Woman, behold they son, and the Co-Redemptrix

[Philip G.]

You had me at "I reject papal authority...." You are a heretic Philip G.

To be more precise, he takes a heretical position.  As others have pointed out, the level of incoherence in his posts is suggestive of mental illness.  If that is, in fact, the case, then it may significantly reduce his culpability for holding heretical views.  This is a situation in which the distinction between formal and material heresy is helpful.

Personally, I do not think it prudent to engage him in debate.  There is, however, a case to be made for identifying any clearly heretical statements.  We don't want to leave the impression that these are acceptable.

It appears more as if Phillip is a very imaginative thinker, and SD is a place for him to actively think things out.

I am not going to disagree with that assessment.  Such thought, surely has strengths and weaknesses.  I often get criticized when I either don't agree with other posters, or for some reason come off as conclusively arriving at what I would consider my position to be.  And, posters will say, "why do you even ask, when you already either know or believe you know the answer?".  And, the truth is, that what I often discuss, I do not conclusively believe I know.  And, ironically, what I do believe I know, I often don't discuss.  You don't see me clogging up the sedevacantism section, despite the fact that I am a staunch sedeplenist.  I do however have suspicions/hunches, and over the years I have come to trust such a hunch or suspicion about a specific subject/topic.  But, without other posters, negatively or positively contributing, I might not be led in the direction I need to in order to arrive at what I would consider the crux of the matter to be, in turn allowing me to draw a definitive conclusion, or refining my already personal opinion.  But, since when is an online forum not a potential means to satisfy such end?

There is a saying.  It goes something like, "there is nothing wrong with talking to yourself; it is only wrong when you start answering back."  In sum, there is nothing wrong with thinking out loud barring exceptions, or exercising the imagination.  Like I said, I benefit from feedback.  Who doesn't?  "It is not good for man to be alone" said God of Adam.  Similarly, there is also nothing wrong with pent up emotion.  But, pent up emotion can become wrong.  Do you know when pent up emotion becomes wrong Jayne? 

[Philip G.]

The fact that the accusations against Philip's mental health are made publicly is reason enough to suppose those who do so are feigning sincerity.

Aside from past friendlies, my inbox is empty. 

[Michael Wilson]

PhillipG. Stated:

Secondly, would you kindly please point out where I posted/typed that "I reject papal authority".

Vs.

I reject papal teaching ... that is a lot older than 300 years".  And, this is correct. I reject the death penalty for heresy, just as St. Martin of Tours did with the agreement of St. Ambrose of Milan and Pope Siricius, long before the church-state began to use such a merciless measure against its political rivals.  And, I have not kept that belief hidden.

Phil,
by picking which Papal teachings you accept and which ones you reject, you are effectively setting yourself as the ultimate authority over the Pope. So you are indeed "rejecting Papal authority".