Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic: Did this priest commit an act of schism?  (Read 3751 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SeanJohnson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15060
  • Reputation: +10006/-3162
  • Gender: Male
Re: Did this priest commit an act of schism?
« Reply #15 on: May 06, 2021, 08:15:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on May 06, 2021, 08:10:57 AM
    Given the lack of any authoritative teaching from Bergoglio, the question still revolves around whether one in general submits to the Vatican II system and the Conciliar Church.  Given that this FSSP priest is in such submission, I don't see anything necessarily schismatic about him.
    This comment suggests that those like Lefebvre/SSPX/Resistance who acknowledge the papacy of the conciliar popes are schismatic for not submitting to their errors.
    Typical sede error.
    Logged
    Rom 5: 20 - "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46601
    • Reputation: +27460/-5072
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Did this priest commit an act of schism?
    « Reply #16 on: May 06, 2021, 08:27:02 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on May 06, 2021, 08:12:24 AM
    Those  also would not/could not be magisterial for the same reason.
    Despite using the form of an encyclical, they have no binding force, and lacks temporal universality.

    Right, I know that this is where you and I disagree, but let's not turn this into another round.  Basically, this priest is not schismatic simply for saying that Bergoglio needs to be ignored.  As explained by Msgr. Fenton, even Encyclicals require religious assent, but that is not the same necessarily as absolute intellectual assent to the truth of every single assertion.  It's more an attitude of assuming that it's Catholic unless grave reasons suggest otherwise.  With Bergoglio, I'm afraid that most of us assume that it's erroneous until proven otherwise.  He's like an anti-rule of faith, where if Bergoglio teaches it, there's a high likelihood that the opposite is actually true.

    This is one point on which I disagreed with Drew.  He confused the notion of religious assent with accepting each proposition as absolutely true.  Msgr. Fenton differentiates the two.  One could respectfully disagree with any proposition for grave reasons and not absolutely belief it to be true while giving it a religious assent.  It's more of an attitude than strict philosophical certitude.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46601
    • Reputation: +27460/-5072
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Did this priest commit an act of schism?
    « Reply #17 on: May 06, 2021, 08:41:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Here's Msgr. Fenton, who devoted an entire article to the authority of papal Encyclicals.  Basically, he says that there CAN be infallible statements in them, but generally speaking they are not infallible.  But they require "religious assent" (which he defines here):

    http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm

    Quote
    The distinguished theologians who deny the papal encyclicals the status of infallible docuмents teach, none the less, that the faithful are bound in conscience to accord these letters not only the tribute of respectful silence, but also a definite and sincere internal religious assent. To this end many of them, like Fr. De Groot, [30] apply to the encyclicals a teaching with the eminent and brilliant Dominic Palmieri had developed about the Catholic attitude towards non-infallible teaching in the Church. [31] Pegues, in his Revue thomiste article, makes this application with his usual clarity.

    ‘Hence it follows that the authority of the encyclicals is not at all the same as that of the solemn definition, the one properly so-called. The definition demands an assent without reservation and makes a formal act of faith obligatory. The case of the encyclical’s authority is not the same.

    This authority (of the papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great. It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church.

    Ultimately, however, this assent is not the same as the one demanded in the formal act of faith. Strictly speaking, it is possible that this teaching (proposed in the encyclical letter) is subject to error. There are a thousand reasons to believe that it is not. It has probably never been (erroneous), and it is normally certain that it will never be. But, absolutely speaking, it could be, because God does not guarantee it as He guarantees the teaching formulated by way of definition’. [32]

    Lercher teaches that the internal assent due to these pronouncements cannot be called certain according to the strictest philosophical meaning of the term. The assent given to such propositions is interpretative condicionatus, including the tacit condition that the teaching is accepted as true “unless the Church should at some time peremptorially define otherwise or unless the decision should be discovered to be erroneous.” [33] Lyons [34] and Phillips [35] use the same approach in describing the assent Catholics are in conscience bound to give to the Church’s non-infallible teachings. Fr. Yves de la Brière speaks of the “submission and hierarchical obedience” due to these pronouncements. [36]

    So Drew mistook the notion of religious assent with having to believe them to be "certain according to the strictest philosophical meaning of the term".  But Fenton, citing numerous theologians, says that this religious assent is an attitude of submission and respect, and unless "the decision should be discovered to be erroneous."  So it's basically an attitude of respect and giving the benefit of the doubt that they're true unless it's proven otherwise.

    Does any Traditional Catholic receive the acts of Bergoglio with respect and with the presumption of their being true?

    I know that I don't.  But if I were convinced that Berogoglio were in fact the Vicar of Christ, I would be required to make an attitude adjustment.
    Logged

    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 8130
    • Reputation: +2515/-1118
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Did this priest commit an act of schism?
    « Reply #18 on: May 06, 2021, 08:58:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: SeanJohnson on May 06, 2021, 08:15:15 AM
    This comment suggests that those like Lefebvre/SSPX/Resistance who acknowledge the papacy of the conciliar popes are schismatic for not submitting to their errors.
    Typical sede error.

    The SVs, right or wrong, speak of schism where ABL and the SSPX are concerned precisely because of the undeniable fact that a parallel, worldwide apostolate has been created and maintained for decades.  It is a case of Altar-vs-Altar, regardless of all protestations to the contrary.

    Considering the present, sad reality, it is the steadfast refusal to accept the errors of V2 that constitutes the glory, such as it is, of the SSPX and draws praise even from those whose take on the crisis is different.  I realize that granting a reasonable degree of latitude to those with whom we disagree is not very fashionable in most circles of Traddieland (or the world at large), but such is life in 2021.
    Logged
    "Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is all man."

    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 8130
    • Reputation: +2515/-1118
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Did this priest commit an act of schism?
    « Reply #19 on: May 06, 2021, 09:13:53 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on May 06, 2021, 08:07:49 AM
    I think I just said that ... in the post right after the one you quoted.  Only things I can think of that are Magisterial are Laudato si' and Amoris Laetitia, so it might be more than 96%.  His rambling aboard Pope Force I are exactly that, the ramblings of a private "theologian" (so to speak).  I'll be honest that I haven't read either one of these, just a few excerpts from Amoris Laetitia ... due to lack of interest.

    That most of what he says, as well as what his predecessors said, isn't "magisterial" isn't much of a comfort to the hundreds of millions who've likely ended up in hell since V2.

    The faith of hundreds of millions (notably more than a billion since 1962?) has been destroyed; many such have died and likely gone to Hell for all eternity.  Is it supposed to be comforting that none of this destruction has been accomplished by "official" or "binding" means?

    I'd love to see a flow chart delineating what has proceeded from the Conciliar Church since 1962 and what from Rome's occupants has pertained to the Catholic Church.  Something tells me that, oddly enough, practically nothing would be judged as being Catholic.
    Logged
    "Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is all man."

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46601
    • Reputation: +27460/-5072
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Did this priest commit an act of schism?
    « Reply #20 on: May 06, 2021, 09:20:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: gladius_veritatis on May 06, 2021, 09:13:53 AM
    That most of what he says, as well as what his predecessors said, isn't "magisterial" isn't much of a comfort to the hundreds of millions who've likely ended up in hell since V2.

    The faith of hundreds of millions (notably more than a billion since 1962?) has been destroyed; many such have died and likely gone to Hell for all eternity.  Is it supposed to be comforting that none of this destruction has been accomplished by "official" or "binding" means?

    I'd love to see a flow chart delineating what has proceeded from the Conciliar Church since 1962 and what from Rome's occupants has pertained to the Catholic Church.  Something tells me that, oddly enough, practically nothing would be judged as being Catholic.

    Agreed.  The bigger picture is whether in general we can or must submit to the "Conciliar Church", Vatican II, and the New Mass.  I've never liked the argument from infallibility.  To me it's missing the forest for the trees, the forest of indefectibility for the trees of infallibility.

    To counter the R&R assertion that this Crisis could have emanated from legitimate pontifical authority on account of not everything being infallible, sometimes the sedevacantists go in the other direction and exaggerate the scope of "strict infallibility" as Msgr. Fenton calls it.  There's a bigger picture infallibility or indefectibility of the Magisterium that goes beyond the question of whether some Wednesday audience of Bergoglio should be considered infallible.

    Bottom line in my mind is:  Is the Conciliar Church the Catholic Church?  Does it have the marks of the Church?
    Logged

    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 8130
    • Reputation: +2515/-1118
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Did this priest commit an act of schism?
    « Reply #21 on: May 06, 2021, 09:30:25 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on May 06, 2021, 09:20:24 AM
    Bottom line in my mind is:  Is the Conciliar Church the Catholic Church?  Does it have the marks of the Church?
    I have LONG held that the pope issue serves as a massive distraction.  The REAL question is: Is that Thing HQ'd in Rome the Catholic Church?  If so, we should all act accordingly.   I saw something you said in the una cuм thread which zeroed in on this as the real issue.  It was part of a syllogism (maybe your second minor).

    If what has happened since 1962 is truly compatible in ANY way with the Church's indefectibility, the obvious question is: WHAT GOOD is such a pathetic "safeguard"???

    What good is it that Holy Mother Church made it from 33AD to 1962AD as a clearly-distinguishable, unified entity if She has now become a disunited Monster vomiting forth soul-killing trash for 50-60 years, so much so that the most loyal of her own children have to resist her at every turn with every fiber of their being?
    Logged
    "Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is all man."

    Offline SimpleMan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4979
    • Reputation: +1922/-243
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Did this priest commit an act of schism?
    « Reply #22 on: May 06, 2021, 09:33:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on May 06, 2021, 07:39:00 AM
    Even for sedevacantists, there should be a difference between ignoring most of the babbling done by Bergoglio (his interviews, weekly speeches, etc.) and anything Magisterial.  Nobody's required to hang on his every word and treat it like divine revelation.

    Really the broader question is whether formal submission and full communion are required.

    There is in fact a very dangerous attitude from R&R of ignoring their Magisterium, but that's a separate consideration, and it's hard to know from this third-hand report what the priest meant.  As a member of the FSSP, he remains in canonical submission to Bergoglio.
    As do I.  That is what I meant in my comments above.  Formal submission (even though none too happy about it), and full communion, no problem.  I'm not a sedevacantist, at least if I am called to come down on one side or the other, I'm not.  As a practical matter, I just live my Catholic life out of Tom Nelson's old catalog, and go on about my business.  In homeschool, we treat the Novus Ordo and things like dissent from Humanae vitae as though they don't exist.  (I just tell my son, with regard to the latter, "they're living in mortal sin and shouldn't be receiving communion, hope they don't have a brain aneurysm and die in their sleep".  Ditto for his mother's invalid "remarriage".  We mince no words in our home.)

    Prior to JPII, you really didn't have such a thing as papolatry, or rather, the personality cult of one particular pope.  He was the first real "media pope", young, handsome, well-spoken, couple with this the rise of mass electronic media.  I noted throughout his pontificate that you would have these people, usually young single men, who (forgive me if this is a bit harsh) came across as having kind of "ecclesiastical daddy issues", romanticizing him as "the best pope ever", and so on.  (I had to murmur to myself, all right, what are you planning to do when he dies?  Will he stay "best pope ever", or will you transfer that sentiment to the next pope?  It's what I call the phenomenon of "recentism".)  They treated, and continue to treat with Bergoglio, his every word as divine utterance, more like he was a Mormon "prophet, seer, and revelator" than simply God's vicegerent on earth.  It is as though they woke up every morning and said "what is the Pope's will for me today?" --- one imagines, progressing things a few years, a software app ("MyPope"?) with words from on high, "this is how you are to live and believe today".  What the Pope emphasizes, I emphasize.  What the Pope likes, I like.  What the Pope doesn't like, I don't like.  And so on.  You get the idea.  Their ilk is still around today, the kind who insist upon referring to him as "St John Paul The Great", the kind who bury themselves in the Catechism (to their mind there is only one) as though it is this "big massive encyclical about everything".  Needless to say, they are lost to the TLM, because... well... that wasn't, and isn't, the Pope's Mass of preference.
    Logged

    Online Pax Vobis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12113
    • Reputation: +7631/-2305
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Did this priest commit an act of schism?
    « Reply #23 on: May 06, 2021, 09:54:06 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0

    • Quote
    If what has happened since 1962 is truly compatible in ANY way with the Church's indefectibility, the obvious question is: WHAT GOOD is such a pathetic "safeguard"???

    What good is it that Holy Mother Church made it from 33AD to 1962AD as a clearly-distinguishable, unified entity if She has now become a disunited Monster vomiting forth soul-killing trash for 50-60 years, so much so that the most loyal of her own children have to resist her at every turn with every fiber of their being?

    Our times are a mystery.  Our Lady said "the Church will be in eclipse".  So she did describe some THING which obstructed (most) of the truth of the Church.  How can that be?  Future church leaders will be able to explain it, with guidance from the Holy Ghost, but we cannot now, as we endure it.
    Logged

    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 8130
    • Reputation: +2515/-1118
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Did this priest commit an act of schism?
    « Reply #24 on: May 06, 2021, 10:02:32 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 06, 2021, 09:54:06 AM
    Our times are a mystery.  Our Lady said "the Church will be in eclipse".  So she did describe some THING which obstructed (most) of the truth of the Church.  How can that be?  Future church leaders will be able to explain it, with guidance from the Holy Ghost, but we cannot now, as we endure it.
    Granting all you say, does it seem reasonable for anyone to wax "dogmatic" about his understanding of the situation, acting as if those who disagree are manifestly no longer Catholic?  
    Logged
    "Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is all man."

    Offline DecemRationis

    • Supporter
    • ****
    • Posts: 2327
    • Reputation: +876/-146
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Did this priest commit an act of schism?
    « Reply #25 on: May 06, 2021, 10:08:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: gladius_veritatis on May 06, 2021, 09:30:25 AM
    I have LONG held that the pope issue serves as a massive distraction.  The REAL question is: Is that Thing HQ'd in Rome the Catholic Church?  If so, we should all act accordingly.   I saw something you said in the una cuм thread which zeroed in on this as the real issue.  It was part of a syllogism (maybe your second minor).

    If what has happened since 1962 is truly compatible in ANY way with the Church's indefectibility, the obvious question is: WHAT GOOD is such a pathetic "safeguard"???

    What good is it that Holy Mother Church made it from 33AD to 1962AD as a clearly-distinguishable, unified entity if She has now become a disunited Monster vomiting forth soul-killing trash for 50-60 years, so much so that the most loyal of her own children have to resist her at every turn with every fiber of their being?

    In his book Contra Cekadam, Fr. Chazal quotes Zapalena regarding the Church's visibility: "for it to be necessary for salvation, its joining must be possible, something that lack of universal visibility would exclude."

    The visibility of the Conciliar Church serves the Lord's purposes in a negative way if you will during this crisis. We are told we will "see" the "abomination of desolation," and that there will be various signs before Christ's return, one being an invasion of the Temple of God by a "son of perdition" (2 Thessalonians 2:4). As I have noted to Prots and Orthodox - and I think this is strong argument in favor of the Catholic Church - how would Christ's sheep be able to "see" this revealed sign if there was no specific, visible and known "temple" or church as referent. What Prot Church? What Orthodox bishop and what See? It's Rome, and it's the pope of Rome and his See/church.

    That's not a good as a "safeguard," but that's a vital role in God's design as  a significant and necessary (in God's Providence and Predestination) sign. It's a very great "good" for us with eyes to see. So, in some ways it is actually a "safeguard" for the elect.

    You could disagree with me, but if I'm right, the purpose served by "Holy Mother Church" - or her being invaded by the Antichrist - by this crisis would indeed be "good" in the eyes of God.
    Logged
    Rom. 3:25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins" 

    Apoc 17:17 For God hath given into their hearts to do that which pleaseth him: that they give their kingdom to the beast, till the words of God be fulfilled.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46601
    • Reputation: +27460/-5072
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Did this priest commit an act of schism?
    « Reply #26 on: May 06, 2021, 10:15:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: gladius_veritatis on May 06, 2021, 09:30:25 AM
    I have LONG held that the pope issue serves as a massive distraction.

    I agree.  It took me some time to come around to this realization, so I congratulate you.  If V2 and the NOM and the new canonizations hadn't taken place, and we had a Bergoglio running around spouting heresies, my attitude would be:  "That's not my problem.  It's above my pay grade.  Let the Cardinals deal with the guy."  But they made it my problem when they imposed the NOM and the teachings of V2 and the new canonizations, etc.

    There's long been this debate:

    SVs:  "R&R is sifting the Magisterium, subjecting the Magisterium to private judgment."
    R&R:  "SVs sift the popes, deciding by their private judgment who is a legitimate pope."
    Both criticisms are valid.

    But we needn't go there.  There is one place on the journey to faith where private judgment does play a role ... as taught by Vatican I.  It is the rational judgment regarding whether the Catholic Church has the motives of credibility to be the authoritative teacher of Revelation.  This judgment "precedes faith" (as per the Catholic Encyclopedia).

    I look at this Conciliar Church and fail to recognize it at the Catholic Church, since it lacks all the marks of the Church.  God in His Mercy made it abundantly clear.  He could have allowed the Modernists to sneak one error in here, one there, so that over the course of a few centuries the faith would be corrupted in a "boil the frog" manner.  But God forced them to change everything so that the marks of the Church would be completely lacking, and so no one would need a theology degree to determine:  "This isn't the Catholic Church."  That's how the simple faithful (myself included) originally become Traditional Catholics.  "Hey, this thing here doesn't resemble the Catholic Church that I know [either from experience or from history]".

    I myself became a Traditional Catholic that way.  I recall one time during my Jesuit High School years that a teacher showed a video ridiculing the Tridentine Mass, with how the priest babbled in a foreign tongue and had his back turned to the faithful.  They made a mistake showing footage of the Tridentine Mass and I immediately fell in love with it.  Eventually my family sought out an Indult Mass.  Then, away at a Jesuit University in Chicago, I stopped by a Catholic bookstore to get a Christmas present for my Mom.  I saw something by this "St. Alphonsus" called the "Glories of Mary."  I reasoned that it must be decent if it had been written by a saint.  So I got a copy for my Mom and then another one for myself.  Upon reading it, I realized, "St. Alphonsus does not have the same faith as these Novus Ordites."  I started kneeling for Holy Communion at the NO ... regularly being reprimanded by the NO prelates.  Little did I know, my Mom had the exact same reaction, started kneeling for Holy Communion (back home, while I was at college).  In any case, after multiple reprimands from NO priests, we realized that these people by and large do not have the same faith that the Church did for its entire history.  That was the depth of the "theology" required to make that determination.

    It's basically that the sheep know the voice of the Shepherd.  We do not hear or recognize the voice of Christ in Montini, Wojtyla, Ratzinger, and Bergoglio.  We do not recognize this Conciliar institution as the Catholic Church.  No high-level scholastic theology required.  We know that this thing lacks the marks and characteristics of the True Church.
    Logged

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 46601
    • Reputation: +27460/-5072
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Did this priest commit an act of schism?
    « Reply #27 on: May 06, 2021, 10:22:38 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DecemRationis on May 06, 2021, 10:08:00 AM
    In his book Contra Cekadam, Fr. Chazal quotes Zapalena regarding the Church's visibility: "for it to be necessary for salvation, its joining must be possible, something that lack of universal visibility would exclude."

    Of course it's visible, but how does one "join" the Visible Church ... through the visible Sacrament of Baptism, through the outward profession of the true faith, and through formal subjection to the Supreme Pontiff.  It's not like we carry around some ID card.

    During the Great Western Schism, the Church remained essentially visible, despite disagreement about the whereabouts of its head.  During papal vacancies, the Church remains visible.  Paying the lip service of "yeah, that guy over there, he's the pope alright." doesn't suffice to be visibly united to that visible body known as the Conciliar Church.  Traditional Catholics remain visibly separated from that visible Church ... by your narrow definition of visibility.

    If you define visibility as subsisting in the Conciliar Church, then you (and Father Chazal) had better make haste to visibly join this visible Church ... or else you're outside the Church and damned.

    Our Lady of LaSalette use the metaphor of an eclipse, that the Church would be "in eclipse".  Something that is eclipsed is still essentially and substantially visible ... just hidden from the view of the observer.
    Logged

    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 8130
    • Reputation: +2515/-1118
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Did this priest commit an act of schism?
    « Reply #28 on: May 06, 2021, 10:30:35 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: DecemRationis on May 06, 2021, 10:08:00 AM
    The visibility of the Conciliar Church serves the Lord's purposes in a negative way if you will during this crisis.

    The ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan is similarly visible.  So is the local VFW.  

    The Holy Roman Catholic Church must be absolutely identifiable as such and not confounded in any way whatsoever with anything else; i.e., it must be both One AND Visible AND Holy, etc.  The visibility of other entities saves no one and nothing.

    FWIW, I am about as "contra Cekadam" as a man can be, so no need to bother.  That does not make his "opponents" right in every instance.
    Logged
    "Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is all man."

    Offline gladius_veritatis

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 8130
    • Reputation: +2515/-1118
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Did this priest commit an act of schism?
    « Reply #29 on: May 06, 2021, 10:41:03 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
    • Quote from: Ladislaus on May 06, 2021, 10:15:19 AM
    It's basically that the sheep know the voice of the Shepherd.  We do not hear or recognize the voice of Christ in Montini, Wojtyla, Ratzinger, and Bergoglio.  We do not recognize this Conciliar institution as the Catholic Church.  No high-level scholastic theology required.  We know that this thing lacks the marks and characteristics of the True Church.

    Yessir!

    Sadly, some seem to endlessly feel a need to use and often abuse citations from this or that theologian or Saint, as if any of them were considering such an incomprehensibly insane situation.  Making matters worse, all who disagree with such men, even in obviously disputed and disputable territory, are cast aside as schismatic morons of manifestly bad will!  Oh, the irony...

    Having been raised with the NOM, I, too, read my way into an understanding that what I had seen up to that point in my life and what Catholics had always thought, said and done were not the same thing.
    Logged
    "Fear God, and keep His commandments: for this is all man."
    Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
    « previous next »