I recently received a comment in my Against Tim Staples page that stated, “Tim Staples is correct, this blog is lame.” What was lame was the comment since no examples were given.
So let’s take a look back at five examples of Tim Staples’ argumentation against me.
1. On the late Protestant leader Br. Roger Schultz: Tim Staples said Br. Roger Schultz converted privately to the Catholic Faith in 1972 and Ratzinger did nothing wrong by giving him communion. In fact, Schultz claimed that he never broke communion with his Protestant sect.  Therefore, Staples was incorrect.
2. On the infallibility of Church Disciplines: Tim Staples said, “I am saying that Church disciplines are not infallible… [again] Disciplines are not infallible…. You guys cannot make the proper distinctions between dogma, doctrine and discipline.” Yet, five popes and at least seven highly respected theologians stated or implied that Church disciplines are infallible.  Therefore, Staples is incorrect again.
3. On religious liberty: Tim Staples denied that post-Vatican 2 Rome gave men a right to be wrong, when in fact Vatican 2 taught the contrary. 
4. On papal elections: Staples said that electing a pope without cardinals can’t be done because of the law, and therefore, sedevacantism is debunked by this fact. I quoted three theologians that claimed that the cardinal-elect could become extinct or unable to elect a future pope, and therefore the normal law would be suspended under extraordinary conditions. Staples has absolutely no authorities to back his arguments, but rather creates laws that don’t exist. Tim also wrote: I argue that a true Pope cannot be elected without the law of the Church. Yet, I gave him historic examples of true popes unlawfully elected and not elected at all despite the laws.  Staples once again is incorrect.
5. On praying and worshiping with non-Catholics: Staples said that it was a good thing when Benedict XVI bowed towards Mecca and worshiped with Muslims as Muslims do, barefoot with arms folded in a Mosque. The Catholic Church has always and everywhere repeatedly taught that praying and worshiping with non-Catholics is contrary to the Divine law. In 1729, the Holy Office even taught that praying with non-Catholics was contrary to the Natural and Divine law, which confirms the Holy Scriptures in II Cor. 6.14-16. 
 Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, 78 (1794): “as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism, – false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.” (Denzinger 1578; DS 2678)
Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 9 (1832): “Furthermore, the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or branded as contrary to certain principles of the natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the Church and her ministers are embraced.” He confirms it again in Quo Graviora, 4-5 (1833):
Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Sept 13, 1907: “Venerable Brethren, the principles from which these doctrines spring have been solemnly condemned by Our predecessor, Pius VI, in his Apostolic Constititution Auctorem fidei.”
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 66 (1943): “Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors.”
Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D. Dogmatic Theology 2:91 (1958): “The Church’s infallibility extends to….ecclesiastical laws…. the Church is infallible in issuing a doctrinal decree…. If the Church should make a mistake in the manner alleged when it legislated for the general discipline, it would no longer either be a loyal guardian of revealed doctrine or a trustworthy teacher of the Christian way of life.”
P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258: “The Church is infallible in her general discipline….”
A Dorsch, Institutiones Theologiae Fundamentalis. Innsbruck: Rauch 1928. 2:409: “The Church is also rightfully held to be infallible in her disciplinary decrees…”
R.M. Schultes De Ecclesia Catholica. Paris: Lethielleux 1931. 314-7: “The Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Through disciplinary laws, the Church teaches about matters of faith and morals, not doctrinally or theoretically, put practically and effectively. A disciplinary law therefore involves a doctrinal judgment…. The reason, therefore, and foundation for the Church’s infallibility in her general discipline is the intimate connection between truths of faith or morals and disciplinary laws. The principal matter of disciplinary laws is as follows: a) worship….”
Valentino Zubizarreta Theologia Dogmatico-Scholastica. 4th ed. Vitoria: El Carmen 1948. 1:486: “ Corollary II. In establishing disciplinary laws for the universal Church, the Church is likewise infallible…”
Serapius Iragui, Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Stadium 1959. 1:436, 447: “Therefore, when the Church establishes disciplinary laws, she must be infallible.”
Joachim Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa. 5th ed. Madrid: BAC 1962. 1:722,723: “3) Regarding disciplinary decrees in general which are by their purpose [finaliter] connected with things which God has revealed. A. The purpose of the infallible Magisterium requires infallibility for decrees of this kind…. Specifically, that the Church claims infallibility for herself in liturgical decrees…”
 Tim Staples said to me, “You misrepresent the teaching of the Church. The Church does not teach there is a “right to be wrong,”
Quoting DH of Vatican2, I wrote: “in religious matters, nor prevented from acting according to his conscience, whether in private or in public, within due limits….Therefore this right to non-interference persists even in those who do not carry out their obligations of seeking the truth and standing by it; and the exercise of this right should not be curtailed, as long as due public order is preserved.”
False religions are “wrongs” and Vat2 is saying that these “wrongs” have rights in the public square.
Staples replied: That is not what the document says. That is what you said. The Church is emphasizing the right of every person to worship God free from coercion and violence which is contrary to nature as well as nature’s God. “Within due limits” has to be understood in the context of our tradition just as the rest of the document does.
I responded: This is not what the document says. That is what you say. It doesn’t say “worship God” but instead says, “In religious matters” which can be in any way with any god. This is wrong but the document says this is a right. It also says that they can do it in public and in writing, without hindrance.
Staples continued: You lie when you say “Vatican 2 says men have a right to be wrong.” I’ve read every word. It is not there.
I replied again: I CAN’T BELIEVE WHAT I’M HEARING. I SHOWED YOU WHAT VATICAN 2 states. You are the liar, unless of course, you don’t think being a practicing non-Catholic is wrong. Am I wrong in my position as I email, write articles, and convert people out of your novus ordo religion? If so, do I have a “right” to do this? You’re so blind.
Staples final reply: You have the right to practice what you believe free from coercion. The government has the right to say it is Catholic and to pass laws that give preferential treatment to the Church. However, the government does not have the right to use coercion to force you to be Catholic. You have the freedom ‘within due limits” to practice your faith in your non-Catholic sect.
My last nail in Staples’ coffin: You can’t answer the question (Am I wrong is my position?) without subverting your own argument. You said nowhere in Vatican 2 does it give man the right to be wrong. You said I was lying by saying it did. I asked you if I was wrong in what I believe and do with it, and do I have a right according to Vatican 2? You didn’t answer the question. You are the liar!
 OPEN LETTER TO TIM STAPLES OF “CATHOLIC ANSWERS” AND HIS TWO REPLIES https://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/open-letter-to-tim-staples-of-catholic-answers/