If you want a discussion, how about you start by quoting me correctly, and also mentioning I was quoting the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia. Put your disagreement with the authoritative source on the record at the same time, saying something like: "I strongly disagree with (totally condemn?) the Imprimatured 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia". Here's the article again, and I stand by what I said:

"The Catholic Church of the twentieth century is vastly in advance of that of the sixteenth. She has made up her loss in political power and worldly wealth by increased spiritual influences and efficiency; her adherents are more widespread, more numerous, more fervent than at any time in her history, and they are bound to the central Government at Rome by a more filial affection and a clearer sense of duty. Religious education is abundantly provided for clergy and laity; religious practice, morality, and works of charity are flourishing; the Catholic mission-field is world-wide and rich in harvest.

The hierarchy was never so united, never so devoted to the pope. The Roman unity is successfully resisting the inroads of sects, of philosophies, of politics. Can our separated brethren tell a similar tale of their many Churches, even in lands where they are ruled and backed by the secular power? We do not rejoice at their disintegration, at their falling into religious indifference, or returning into political parties. No, for any shred of Christianity is better than blank worldliness. But we do draw this conclusion: that after four centuries the Catholic principle of authority is still working out the salvation of the Church, whereas among Protestants the principle of Subjectivism is destroying what remains of their former faith and driving multitudes into religious indifference and estrangement from the supernatural." https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm I have bolded the disputed portion for convenience.

So, firstly, go ahead, be bold, and say what you mean to say: do you condemn the Catholic Encyclopedia for saying such a thing?

Again, I am not impressed at all by such hollow bravado. What impresses me are those who work for Christian Unity and bring the separated back to the Church.

I wrote an article on Filioque for Orthodox Christians, who are like 99% Catholics. Have you ever helped souls see the Truth of the Filioque, Last Tradhican?

After reading my article, several Orthodox Christians, including former trads, came back home to the Roman Catholic Church.

I know many people like you: they burn out in a few years, go from a joyless rigorism lapsing into some sect or complete worldliness.

The poster Chris Tulsa on another forum said he himself knows 6 families, in a short time, who lapsed into Orthodoxy.

Never once did I ever defend a lapse, and a hundred times I have argued against those lapsing; and I know some who came back.

All I said is, indeed Evangelical Christians have partial Truth, and if they sincerely believe the Truth they have, they are Christians.

I did not say they are Catholic Christians, as only Catholics who have the whole 100% Truth are. What I said is proven from the CE.

Hi, Quo Vadis. So do you disagree with the Catholic Encyclopedia then?

I hold that validly baptized Christians, who believe explicitly in the Trinity and Incarnation, confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and err in good faith, are real Christians. Msgr. Fenton says such can be saved if they are in good faith.

CE: "The Catholic Church of the twentieth century is vastly in advance of that of the sixteenth. She has made up her loss in political power and worldly wealth by increased spiritual influences and efficiency; her adherents are more widespread, more numerous, more fervent than at any time in her history, and they are bound to the central Government at Rome by a more filial affection and a clearer sense of duty. Religious education is abundantly provided for clergy and laity; religious practice, morality, and works of charity are flourishing; the Catholic mission-field is world-wide and rich in harvest. The hierarchy was never so united, never so devoted to the pope. The Roman unity is successfully resisting the inroads of sects, of philosophies, of politics.

Can our separated brethren tell a similar tale of their many Churches, even in lands where they are ruled and backed by the secular power? We do not rejoice at their disintegration, at their falling into religious indifference, or returning into political parties. No, for any shred of Christianity is better than blank worldliness. But we do draw this conclusion: that after four centuries the Catholic principle of authority is still working out the salvation of the Church, whereas among Protestants the principle of Subjectivism is destroying what remains of their former faith and driving multitudes into religious indifference and estrangement from the supernatural." https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm

"Any shred of Christianity is better than blank worldliness". They have a partial Christianity that will always be incomplete in itself.

Catholic Christianity is Complete Christianity, the full 100% Catholic and Apostolic Faith. But other Christians have valid Baptism etc.

Every effort should be made to bring separated Christians back to the Catholic and Apostolic Church. They remain deprived of many gifts.

God Bless.

As I wrote on the other thread, the second one tries to reconcile V2 with Tradition, the effort begins to poison the mind and will ultimately bring faith to ruin.  It leads inexorably to the religious indifferentiam and moral relativism being put on display more and more by emotion-driven posters like XavierSem.  This is also why SSPX is swirling near the bottom of the toilet bowl.

Pax Vobis, I want America to be Catholic,

Pax Vobis, I want America to be Catholic, but if that is not immєdιαtely possible, at least let it be generically Christian, Christ-loving, Bible-respecting, proclaiming Jesus as King.

I for one would not be satisfied with Jesus as King alone without also having Mary as Queen. But I will take Jesus as King over having a godless, materialistic, liberal secularistic, lawless society.