: If you're aware Wikipedia is so erroneous
: regarding Spalding Faz, perhaps you should
: seek to update his entry with your superior
: knowledge.

Wikipedia makes no claim that you can use it's opinions about an author to condemn that writer in the specific, Catholic Church related, way you have. There's no need for me to 'update' his entry.

: No and I never set out to do this.

Clearly you did as you go on to elaborate ...

: I have
: provided evidence the Church condemns New
: Age ideas and as I just pointed out to Alex*
: Spalding was a member of and his writings
: inspired by the New Thought movement, a
: group that taught ideas that our now
: espoused by modern "New Age"
: proponents.

In short, condemnation by (tenuous) association. You don't attempt to provide a critical analysis of the words quoted, but seek to 'condemn' the man. Pure ad hominem, Pete.


: His beliefs and practices are also New Age
: belief and practices. That's the fault. The
: name for these erroneous beliefs and
: practices may change over time but the same
: errant thinking and behaviour is expressed.

In the original quote?

: As I have shown above, it's not just my
: "opinion".

I don't think you've done that at all (fwiw my opinion)

: My problem is the "inner voice"
: referred is quite possibly "ascended
: master Jesus" or some other demonic
: entity.

Even the term 'quite possibly' gives it away, Pete. It's your opinion and 'quite possibly' is tentative at best. It's not even 'probably'.

: So to clarify I'm saying it's a matter of
: opinion whether Alex is eager to defend
: Freemasonry. Get it?

What you're saying is clear, Pete. I just don't think your opinion is right in this case. Get it?