How's my patient this morning? You don't have to worry about impressing anybody by your post-count; it doesn't make you look like you have more to say by spreading your answer out over several posts.
Let's start with this; when I said that you've failed to show that I re-defined "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic only," you responded like this: "When it's been shown over and over what you've said and resaid, it does no good to go over and over the same info." So, I'll go over this piece by piece and prove that you have not shown that I re-defined it.
You first accused me of re-defining "Christian" in post 74. This was your justification: "We started with the idea of Christian (P, EO, RC). But since I've brought up what about the rest of us or dogma from heaven or disagreement on earth or post excommunications, you've redefined Christian to mean RC." In the first place, I'll point out that never did I define "Christian" as "(P, EO, RC); I simply defined - with your agreement - "A Christian is one who remains in the Body of Christ" (pst 29). You quote nothing that shows that I defined "Christian" as "(P, EO, RC)"; and that is because it does not exist. I responded at the time by saying: "I specifically denied defining the term 'Christian' beyond 'a Christian is a person who remains in the body of Christ [in post 42].'"
But more importantly, you began to assert that I defined as a Christian only those who believe all that the Catholic Church does; you made it more explicit in post 77, when you said: "Some Christians have posited 4 new de fide dogmas, the belief of which is necessary, some Christians believe, for all Christians to go to, or even stay in, heaven. If, however, a Christian dies, or is dead, without believing them, they go to hell." My response was: "
I've never said that, have I?" which is perfectly true. Then, in post 82, I pointed out that a person who denies a doctrine of the Catholic Church can be called a heretic: "Consequently I can, in the scientific, most non-pergorative sense of the term, call you a heretic because you should believe certain doctrines and you do not." If your claim is: Judechild says that all non-Catholics are non-Christians, it naturally follows, then, that I must define all heretics as non-Christians. But I have not defined all heretics as non-Christians (you've merely asserted it). Ergo, I have not said that all non-Catholics are non-Christians. It is a simple modus tollens, which is a valid argument form; do you have a valid argument against it?
I will also prove that my line-of-reasoning is logically consistent. It looks like this:
P1: All Catholics are Christians
P2: All heretics are non-Catholics
Therefore, it does not follow that all heretics are non-Christians (because, after all, P1 does not say "only Catholics are Christians," leaving open the possibility that they could still be Christians).
If you really want to tell me that I re-defined "Christian" to mean "Roman Catholic only," you need to quit playing around and show where I said "all heretics are non-Christians." This means that you need to go back, look at my responses, and post the exact wording. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke and hoping that the non-existent observers of the thread will believe you.
Now, on the issue of your nonsense about Mormon baptism and these letters from the third century. In the first place, it doesn't do you any good to go around saying "I mistakenly thought JuCh was familiar with these things. So, rather than derail, I'll let this issue also go." Just like your use of the Canons of the Council of Carthage two years ago, you know very well that people haven't read them ahead of time, and that is of course the reason that you use them. Ignorance is one of your best friends; the trouble is that it's fickle, and when someone has actually researched it, your claims fall away. So don't go putting on your airs of pretend intellectualism when you don't know what it is that you're talking about. Quite simply, I do not believe you when you say that you've read those letters; and that is based on experience with you that you know better than to deny. Hence, I will not waste my time; I'll get around to it in a year or so and come back - just like your Christmas presents thread.
Secondly, I asked you for a very simple thing; I asked you to show where the Church approved of Mormon baptism before 2001; that is to say, you need to show that the Mormon baptism was approved by the Bishops at one time. This shouldn't come as a surprise to you, since the Church believes that Baptism must be valid, even her own baptisms. If there is not, for instance, the Trinitarian Formula - even if it's done by a Catholic priest - it is invalid. But you haven't found anything from the Church that approves of Mormon baptism... by the way, is that Schaff? The same Schaff that you cited a year ago, claiming that it proved that the Canons from the Council of Carthage were still applicable today, until I read it myself and posted numerous parts of the book back to you until you gave up under the mounting evidence from the very source you cited to refute me?
Also, I will again not take you seriously until you cite a source other than Wikipedia on the subject of "anathema." If you read, for example, the Catholic enyclopedia on the subject of excommunication, you'll find different definitions (although that's a lazy-course too).
Belief 1: Any dogma/teaching by RC is applicable to all RC.
Belief 2: Any dogma/teaching by RC is applicable to everyone else.
Hello, Operator? Please put me through to post 82: " But it is true that any dogma is "applicable" to all Christians, whether they believe it or not." Thank you, Operator.
As for your later two options; I'm sorry, but you're simply incorrect on the subject of anathema. I've already given you examples of different ways that the term "anathema" is used. Consequetly, I will not answer, because the options are based on a faulty premise. Furthermore, you would not want me to say that "Any and all Council decisions post Acts 15 do not bind any Christian in heaven or earth" because in order to make that claim, I'd have to affirm a "Council decision post Acts 15" in the first place; the Council decision that put Acts 15 in the Canon of Scripture.
And, again, it is simply not true that the Church excommunicated people who had passed away who were Quartodecimians (and I'm glad that you know that it means 14). The Church did not say that celebrating Easter on the 14th was itself wrong; only that it was inappropriate that the Church celebrate such an important Solumnity on two separate days, and since Sunday was the weekly commemoration of Easter in a minor way, it was appropriate that the whole Church celebrate the Resurrection on a Sunday.
Finally... so, do you not have any problems with the definition of the Body in Heaven as "The Body in heaven are members of the society of the Church who have been particularly judged, and found worthy to enter the presence of God in the Beatific Vision"? We can do this all year, if you like.