In the first century, no one needed to confess that Christ is homoousious with the Father. But after the fourth century, to deny the homoousious is to fall into [at least material] heresy.

Regarding today's Dividing Line, you *do* use "Anti-Calvinist" quite a bit, along with "Anti-Trinitarian," and "Anti-Reformed" rather than calling them by their "postive" terms. So, stay consistent as to whether people should be defined by what they are positively (Arminian, Oneness believers) or whether it's fair game for folks to call each other Anti- whatever. Because, you do it too, which I've found unfortunate at times.

ALthough Mr. White has a fair amount of knowledge, it is quite apparent (not only from his writings but from watching him speak) that his spiritual life is not very deep and is over reliant on emotion. Interestingly, the famous Carl Jung said "I have treated many hundreds of patients, the larger number, being Protestants, a smaller number Jews and not moire than 5 or 6 believing Catholics". His observations where confirmed by others: Catholics who followed their faith had less anxiety and turmoil inside then Protesants. You all need the sacraments, my friends. The Last Supper was prefigured by the wedding of Cana; a substantial change happens at both. Jesus was very anxious to have SUPPER with his disciples, not just to talk with them. It is a memorial of his sacrifice, for the pain and lacerated body are not present on the altar at Mass, but His glorified body, presenting his sacrifice forever to the Father. Jesus wants to get as close to your heart as He can. You are what you eat. Mr. White can become another Christ, but it is his chose. His calvinism probably psychological influences his lack of decision on this matter. Some of his arguments are sound, but in general he is wrong and leading people astray. May God have mercy on his soul...

I notice that at the top of your page you cite Luther's 5 solas. Does Mr. White also believe in the real presence of the Eucharist, Baptismal grace, and the Immaculate Conception? From my reading this website I would say not. So if not Luther, who has interpreted the Bible without error? Anyone? Are only those who are as smart as Mr. White able to discern what the Bible really means? At one point, Mr. White has to realize that he is fighting a war, not for God, but for his own personal beliefs about God. What makes him feel good inside is what must be the truth. I for one, thought not nearly as educated as Dr. White, am happy to follow, without question, a Church that at least states that Christian Dogma has little to do with an exercise of the mind, but rather an exercise of the soul and heart.

A Proud Convert (2 years) to the Universal Church of Christ.

This website is just plain ridiculous in it's premise that the Catholic Church hasn't gotten anything right. I'd rather trust the Holy Spirit than a man, no matter how brilliant and well-researched his positions.

There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Protestant denominations, and the main reason for this is sola scriptura. Now, I admit that my "experiences" constitute anecdotal evidence, but I have found nothing to dissuade me from the notion that my anecdotal evidence is not indicative of a much more widespread phenomenon. And, for clarity's sake, I define a Protestant denomination as a religious unit of one or more persons that has: 1) A particular set of beliefs on matters of faith and morals, which may or may not be unique to that group; and 2) Has its own structure of authority that ultimately answers to no human being outside of the denomination.

"I have been stunned to discover by my in-depth research over the last two years into sacramental theology, moral theology, and canon law, that most such clergy today do NOT possess this mission and jurisdiction, and to discover that because such unauthorized clergy culpably violate God's law in these matters they are NOT authentically functioning to bring the graces they claim to bring to Catholics during the current crisis."

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Ten years after the Vatican divulged one of the church's best-kept secrets -- the third part of the message of Fatima -- a small band of skeptics and critics are still questioning the official explanation. More than 100 of them gathered at a hotel not far from the Vatican in early May for a week long conference on such topics as "Fatima and the Global Economic Crisis," "The Present Need for the Consecration of Russia" and "Is There a Missing Text of the Third Secret?" For those in attendance, the answer to that last question is a no-brainer. "The evidence points to only one conclusion: that something has to be missing," said Christopher A. Ferrara, a U.S. attorney and Catholic commentator who spoke at the conference. Ferrara pointed to what he described as a series of incongruities and inconsistencies in the Vatican's version. Among people truly familiar with the events at Fatima, he said, only a minority "cling steadfastly to the notion that an ambiguous vision of a bishop dressed in white outside a half-ruined city is all there is to the third secret."

It is by these manners of speech, when we speak of things that do not happen to God as though they did, that we acknowledge it is he who makes them happen to us, those things at least that are praiseworthy, and these only to the extent that scriptural usage allows it. I mean, we certainly ought not to say anything of the sort about God, which we do not read in his scriptures.

Latin Text: His locutionum modis, cum ea quae non accidunt Deo tamquam illi accidant loquimur, eum facere agnoscimus ut nobis accidant; ea duntaxat quae laudabilia sunt: et haec quantum Scripturarum usus admittis. Neque enim nos temere aliquid tale de Deo dicere debemus, quod in Scriptura eius non legimus.

But it was very clear to me from the video in the #2 link that White had salted the audience with deeply studied Protestant "experts" and that the audience was overwhelmingly stacked against Fr. Stravinskas.

"Now with the exception of the holy Virgin Mary in regard to whom, out of respect for the Lord, I do not propose to have a single question raised on the subject of sin -- after all, how do we know what greater degree of grace for a complete victory over sin was conferred on her who merited to conceive and bring forth Him who all admit was without sin -- to repeat then: with the exception of this Virgin, if we could bring together into one place all those holy men and women, while they lived here, and ask them whether they were without sin, what are we to suppose that they would have replied?" (On Nature and Grace, or De natura et gratia, Migne PL 44:267)

Even seven Popes are quoted on the same side, and among them three of the greatest, viz., Leo I. (who says that Christ alone was free from original sin, and that Mary obtained her purification through her conception of Christ), Gregory I., and Innocent III. [FN233 The other Popes, who taught that Mary was conceived in sin, are Gelasius I., Innocent V., John XXII., and Clement VI. (d. 1352). The proof is furnished by the Jansenist Launoy, Prœscriptions, Opera I. pp. 17 sqq. ...