we know where her head is at.

But the Pope, Diana says, spoke of holding onto practices from private revelation. For NCW, the Fatima miracle is just some private revelation.  It has the full approval of the Church. The Holy Father St John Paul 2 even crowned her statue with the bullet that struck him. How terrible for the Holy Father to be distracted by that woman Mary!  Or is the Church wrong on the Rosary too, Diana? Oh that stupid JP2, why couldn’t he be more Christ-centered like Kiko?

This, lovers of Christ, is why one should never presume to teach the Faith on a whim. Errors abound, and each of us who write or speak will be held accountable, me included. Great care and preparation are required.  False prophet is a very serious charge so I’ll err on the side of charity and say that Diana is just incredibly wrong due to poor catechesis. I haven't given up hope for her. Poor thing, Diana can’t even get basic Scripture down, much less something resembling theology. I don’t’ have a doctorate or anything, but I do know theology takes work and precision and great care and intellectual conversion and honesty. Most of all, it’s done on your knees in prayer. You can’t just Google it or hurl quotes from the Catechism in hopes something sticks.

But at the heart of it, from Diana’s own mouth, she proves yet again what we’ve been saying for what seems like forever. All that she says flows from the fact that the NCW in reality teaches that the Eucharist is not a sacrifice, that the Eucharist is not the sacrament from which the reality of the Church flows, that Jesus is nothing more than our brother, albeit far more glorious than us (like Aquaman or something), and that devotion to the Blessed Mother is a distraction from Christ. I’m sure there’s more, but her silliness just gives me a headache.

I can go on and on, but there’s no need. I have no interest in debate, only Truth. And she has no interest in debate. Only deflection, red herrings, ad hominem attacks, and every other way to divert the Truth from coming out.

Diana can all me a false prophet all she wants. The Scripture, the Catechism, reason, and common sense say otherwise. But then that’s the way of those like her who actually do follow false prophets: they separate themselves from the Tradition and claim some sort of new knowledge. Is this not what she has done, Archbishop Hon? 

If Hon is too busy to keep up with the sowers of weeds in his own wheat field, I’m going to start keeping of file of everything produced here and send him a copy every year at Christmas. Kinda like looking back at all your old report cards. Except he probably won’t be laughing at any low marks  received. So I do hope he's keeping tally of what's going on. 

And as to Diana’s criticism of our being a nation of sorts, it’s called AN ANALOGY. Goodness, forget theology; you need to get a refresher on basic literary techniques. It’s not a literal nation. Please explain that to the mouthbreathers who fertilize your blog with their residue.

So please, pretty please: if you're going to try teaching the Faith to anyone, have James 3:1 memorized. It's the reason the rest of us who do teach do what we do for the Faith with fear and trembling.

God love you.

PS. Let us each do something today in reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary for the blasphemies uttered against her and the conversion of those who utter them, wherever they are. 


  1. It bears repeating, Pius is responsible for the creation and continued existence of "Diana" and her blog.

    Pius, as the Rector of RMS and head NCW catechist on Guam has planted the seeds of division and continues to harvest from such division through his deliberate advocacy of "An Insider's View" via his own website and consistent instruction to the NCW communities on island.

    AB Hon, can this be made more clear?

  2. Diana/May is a Google.com Master! She continuously contradicts herself because she thinks that she is well versed in the Catholic Religion and she really is not!

    1. Anon 8:57AM and you are? LOL!!!

    2. 8:57 isn't attempting to teach. If you're going to comment anonymously, don't be an ass. Either way, stop trolling.

    3. Anon at 6:16 PM - Yes I Am!

  3. Thankyou Glaucon. Once again, and outstanding examination. (loved the aquaman reference btw!)

  4. Yes, ladies and gentlemen....

    Diana is a pure product of the fake seminary aka Pius'bunker.
    The amount of negativity and hate coming out of there is astounding!
    How does Arch. Hon intend to proceed with such obstacle. I guess a look at the roll call of the priests yestetday should give him a good idea.

  5. I wouldn't want to waste any breath debating with a brainwashed Kikobot on her website. They've all been programmed to repeat what they've learned in NCW101 and will continue to regurgitate the interpretations of the Word by kiko and his catechists. Enough said.

  6. I agree, and I don't intend to do it often. I responded for two reasons: 1) to demonstrate to Hon and anyone else the when we discuss theological matters (esp since I'm personally an unnknown), we are informed, orthodox, and not pamphleteering; and 2) to bring to light what was nebulous before about their teaching on the Marian devotion. A tad long, but accusation of heresy and false prophethood aren't things I brook. They had better effing prove it.

    But the Truth will out. She has supplied the ammo herself. In a way, I could give her and that crap-throwing Maltese proboscis monkey of a monk Pius a big ol' kiss.

  7. God Bless You Glacuon Jr. for your defense of our faith. Just a few comments on some of Diana’s responses :

    It appears that Diana’s account of the exodus is skewed, it was not Moses that led the Israelites out of Egypt, It was God, “for by a strong hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt." Ex13:18, “ And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them along the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night; the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night did not depart from before the people. Ex 13:21,22

    Secondly, it is not by “Memory” of the exodus, for before there was a memory, there first had to be an event to memorialize. It was by the strong arm of the Lord and obedience to his ordance of the Passover, which included the sign, the blood of the lamb, prefiguring the blood of Christ that was shed for the forgiveness of sins in the NT. It was not enough to kill the lamb, spread the blood, but conformance to the precept of God to roast and eat the lamb also. Obedience to God the Israelites are freed, the memorial of the pass over recounts, “And you shall tell your son on that day, 'It is because of what the LORD did for me when I came out of Egypt.” Ex 13:8

    Thirdly, Because of Abraham’s faithfulness to God in offering his only son, God Swears an oath upon himself; "By myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice." Gen 22:16-18 It was through the promised son, Isaac that God’s chosen people will come from.

    Fourth, Diana’s interpretation of the covenant between God and Abraham is quite incorrect, she confuses the sign of the covenant which is circumcision with the Covenant itself. The individual Covenant with moses is that the Lord pledges to make Abraham the father of many, which he ratifys by swearing to himself in Gen 22:16-18 and secondly with all the people through Abraham he will be their God, and They will be his People Gen 17:1-7. The sign of this covenant is circumcision, for each time the priestly members, males will attend to the call of nature, they will see the sign, and it will serve as a reminder of the Covenant between them and God.

  8. Cont..
    It is important to understand that a covenant is implied first by the act of the will even before the shedding of blood, as in the case of Abraham and Isaac. His act of offering his son whom he loved was seen by God as an act of righteousness, Isaac’s willingness to become the victim is also implied as an act of sacrifice., although no blood was shed in both cases.

    I would think that our proof to this point should suffice, as Glacuon Jr. has indicated that Diana is far off in left field and quite a waste of time to try and argue with her points as they are full of holes, and do not hold water too well. But we should continue to oppose the errors that come from her so that the truth can prevail.

  9. Indeed, well said.

    For the record, and I know no one asked, writing this gave me no pleasure. I have no doubt she and the toddlers she calls subscribers think it's pride and gloating that are my motivators; it's not at all. For a person like me to be called a heretic is like calling day care worker a sex offender--you can't let that go by.

    The original post was really tame and gentle, so when I heard she responded, I checked it out. Before I'd even read it, I saw heretic, and I immediately thought, "Oh Lord Jesus, what did I say wrong?" So I read her critique and from sentence to sentence had a long series of WTF moments. How can anyone be so obtuse? Was it a ploy? No. Is she writing for an audience convalescing from concussions? I doubt it. So she must be a lost child with absolutely no clue what she's talking about.

    Writing the retort was easy, and besting her in the discussion was kinda like taking a test with the answers. The problem is that--other than possible catechizing of some one random who may read it--Diana (or whoever really wrote it) won't read for comprehension, won't see facts right on, and certainly won't give a simple, "Ok, so it's no heresy, but I still think you're wrong." We could agree to disagree and then move on.

    I could work with that. I really could. I would take it as a sign of humility and intellectual honesty, and then know that she has been regarded rather unjustly. But her reaction has only been deflection, ad hominem (that I'm swollen with pride), and complaints that it was too long (which is probably bc she hasn't graduated to chapter books yet).

    As for the sacrileges against the Mother of God and the presumption that Marian devotion to Mary is idolatrous and violates the 1st Commandment, I'm not letting that go. That came from out of nowhere, so she's stuck with that one on her.

    In short, she is a challenge to charity. Like many people, they want peace and reconciliation, but only if we bow and grovel and bend to their side unconditionally. And saddest of all, I was even willing to meet her and anyone with sincerity and humility halfway. God love you.