So what will it mean? St JP2-St.John23?

[INPEFESS]

As is evident from your reply, you do not understand the argument.

Human reason is insufficient to know that Bob Summers is among the saved or the damned.  It would require a communication from Heaven for that to be known.  That is Revelation.  For the Pope to bind it under infallibility it would be Public Revelation which would alter the Deposit of Faith, end the Dogma of the close of Revelation, which would also end infallibility and the whole Church would collapse under the weight of the contradictions.

This is the core of how you understand the argument, which premises simply make claims as given without addressing the arguments against them.

This argument has already been shown to lead to untenable conclusions. "Infallible" and "divine revelation" are not synonymous, as your arguments requires them to be in order to work.

Divine revelation is infallible, but not all that is infallible is divine revelation. Because you do not understand this, you do not understand the argument.

[Gerard]

As is evident from your reply, you do not understand the argument.

Human reason is insufficient to know that Bob Summers is among the saved or the damned.  It would require a communication from Heaven for that to be known.  That is Revelation.  For the Pope to bind it under infallibility it would be Public Revelation which would alter the Deposit of Faith, end the Dogma of the close of Revelation, which would also end infallibility and the whole Church would collapse under the weight of the contradictions.

This is the core of how you understand the argument, which premises simply make claims as given without addressing the arguments against them.

This argument has already been shown to lead to untenable conclusions. "Infallible" and "divine revelation" are not synonymous, as your arguments requires them to be in order to work.

Divine revelation is infallible, but not all that is infallible is divine revelation. Because you do not understand this, you do not understand the argument.

I'm sorry but you are wrong.  I understand your position completely and I've addressed each and every point. 

A dogmatic fact such as the Church not having the power to ordain women to the priesthood is not directly a part of Divine Revelation but is rather a consequence of the Revelation about the nature of the Church.  So, JPII made an infallible pronouncement that was not Divine Revelation but rather a dogmatic fact.

We can therefore know that Sinead O'Connor specifically is in no way a priest because we can reasonably and with moral certitude know that she is a "she."

What you have yet to refute is the fact that the knowledge of a particular soul being in Heaven cannot be known by human reason, therefore the qualifiers that make up a "dogmatic fact"  (as in the pronouncement of female ordination being impossible, verified by the physical difference between male and female) cannot be established. 

[Gerard]

No problem, nmoerbeek.

Gerard,
Part of the factual criteria are miracles performed through the intercession of a blessed soul.  Miracles are sensible facts and can be known with certitude; there are also rules on discerning miracles from diabolical works.  This is on top of a thorough examination of a confessor's life (his writings, the testimony of his priest, family and friends, employers).  These are the determining factors on whether a soul can be declared to be in Heaven.

Miracles performed through the intercession of a blessed are evidence of that soul's salvation; if a particular soul isn't in Heaven, but is prayed to, either God will not answer the prayer or He will delay answering it until the petitioner prays to a soul that is in Heaven.  The person's testimony that a particular blessed interceded for him will be severely scrutinized as to its veracity (aside from the testing of the miracle itself).

But those aren't characteristics and phenomena that affect infallibility.  Those are actually the criteria for Revelation.  Private revelations are of course fine, but no one is forced to believe them. 

Infalliblity is the binding and imposing belief on the faithful and the denial of such is anathema.  That would be taking a miracle as proof of a private revelation and turning it into a Public and irrevocable Revelation to the Church.  But we can't have that in the Catholic Church.

If I say, "Women can be ordained priests, the Church does have the power."  I'm opposing a binding teaching that is infallible. I have no place to go but outside the Church. 

If I say, "I really don't believe deep down that the statues of the Child Jesus came alive and played with St. Gerard Majella. I think that's apocryphal."  I'm not going against Church doctrine but only choosing to  be skeptical about a legend concerning a supposedly factual account about a specific a saint that has been canonized. 

[Gerard]

As is evident from your reply, you do not understand the argument.

Human reason is insufficient to know that Bob Summers is among the saved or the damned.  It would require a communication from Heaven for that to be known.  That is Revelation.  For the Pope to bind it under infallibility it would be Public Revelation which would alter the Deposit of Faith, end the Dogma of the close of Revelation, which would also end infallibility and the whole Church would collapse under the weight of the contradictions.

This is the core of how you understand the argument, which premises simply make claims as given without addressing the arguments against them.

This argument has already been shown to lead to untenable conclusions. "Infallible" and "divine revelation" are not synonymous, as your arguments requires them to be in order to work.

Divine revelation is infallible, but not all that is infallible is divine revelation. Because you do not understand this, you do not understand the argument.

Second response.  To simply invert my previous point, are you asserting that:

Human reason alone is sufficient to know that Bob Summers is among the saved or the damned?

It would not require a communication from Heaven for that to be known?

That it is not Revelation? 

[Gerard]

Gerard you make a very compelling Case...but on a few things I quibble....First off we know that Martyrs go to heaven...we know that St Stephen for example is in Heaven..(we have a scriptural description of his death)...we know elisha and Moses are there.....we know that All the Apostles (except Judus whom Jesus himself absolutely implied he was damned) are in heaven...we of course know because of the dogma of the assumption that the BVM is there...there are visions and miracles that attest to certain saints...etc etc.....

That's part of my argument.  None of the above were canonized by Popes.  We have a thousand years worth of saints that were not canonized. 

but I do accept your point that maybe doom and gloom isnt in order because they couldn't proclaim such a  thing infallibly anyway...I accept it as a legitimate possible position..

Thank you.  Can't ask for more at this point.

.BUT you cannot deny that in NO ordo land such nuanced positions do not exist...They will turn these two into Demi gods...and Vat2 as the bookend to Trent (instead of its opposite)

When He returns, will He find any faith?

I agree concerning the neo-Catholics, but things happen for God to bring out the greater good.  It could be that this will provide the eventual wake up moment that will burn away a number of assumptions that are encased in the "Neo-ultramontanist" mindset.  it's that mindset that is the enabler of the modernists. 

Whatever eventually comes out of this will be even more doctrinally pure and clarified than both the pre-Vatican II 1950s period and the post Vatican II calamity. 

I'm sure we'll have a series of pronouncements that will clear up issues that are contested  like Baptism of Desire and Blood, EENS concerning non-Catholics, true infallibility, ecclesiology, Angels and their differences with humans, Creation, so-called Natural Family Planning, True obedience. etc. 

[LandOfConfusion]

.....but I do accept your point that maybe doom and gloom isnt in order because they couldn't proclaim such a  thing infallibly anyway...I accept it as a legitimate possible position...BUT you cannot deny that in NO ordo land such nuanced positions do not exist...They will turn these two into Demi gods...and Vat2 as the bookend to Trent (instead of its opposite)

Yes, you are correct, they will make liberalism a way to sanctity. This is problematic because even though I do not believe canonizations are infallible, for many of the same reasons Gerard gave, I still have the problem of what a "saint" is, namely a person to be emulated. If a priest were to give a sermon and mention "St" John Paul II in good conscience I would have to leave as my children would hear that name and associate it with the same saints seen in the parish.

Still, I would associate the non-infallbility of saints as something more compatible with the history of the Church from Felix II and more recently the additions of Orthodox "saints" by Pius XII. It doesn't affect my faith at all, and I see a greater perspective of history in this position that only makes sense. Making the Church "super" infallible opens the door to greater scandal if the Church has not stated we must believe it as infallible should the occasion arise (like it is today), and lead to a novel ecclesiology to justify their positions. I know someone might say I'm confusing canonized and non-canonized saints, but the arguments that people use to justify infallibility would be in many cases exactly the same.

Gerard and myself have the great mind of Suarez who stated the Church could not infallibly state the disposition of a soul at the moment of death, as well as other theologians who have stated this as well as a reason why canonizations are not infallible.

Cardinal Newman's essay on Infallibility is fantastic. He implicitly says what we've said before, namely, that only objects that are specific truths can be infallible. I know people jump up and down that such a statement denies secondary infallibility of things not attached to Divine Revelation, but this belief of secondary infallibility is nowhere to be found in the fathers or doctors until the second millennium so one cannot say it was believed by all the faithful at all times and in all places.

I find fascinating the word "infallible" was used rather sparsely, if ever, about Church teaching except about major Ecumenical Councils pronouncing judgment on a particular aspect of faith and morals, to where now arguments of infallibility exist on issues no one even thought of for over a 1,000 years, and arguments to make something so, even if it sounds like it makes sense, is still an argument without a fact. 

Fr. O'Reilly, a Dublin theologian, is quoted as saying:
"What is the use of dragging in the Infallibility in connection with Papal acts with which it has nothing to do -- papal acts, which are very good and very holy, and entitled to all respect and obedience, acts in which the Pontiff is commonly not mistaken, but in which he could be mistaken and still remain infallible in the only sense in which he has been declared to be so?" (The Irish Monthly, Vol ii, No 10 year 1874)

I've never heard an answer to his "what is the use" he asks because to make so many things infallible makes the Church into a deck of cards, especially because he's addressing other theologians who make these connections that seem so right, but honestly don't make you any holier or not holier on these issues one way or another. 

Let us, in an age of confusion, say with Fr. O'Reilly that things are infallible "only sense in which he has been declared to be so" and he's referring to the exact statement at Vatican I which is the only declared statement on infallibility.

[Petrie]

Okay.  You don't feel any obligation to rebut my points about why i think I'm right.  But you just happen to think I'm wrong based on something other than my points being wrong. 

No, I think you're wrong based on things you have written and things I have read along the way on the topic. I'm not interested in rebutting you on a topic that I have decided on because I have no desire to change your mind.  If others want to try to do that, good on them.  But if you want to wrongly believe that canonizations are fallible and have been fallible since the beginning of Church history, you go right ahead. This way you can ignore the upcoming canonizations with a clear conscience. 

I haven't been here long but I can see that you and I are not going to get along.  You can accuse me of avoiding your questions all you want, but when someone likes to pick apart another's post the way you did with me here and the way you consistently do with others, that's not someone I prefer to interact with.  Picking apart another's words seems more like the desire to win a pissing contest and I'm not interested in the least.  Not to mention the fact that it takes a lot of time to respond to every little comment someone makes.  You may have the time and desire to do that.  I do not. 

I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and it's clear you're someone I need to ignore.  Have a nice day.

[Gerard]

No, I think you're wrong based on things you have written and things I have read along the way on the topic. I'm not interested in rebutting you on a topic that I have decided on because I have no desire to change your mind.

How convenient and uncharitable.  Amazing that you do feel the need to weigh in at all.  You want to express your feelings about the subject but not back it up with anything substantive. 

If others want to try to do that, good on them.  But if you want to wrongly believe that canonizations are fallible and have been fallible since the beginning of Church history, you go right ahead.

Of course, I'm wrong because you say so.  And you're just too high above the fray to offer fraternal correction.  I want to know the truth, if you can rebut my actual points, it would be an act of charity. 

This way you can ignore the upcoming canonizations with a clear conscience. 

Seems you didn't even read or understand what I wrote.  The canonizations of the two Popes  are not part of the argument. 

I haven't been here long but I can see that you and I are not going to get along.

Why would that be with you shooting off your opinions without backing them up? 

You can accuse me of avoiding your questions all you want, but when someone likes to pick apart another's post the way you did with me here and the way you consistently do with others, that's not someone I prefer to interact with.

Then shut up when you feel the need to reply to my posts.  Had you not bothered to make a snarky incoherent post against mine, we would not be interacting at all. 

Picking apart another's words seems more like the desire to win a pissing contest and I'm not interested in the least.

Of course, it's all about "winning" you don't seem to care whether being right is important at all.  And you don't feel obligated to demonstrate that you post anything true.  It's all about mudslinging to you it seems. 

Not to mention the fact that it takes a lot of time to respond to every little comment someone makes.  You may have the time and desire to do that.  I do not. 

It doesn't take that much time for me, since I'm clear on what I think and I type quickly.  But you have the time to make unsubstantiated comments and not back them up.  That's a complete waste of time. 

I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and it's clear you're someone I need to ignore.  Have a nice day.

You didn't give me the benefit of the doubt at all.  You came out of the box implicitly accusing me of condemning souls to Hell because I deny the infallibility of canonizations. 

I gave you the benefit of the doubt because I suspected you of being exactly what you turned out to be.   A troll. 

By all means ignore me and get the hell out of my way because you have absolutely NOTHING of value to contribute.  Go be a jackass in response to someone else's posts.

[rbjmartin]

Gerard, I tend to agree with your position, and it's not just because I want to.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, my understanding is that revelation closed with the death of the last apostle, the Deposit of Faith complete, and infallible pronouncements can only apply to matters that the Magisterium deem to be part of the Deposit of Faith.

If canonizations were infallible (which would imply some sort of new revelation beyond simple human observation), then why bother with investigations into the candidate's life? The pope could canonize and it would be so, regardless of miracles or evidence of personal holiness. It seems to lead to a slippery slope of papal positivism.

Can you recommend any prominent theologians who have held your position regarding canonizations?

[voxxpopulisuxx]

I want to be clear.....are there some saints Gerard that it is infallably certain they are Saints? (silly phrasing I know...but you get the gist)

[INPEFESS]

As is evident from your reply, you do not understand the argument.

Human reason is insufficient to know that Bob Summers is among the saved or the damned.  It would require a communication from Heaven for that to be known.  That is Revelation.  For the Pope to bind it under infallibility it would be Public Revelation which would alter the Deposit of Faith, end the Dogma of the close of Revelation, which would also end infallibility and the whole Church would collapse under the weight of the contradictions.

This is the core of how you understand the argument, which premises simply make claims as given without addressing the arguments against them.

This argument has already been shown to lead to untenable conclusions. "Infallible" and "divine revelation" are not synonymous, as your arguments requires them to be in order to work.

Divine revelation is infallible, but not all that is infallible is divine revelation. Because you do not understand this, you do not understand the argument.

I'm sorry but you are wrong.  I understand your position completely and I've addressed each and every point.

No, you haven't, and it is still clear that you do not understand the argument; your misunderstanding is still founded on an attempt to refute a premise not found in the argument. Technically, this is a strawman argument, but since I am not sure you have read the arguments made by the theological sources that argue for the infallibility of canonizations, it might simply be that you still do not understand the argument because you haven't actually read it. If you have not, then you should carefully read what follows.

The fact, by which the knowledge that this or that person now in heaven is established as infallible, has never been and is not about a putatively failproof method, an integrity of the means, or a security of the process by which that fact is established, i.e., by which the Church decides to canonize a given candidate based upon their own investigation of this or that candidate's private and public affairs; rather, the infallibility of the conclusion (that this or that person is in heaven) is established as a fact that follows from the Church's teaching applied to the historical fact of the canonization. In other words, the fact to which the Church's teaching is applied, such that the conclusion must be infallible, is not the facts surrounding the candidate's life but the fact that the Church did impose and prescribe the veneration of this or that soul's cultus upon the Universal Church as a precept of law, i.e., that they were canonized. Thus, the premise isn't "canonizations are infallible;" rather, infallibility is a theological conclusion that follows from the fact of the canonization based upon a logical deduction of what it would mean for the Church's teachings were they not. Please allow me to explain...

The relevant doctrine is the Church's mark of sanctity: namely, that the Church only imposes upon the faithful that which is useful or good for their collective spiritual well-being, since this concerns the very mission of the Church; thus, she is incapable of imposing upon the faithful a precept intrinsically harmful to their salvation and spiritual well-being, as would be the case if the Church were to impose upon the faithful for veneration and imitation an evil person. The relevant fact to which this doctrine is applied is the fact that this or that person was canonized, i.e., that the Church did hic et nunc impose and prescribe the cultus of this or that candidate upon the Universal Church as a precept of law. The conclusion, much like a theological conclusion or a dogmatic fact, is one of infallible certainty: the example, emulation, and veneration of this or that person canonized cannot be in any way be harmful to the spiritual well-being or salvation of souls. The reason the conclusion must be infallible is that to deny it would be to place the entire deposit if faith in peril, especially as it concerns the doctrine concerning the sanctity of the Church. One cannot admit that the Church is holy, but then deny it every time she actually exercises her holiness or proves it by her historical activity. To do so would be to make the Church's claims unfalsifiable: we say they distinguish her, but nothing she does can actually prove them, since we shrink from what it might mean if we ever did admit them and we're then proved wrong. This, of courses, evinces a lack of faith in God and in His Church.

The conclusion that this or that person must therefore be in Heaven follows as a theological consequence of this as reconciled with and considered in the light of other teachings of the Church; for the example, emulation, or veneration of a person who (a) either rejected God in life and is thus in Hell, or (b) neglected God in life and is thus in Purgatory, is at least in some way (if not most ways) harmful to the spiritual well-being or salvation or souls, since that would mean that they did not live their Catholic faith as they ought while alive and thus are a less-than-worthy model for the faithful of the Universal Church to be prescribed for veneration and emulation. Hence, a canonized soul can be nowhere but in Heaven; to posit that the candidate could be elsewhere without danger to the spiritual well-being of souls would be to deny the Church's teachings on Hell and Purgatory. But to deny these, might we call them, "theological conclusions" would be to deny either (a) the doctrinal premise—that the Church cannot give us that which is harmful to our spiritual well-being—or (b) the historical fact—that this or that person was not actually canonized, and thus their cultus and public veneration was not actually imposed and prescribed upon the Universal Church as a precept of law, which latter is called canonization.

In summary, we might put it like this: Were the Church capable of deceiving the faithful by imposing upon them a prescription harmful to their salvation or spiritual well-being, the Church could not be said Holy or indefectible; but the Church did impose upon them the prescription of emulation and veneration of this or that soul; therefore, the prescription or emulation of this or soul can in no way be harmful to the spiritual well-being of the faithful of the Universal Church. While you might try to argue that all those who argue thus are neo-Ultramontanists who exaggerate the Church's infallibility for their own wicked agendas because they did not get their way at Vatican I, this argument would be circular: "My argument is correct because anyone who disagrees is wrong (i.e. is a neo-Ultramontanist, which we all agree is wrong)." While you might try to argue that the argument I have here presented is circular—canonizations are infallible because they are infallible—I hope that a careful consideration of the argument will show you that such is not the argument at all: the infallible conclusion that this or that person is in Heaven is not established by the fact that they are infallible (which would be circular), by divine revelation, or by an failproof fact-finding process, which are all positions you  have rightly countered; it is the theological consequence that follows from the application of the doctrine of the Church regarding her sanctity (and indefectibility) to the fact that this or that person was actually canonized, i.e., that the Church did hic et nunc impose and prescribe the cultus of this or that candidate upon the Universal Church as a precept of law.

(NOTE: This is, in essence, the argument of Van Noort, Ott, Tanquerey, and many other manualists and theologians who examined the question in the 19th and 20th centuries. I admit that I do not present the argument as well as they do, but I have repeatedly tried to convince those who say that canonizations are not infallible to address the arguments made by these theologians [and not simply disregard the arguments themselves as proceeding from fallible sources] but to no avail. Please do no disregard the argument as I have presented it here on account of my poor reproduction of it; rather, please consider the argument itself as it can be understood from what has been said either by my post or from the sources themselves who have been using this argument for decades to teach the Church with her commissioned approval.)

[voxxpopulisuxx]

Ok I can distill a question from INPEFESS to Gerard (if I may be so bold)

Can the true faith cause spiritual harm?
Misinforming folks about who is and isnt worthy of veneration (even if they dont know they've been deceived) could cause some to wrongly ask for intercession to someone who cant actually help them...thus wasting spiritual effort...better spent in other actually effective ways.

[LandOfConfusion]

Gerard, I tend to agree with your position, and it's not just because I want to.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, my understanding is that revelation closed with the death of the last apostle, the Deposit of Faith complete, and infallible pronouncements can only apply to matters that the Magisterium deem to be part of the Deposit of Faith.

If canonizations were infallible (which would imply some sort of new revelation beyond simple human observation), then why bother with investigations into the candidate's life? The pope could canonize and it would be so, regardless of miracles or evidence of personal holiness. It seems to lead to a slippery slope of papal positivism.

Can you recommend any prominent theologians who have held your position regarding canonizations?

On canonizations...
""Some think this infallibility is not a defined dogma of faith: among these are the Dominicans John of St. Thomas and Dominic Bannez, the Jesuit Francis Suarez and the Carmelites of Salamanca."
http://sspx.org/en/beatification-and-canonization-vatican-ii-2

I believe that Thomas de Aquila as well did not believe canonizations were not infallible.

There are more too...

[trentcath]

I'd be curious to know if any Priests have spoken about this? What is the position of the Society regarding the canonizations?

Sent from my HTC6500LVW using Tapatalk

I would imagine that the SSPX denies the infallibility of solemn canonizations, seeing as how they certainly deny the infallibility of the Church's disciplinary laws: http://archives.sspx.org/Catholic_FAQs/catholic_faqs__canonical.htm#disciplinarylaws

The Church's universal laws and solemn canonizations are truths so closely connected with Revelation that doubting or denying them would imperil the faith and/or Revelation itself.  For this reason, they are part of what makes up the Church's secondary object of infallibility.  You can read more about it here: http://sedevacantist.com/van_noort_infallibility.html

That's rubbish, worse its such utter pernicious rubbish that you should know better. The society denies that any canonisation of these people will be infallible if it takes places and will conclude that all modern canonisations are invalid, it doesn't deny that solemn canonisation is infallible.

[Petrie]

No, I think you're wrong based on things you have written and things I have read along the way on the topic. I'm not interested in rebutting you on a topic that I have decided on because I have no desire to change your mind.

How convenient and uncharitable.  Amazing that you do feel the need to weigh in at all.  You want to express your feelings about the subject but not back it up with anything substantive. 

If others want to try to do that, good on them.  But if you want to wrongly believe that canonizations are fallible and have been fallible since the beginning of Church history, you go right ahead.

Of course, I'm wrong because you say so.  And you're just too high above the fray to offer fraternal correction.  I want to know the truth, if you can rebut my actual points, it would be an act of charity. 

This way you can ignore the upcoming canonizations with a clear conscience. 

Seems you didn't even read or understand what I wrote.  The canonizations of the two Popes  are not part of the argument. 

I haven't been here long but I can see that you and I are not going to get along.

Why would that be with you shooting off your opinions without backing them up? 

You can accuse me of avoiding your questions all you want, but when someone likes to pick apart another's post the way you did with me here and the way you consistently do with others, that's not someone I prefer to interact with.

Then shut up when you feel the need to reply to my posts.  Had you not bothered to make a snarky incoherent post against mine, we would not be interacting at all. 

Picking apart another's words seems more like the desire to win a pissing contest and I'm not interested in the least.

Of course, it's all about "winning" you don't seem to care whether being right is important at all.  And you don't feel obligated to demonstrate that you post anything true.  It's all about mudslinging to you it seems. 

Not to mention the fact that it takes a lot of time to respond to every little comment someone makes.  You may have the time and desire to do that.  I do not. 

It doesn't take that much time for me, since I'm clear on what I think and I type quickly.  But you have the time to make unsubstantiated comments and not back them up.  That's a complete waste of time. 

I have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and it's clear you're someone I need to ignore.  Have a nice day.

You didn't give me the benefit of the doubt at all.  You came out of the box implicitly accusing me of condemning souls to Hell because I deny the infallibility of canonizations. 

I gave you the benefit of the doubt because I suspected you of being exactly what you turned out to be.   A troll. 

By all means ignore me and get the hell out of my way because you have absolutely NOTHING of value to contribute.  Go be a jackass in response to someone else's posts.

Oooooh Dawggie!  That right there was one charitable post !!

LOL @ "it's all about winning".  That's the difference between you and I.  I'm not here to "win".  I am here to express my opinions even if others think I'm wrong or think I'm a troll for expressing them.  If there is something I'm not sure about, I will ask (and have asked) for guidance on it.  I think most of us come here to express our opinions.  Then there are those who are here to argue and prove they're right.  Sometimes I get caught up in that, but I recognize that more times than not it's futile.  With respect to this topic, I'm 100% sure about the infallibility of canonizations (at least from a true pope) and I have yet to see anything that has swayed me in the other direction.  I really have no need to argue about it.  Besides, there are a number of other posters who are already doing just that and I am humble enough to admit that they are much better qualified to do the job.   

As for calling me names such as troll and jackass, I don't care what you think of me, but please do show me how I "implicitly accused you of condemning souls to Hell because you deny the infallibility of canonizations". I have done no such thing and wasn't even thinking such a thing when I asked you my initial question.  That right there is an accusation in and of itself and you should be able to prove it if you're so sure that is what I set out to do. The reality is that my initial question was merely my trying to figure out how one (you) reconcile (s) canonized saints and the possibility that one or more of them really aren't a saint in Heaven (ie. since the papal decision was fallible in your mind). If I believe that canonizations are fallible, then any one of the saints canonized throughout history may not be in Heaven.  I think it is you who jumped on my first post as a personal attack and it went downhill from there.