I understand what AugustineEENS was doing.  Based on his PREMISES (which I hold to be faulty), he wasn't acting inconsistently.  It's like a syllogism that is correct, but the conclusion fails since one of the premises is faulty.

So let's imagine that some Protestant or non-Catholic has passed away, and Catholics who perhaps like the individual on a natural level start singing his praises and publicly praying for the repose of his soul.  That should in fact be corrected, as it's a grave contradiction of Church teaching.  Or of someone has committed ѕυιcιdє, and people start expressing good hope for his salvation and being in a better place (as the Conciliar Church do), that too should be corrected, tactfully, rather than allowing emotions like compassion or sympathy to take over to the point of doing harm to the Church's moral teaching.  Or if Mel Gibson were to pass away seemingly unrepentant of mortal sin.  We don't start minimizing the evil of adultery or ѕυιcιdє, or of heresy, for emotional reasons or for risk of sounding "insensitive".  And this is what DL was saying in his comment that got numerous downthumbs.

We had that to a lesser extent, say, when Rush Limbaugh passed away.  Some were talking about praying for Limbaugh and were singing his praises, but there's a real danger to faith there if people believe that Limbaugh could have been saved barring some miraculous and unknown deathbed conversion.

So his problem was equating Myrna's errors (and they were indeed errors) as formal heresy that excluded her from the Church, i.e. putting her into the same category as some Protestant who had passed away.  Indeed, some of the opinions she had expressed here were in fact gravely erroneous, and we should not whitewash them for emotional reasons now that she's passed away.

But, whether a person be alive or deceased, that is in fact the grave error made by the Dimonds.  Someone can have the formal motive of faith while nevertheless having succuмbed to error.  Given the grave confusion of these times, where even otherwise orthodox Catholics have misfired on the EENS question and on ecclesiology (including SVs and especially the CMRI, to which she belonged), how could someone hold a layperson with little theological training accountable for formal heresy that would exclude her from the Church?  Archbishop Lefebvre himself put into print an opinion that is objectively heretical and contradicts the Church's dogmatic teaching on EENS.  Myrna kept regularly referring to things she had been taught by nuns growing up and things that appeared in various catechisms.

But if someone can't see the difference between this and a Protestant, there's a real problem with their thinking.

So, if we accept as our rule of faith the Church's teaching regarding the faith, we do in fact have the formal motive of faith, and therefore remain formally Catholic, even if we materially hold an erroneous, even heretical opinion.  Catholics who are in error and who BELIEVE that the Church teaches something that is actually an error, still nevertheless believe the wrong thing for the right reasons.  Unless the error be so grave as to undermine the very status of the Church's teaching authority (whereby they implicitly reject the Church's teaching authority), this would constitute material error, and is the very definition of material error.  St. Augustine puts forward the litmus test, that a material heretic would immediately correct the opinion upon being informed that it's contrary to the Church's teaching.  So, for instance, when I was ill catechized by the Novus Ordo, I had a heretical understanding of the Immaculate Conception.  But when someone pointed out that the Church teaches otherwise, my response was, "oh, sorry" and I immediately accepted the correct understanding.  Similarly, if we had a certainly legitimate Traditional Pope, and if he came out and condemned Baptism of Desire as heresy, I have no doubt but that she would accept that and submit to it.  Unfortunately, I fear that if this same legitimate Traditional Pope came along and taught BoD as dogma, the Dimonds would reject it and hold the See to be vacant.

So, this is in fact the definition of "formal" heresy.  That is why it is said that if you reject one dogma, you reject them all.  If you reject a dogma that the Church clearly teaches, then you reject the authority behind all dogmas, and therefore exhibit that you lack the formal motive of faith, and the remaining dogmas you continue to believe are merely your opinion and not founded on the formal rule of faith.  This is not to be confused with "sincerity".  Someone could be very sincere, but if they do not believe based on the formal motive of faith, then they have no faith.  This is clearly taught by St. Thomas.  So in theory, you could have a Prot believe every single dogma taught by the Church (except, say, papal infallibility), but if he happened to base it on his own reading of Sacred Scripture rather than on the authority of the Church, he would be materially correct on every dogma, but still would lack the formal motive of faith.

When Catholics are arguing about WHAT the Church teaches, that's prima facie evidence that the Church's teaching is what ultimately matters.  It's when you get to the point of, "I know what the Church teaches, but I don't care, and I believe otherwise anyway" that one slides into formal heresy.

In any case, Myrna knows the whole truth now better than any of us does.  But we cannot either judge her outside the Church based on her errors, nor whitewash them and pretend that she was completely orthodox on every point.

So I think that the "malice" attributed to augustineeens is also overstated.  He too is mistaken about some of his premises, but he was not acting inconsistently with them.

May God rest Myrna's soul.

I understand what AugustineEENS was doing.  Based on his PREMISES (which I hold to be faulty), he wasn't acting inconsistently.  It's like a syllogism that is correct, but the conclusion fails since one of the premises is faulty.

So let's imagine that some Protestant or non-Catholic has passed away, and Catholics who perhaps like the individual on a natural level start singing his praises and publicly praying for the repose of his soul.  That should in fact be corrected, as it's a grave contradiction of Church teaching.  Or of someone has committed ѕυιcιdє, and people start expressing good hope for his salvation and being in a better place (as the Conciliar Church do), that too should be corrected, tactfully, rather than allowing emotions like compassion or sympathy to take over to the point of doing harm to the Church's moral teaching.  Or if Mel Gibson were to pass away seemingly unrepentant of mortal sin.  We don't start minimizing the evil of adultery or ѕυιcιdє, or of heresy, for emotional reasons or for risk of sounding "insensitive".  And this is what DL was saying in his comment that got numerous downthumbs.

We had that to a lesser extent, say, when Rush Limbaugh passed away.  Some were talking about praying for Limbaugh and were singing his praises, but there's a real danger to faith there if people believe that Limbaugh could have been saved barring some miraculous and unknown deathbed conversion.

So his problem was equating Myrna's errors (and they were indeed errors) as formal heresy that excluded her from the Church, i.e. putting her into the same category as some Protestant who had passed away.  Indeed, some of the opinions she had expressed here were in fact gravely erroneous, and we should not whitewash them for emotional reasons now that she's passed away.

But, whether a person be alive or deceased, that is in fact the grave error made by the Dimonds.  Someone can have the formal motive of faith while nevertheless having succuмbed to error.  Given the grave confusion of these times, where even otherwise orthodox Catholics have misfired on the EENS question and on ecclesiology (including SVs and especially the CMRI, to which she belonged), how could someone hold a layperson with little theological training accountable for formal heresy that would exclude her from the Church?  Archbishop Lefebvre himself put into print an opinion that is objectively heretical and contradicts the Church's dogmatic teaching on EENS.  Myrna kept regularly referring to things she had been taught by nuns growing up and things that appeared in various catechisms.

But if someone can't see the difference between this and a Protestant, there's a real problem with their thinking.

So, if we accept as our rule of faith the Church's teaching regarding the faith, we do in fact have the formal motive of faith, and therefore remain formally Catholic, even if we materially hold an erroneous, even heretical opinion.  Catholics who are in error and who BELIEVE that the Church teaches something that is actually an error, still nevertheless believe the wrong thing for the right reasons.  Unless the error be so grave as to undermine the very status of the Church's teaching authority (whereby they implicitly reject the Church's teaching authority), this would constitute material error, and is the very definition of material error.  St. Augustine puts forward the litmus test, that a material heretic would immediately correct the opinion upon being informed that it's contrary to the Church's teaching.  So, for instance, when I was ill catechized by the Novus Ordo, I had a heretical understanding of the Immaculate Conception.  But when someone pointed out that the Church teaches otherwise, my response was, "oh, sorry" and I immediately accepted the correct understanding.  Similarly, if we had a certainly legitimate Traditional Pope, and if he came out and condemned Baptism of Desire as heresy, I have no doubt but that she would accept that and submit to it.  Unfortunately, I fear that if this same legitimate Traditional Pope came along and taught BoD as dogma, the Dimonds would reject it and hold the See to be vacant.

So, this is in fact the definition of "formal" heresy.  That is why it is said that if you reject one dogma, you reject them all.  If you reject a dogma that the Church clearly teaches, then you reject the authority behind all dogmas, and therefore exhibit that you lack the formal motive of faith, and the remaining dogmas you continue to believe are merely your opinion and not founded on the formal rule of faith.  This is not to be confused with "sincerity".  Someone could be very sincere, but if they do not believe based on the formal motive of faith, then they have no faith.  This is clearly taught by St. Thomas.  So in theory, you could have a Prot believe every single dogma taught by the Church (except, say, papal infallibility), but if he happened to base it on his own reading of Sacred Scripture rather than on the authority of the Church, he would be materially correct on every dogma, but still would lack the formal motive of faith.

When Catholics are arguing about WHAT the Church teaches, that's prima facie evidence that the Church's teaching is what ultimately matters.  It's when you get to the point of, "I know what the Church teaches, but I don't care, and I believe otherwise anyway" that one slides into formal heresy.

In any case, Myrna knows the whole truth now better than any of us does.  But we cannot either judge her outside the Church based on her errors, nor whitewash them and pretend that she was completely orthodox on every point.

So I think that the "malice" attributed to augustineeens is also overstated.  He too is mistaken about some of his premises, but he was not acting inconsistently with them.

May God rest Myrna's soul.

So when my Jєωιѕн mother passes away and I post about it, it would be fine if he yelled from the rooftops that she's in Hell.  Got it.  Sorry.  You just don't do that in this situation no matter what. If he wanted to create a new thread and make a general post about praying for non-Catholics after death, that would be different.

Now I pray daily that she converts and gets baptized prior to her death but I would like to think that fellow Cahtolics would have the sense not to pontificate in her obituary thread.

He should have kept his mouth shut.  Full stop.

I have many fond memories of Myrna and appreciated her kindness.  We shared an interest in old movies (from a time when they supported rather than attacked the Faith) and I had many hours of pleasure watching her recommendations.

Thanks for posting this news, Matthew.  Although I am no longer active on the forum, I still check in occasionally for the personal connections.  Although I am happier to learn about births than deaths, I am grateful for the opportunity to pray for the souls of the dead.

It was very disrespectful and the act of a scuмbag to do that on MyrnaM's "obituary" on this forum. He should've simply started another thread on the issue after some time has passed.

MyrnaM, you are now the Church Triumphant. Please pray for me and all of us here at CI.

Speaking of posts that require correction, I present Exhibit A above ^^^.  I find it shocking that this received two upthumbs.  You have no earthly idea bout whether Myrna is now among the Church Triumphant, and to declare this and to canonize her is to do her a great disservice.  This second sentence is pure unadulterated Novus Ordo trash.  You should have just rolled out the white vestments, clowns, and the balloons.

I recall how when JP2 died, the Modernist (material heretic) Fr. Benedict Groeschel was canonizing JP2 and at one point actually said, "I'm praying for him, but not too hard."  If JP2 was saved somehow, that does a grave disservice.  This is a LACK of charity masquerading as charity.  Frankly, if I pass way, I would much prefer that people think I was a total degenerate and on that account offer more prayers for me than to offer "nice words" about me and neglect prayer due to categorizing me among the "Church Triumphant".  Those "nice words" do me zero good at that point.

Even for AugustineEENS, charity requires that we put the best possible construction on his motives instead of denouncing him as a degenerate "scuмbag".  I don't know him, and have gotten into arguments with him here, but it crossed a line to denounce him as a "scuмbag".  This represents the same hypocrisy I see when people uncharitably deride the Dimond Brothers ... on account of their "lack of charity".  We are required to show charity even for the uncharitable, as Our Lord required it of His disciples to forgive and to pray for their enemies.

I understand what AugustineEENS was doing.  Based on his PREMISES (which I hold to be faulty), he wasn't acting inconsistently.  It's like a syllogism that is correct, but the conclusion fails since one of the premises is faulty.

So let's imagine that some Protestant or non-Catholic has passed away, and Catholics who perhaps like the individual on a natural level start singing his praises and publicly praying for the repose of his soul.  That should in fact be corrected, as it's a grave contradiction of Church teaching.  Or of someone has committed ѕυιcιdє, and people start expressing good hope for his salvation and being in a better place (as the Conciliar Church do), that too should be corrected, tactfully, rather than allowing emotions like compassion or sympathy to take over to the point of doing harm to the Church's moral teaching.  Or if Mel Gibson were to pass away seemingly unrepentant of mortal sin.  We don't start minimizing the evil of adultery or ѕυιcιdє, or of heresy, for emotional reasons or for risk of sounding "insensitive".  And this is what DL was saying in his comment that got numerous downthumbs.

We had that to a lesser extent, say, when Rush Limbaugh passed away.  Some were talking about praying for Limbaugh and were singing his praises, but there's a real danger to faith there if people believe that Limbaugh could have been saved barring some miraculous and unknown deathbed conversion.

So his problem was equating Myrna's errors (and they were indeed errors) as formal heresy that excluded her from the Church, i.e. putting her into the same category as some Protestant who had passed away.  Indeed, some of the opinions she had expressed here were in fact gravely erroneous, and we should not whitewash them for emotional reasons now that she's passed away.

But, whether a person be alive or deceased, that is in fact the grave error made by the Dimonds.  Someone can have the formal motive of faith while nevertheless having succuмbed to error.  Given the grave confusion of these times, where even otherwise orthodox Catholics have misfired on the EENS question and on ecclesiology (including SVs and especially the CMRI, to which she belonged), how could someone hold a layperson with little theological training accountable for formal heresy that would exclude her from the Church?  Archbishop Lefebvre himself put into print an opinion that is objectively heretical and contradicts the Church's dogmatic teaching on EENS.  Myrna kept regularly referring to things she had been taught by nuns growing up and things that appeared in various catechisms.

But if someone can't see the difference between this and a Protestant, there's a real problem with their thinking.

So, if we accept as our rule of faith the Church's teaching regarding the faith, we do in fact have the formal motive of faith, and therefore remain formally Catholic, even if we materially hold an erroneous, even heretical opinion.  Catholics who are in error and who BELIEVE that the Church teaches something that is actually an error, still nevertheless believe the wrong thing for the right reasons.  Unless the error be so grave as to undermine the very status of the Church's teaching authority (whereby they implicitly reject the Church's teaching authority), this would constitute material error, and is the very definition of material error.  St. Augustine puts forward the litmus test, that a material heretic would immediately correct the opinion upon being informed that it's contrary to the Church's teaching.  So, for instance, when I was ill catechized by the Novus Ordo, I had a heretical understanding of the Immaculate Conception.  But when someone pointed out that the Church teaches otherwise, my response was, "oh, sorry" and I immediately accepted the correct understanding.  Similarly, if we had a certainly legitimate Traditional Pope, and if he came out and condemned Baptism of Desire as heresy, I have no doubt but that she would accept that and submit to it.  Unfortunately, I fear that if this same legitimate Traditional Pope came along and taught BoD as dogma, the Dimonds would reject it and hold the See to be vacant.

So, this is in fact the definition of "formal" heresy.  That is why it is said that if you reject one dogma, you reject them all.  If you reject a dogma that the Church clearly teaches, then you reject the authority behind all dogmas, and therefore exhibit that you lack the formal motive of faith, and the remaining dogmas you continue to believe are merely your opinion and not founded on the formal rule of faith.  This is not to be confused with "sincerity".  Someone could be very sincere, but if they do not believe based on the formal motive of faith, then they have no faith.  This is clearly taught by St. Thomas.  So in theory, you could have a Prot believe every single dogma taught by the Church (except, say, papal infallibility), but if he happened to base it on his own reading of Sacred Scripture rather than on the authority of the Church, he would be materially correct on every dogma, but still would lack the formal motive of faith.

When Catholics are arguing about WHAT the Church teaches, that's prima facie evidence that the Church's teaching is what ultimately matters.  It's when you get to the point of, "I know what the Church teaches, but I don't care, and I believe otherwise anyway" that one slides into formal heresy.

In any case, Myrna knows the whole truth now better than any of us does.  But we cannot either judge her outside the Church based on her errors, nor whitewash them and pretend that she was completely orthodox on every point.

So I think that the "malice" attributed to augustineeens is also overstated.  He too is mistaken about some of his premises, but he was not acting inconsistently with them.

May God rest Myrna's soul.

I get that this is a kinda side point, but if Mel confessed/received last rites right before dying would
that be enough to pray for him/consider it not scandalous to pray for him publically?

Speaking of posts that require correction, I present Exhibit A above ^^^.  I find it shocking that this received two upthumbs.  You have no earthly idea bout whether Myrna is now among the Church Triumphant, and to declare this and to canonize her is to do her a great disservice.  This second sentence is pure unadulterated Novus Ordo trash.  You should have just rolled out the white vestments, clowns, and the balloons.

The bolded is incredibly ironic considering she lived through Vatican II firsthand. It goes against everything the Faith stands for and is pure Protestantism. Speaking of JP2, it reminds me of when they shouted "Santo Subito" and wanted him canonized the moment news of his passing broke. It's very bad.

I started a thread where people can talk about this thread rather than Myrna herself:https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/appropriate-responses-to-learning-that-someone-has-died/

I spent some time reading through her old posts yesterday and appreciated it.  If anyone wants to do that, here is a link to her profile: https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/MyrnaM/. (Matthew also included it in the OP.) Just click on that and then click "show posts".