Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: Rule Violator #2: JPaul  (Read 4359 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15239
  • Reputation: +8040/-2523
  • Gender: Male
Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
« Reply #120 on: June 09, 2018, 04:19:54 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You mean like many of the Protestant baptism rites....which the Church recognizes as valid?

    SOME are recognized as valid.  It has to do with the context and understanding of what the Prots claim to be doing with the Rite.  Yet the Church routinely administers conditional Baptism on Prot converts, since they're not quite as sure as you are about it.  I certainly wouldn't stake my eternal salvation on a Lutheran Baptism, nor a Novus Ordo one for that matter.

    Offline hismajesty

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 163
    • Reputation: +92/-275
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #121 on: June 09, 2018, 04:23:35 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • From Sean....

    Quote
    2) Doubt exists because of the impossibility of ascertaining the satisfaction of the 4 elements necessary for a valid sacrament.

    See this article from Fr. Peter Scott in 2007, which expresses my opinion EXACTLY:

    http://sspx.org/en/must-priests-who-come-tradition-be-re-ordained


    and he continues two pages later...........

    Quote
    Is that last (bolded) line sinking in?

    It directly contradicts Fr. Scott (who worries that the new priests, not knowing whether they are celebrating a sacrifice or a meal, may not have the right intention)......

    Fr. Scott's position seems very close to forming the same "negative doubt" he previously stated was inadmissible ("I wonder if the priest has the proper intention?  After all, we can no longer deduce it by external utterances.).  According to Billot, that concern is completely beside the point.


    And to recall the Archbishop:

    Quote
    These young priests will not have the intention of doing that which the Church does, for they will not have been taught that the Mass is a true sacrifice. They will not have the intention of offering a sacrifice. They will have the intention of celebrating a Eucharist, a sharing, a communion, a memorial, all of which has nothing to do with faith in the Sacrifice of the Mass. Hence from this moment, inasmuch as these deformed priests no longer have the intention of doing what the Church does, their Masses will obviously be more and more invalid."

    So which is it Sean? Do you agree with Fr. Scott or not? Do you disagree with the Archbishop? You are entitled to disagree with them, but I would prefer that you be honest about it if you do.

    Here is what Fr. Scott says on  a negative doubt

     "A negative doubt is a doubt that is not based upon any reason"

    But what you're missing here Sean is that THERE IS A REASON to doubt the INTENTION TO DO WHAT THE CHURCH DOES.
    "....I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain thing by another" - Church Father Lactentius on the globe earth


    Offline trad123

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 984
    • Reputation: +135/-52
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #122 on: June 09, 2018, 04:23:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It seems erroneous to label such rites as Protestant, rather than to say Protestant's using a Catholic rite.
    2 Corinthians 4:3-4

    And if our gospel be also hid, it is hid to them that are lost, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

    Offline hismajesty

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 163
    • Reputation: +92/-275
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #123 on: June 09, 2018, 04:32:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Just some more on what doubt is... From the Catholic Encyclopedia.

    "Doubt is either positive or negative. In the former case, the evidence for and against is so equally balanced as to render decision impossible; in the latter, the doubt arises from the absence of sufficient evidence on either side."

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05141a.htm

    In our case it is the doubt that the priest intends to do what the Church intends. NOT his faith.

    It is not a negative doubt, because there is good reason, as explained by the Archbishop to doubt that they are doing what the Church does.
    "....I am at a loss what to say respecting those who, when they have once erred, consistently persevere in their folly, and defend one vain thing by another" - Church Father Lactentius on the globe earth

    Offline ignatius

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 59
    • Reputation: +80/-207
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #124 on: June 09, 2018, 06:02:02 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • You mean like many of the Protestant baptism rites....which the Church recognizes as valid?
    You mean like all of the protestant (non-catholic) 'rites'...which the Church places as INVALID which is why the Church does conditional EVERYTHING!


    Offline ignatius

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 59
    • Reputation: +80/-207
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #125 on: June 09, 2018, 06:18:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Sean, it seems that whoever might be at variance with your opinions is proclaimed to be wrong or stupid. Your whole argument is based upon the presumption that all four element are most likely present in the Novus Ordo.   But that is not the point or even a true fact.
    A layperson cannot know with any degree of certainty that any given priest is validly ordained or if his intention is the same as the Church. If his intentions are those of the conciliar church (which they more than likely are), then we have doubt.
     The Church does not operate based upon accepting any level of uncertainty, when it is a sacramental matter. All four do not have to be in doubt, only one or maybe. The fact is we don't know.
    My advice is not bad as it defers to the safer course as the Church requires.  I submit that it is Bishop Williamson's and the SSPX's opinion of the New Mass that is dangerous as evidenced by the N.Y affair and subsequent E.C.s by allowing an unskilled layperson to decide for themselves based upon a host of elastic subjective considerations whether to endanger their souls and attend a new order service.
    :applause:

    Offline Unbrandable

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 89
    • Reputation: +192/-40
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #126 on: June 09, 2018, 07:12:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Ladislaus-

    From Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre (Vol II, CH 40):

    "I had the opportunity of a long interview with the Archbishop a few weeks later when we discussed the matter. He was kind enough to summarize his considered opinion for me in writing (dated 9 May 1980). It read as follows:
    http://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm

    Question: How can Archbishop Lefebvre be acknowledging that people fulfill their Sunday obligation at the NOM, if, as you say, he considers those masses all of doubtful validity??

    Archbishop Lefebvre - January 13, 1983
     
    The Mass, what do you think of the Mass? ... I have repeated it a hundred times. - Invalid, not valid? … I think that if it is said with all the conditions required for validity, the intention, it is likely valid. In the translations, I did not say it was invalid. Someone said to me today: - It seems that you said that all the translations made the Mass invalid! I never said a thing like that, never. I said that it gave a doubt to the validity, a doubt, it is true. But listen, I am not a superpope, so I cannot decide things that will maybe be decided by a Pope in four centuries! Why in four centuries? Well the Anglican ordinations, it was Pope Leo XIII who decided that they were not valid. And for how long have there been Anglicans ordained in four centuries? And the Pope waited four centuries to say publicly that these ordinations are invalid. So do not ask me to decide all at once: - That is invalid, it is surely invalid. I cannot decide everything! I think it is, because of the assertion of St. Thomas who says that if one changes the formula of the Precious Blood, if the words which are maybe not necessary for the validity but change the sense of the phrase Hic is calix sanguinis mei novi et eterni testamenti, if one changes the sense of the Blood, the conception that one has of the redemptive Blood, then that makes the Mass invalid. Does changing the term for all instead of for many even change the meaning of the redemptive Blood of Our Lord? It is possible, because the application of this Blood is not for all, it is for many. It is only the application; it is not the essential, if you will, of the Redemption. So I cannot decide absolutely, these are things that are too delicate to change. I think that it is really necessary for a pope to decide, who has the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to say: - All those Masses were invalid. It is possible maybe that in 50 or 100 years, a solemn declaration will say: - Those Masses were invalid. I do not know, but do not make me say that all those Masses are invalid. There are many that are invalid, more and more are invalid, it is true because the intention of the young priests now is more and more wrong, is more and more false. They no longer want to do what the Church does. So obviously the Masses become more and more invalid. Then the matter also, they change the matter ...”
     

    “La messe, qu’est-ce que vous pensez de la messe ?… Je l’ai répété cent fois. – Invalide, pas invalide ?… Je pense que si elle est dite avec toutes les conditions requises pour la validité, l’intention, elle est vraisemblablement valide. Dans les traductions, je n’ai pas dit qu’elle était invalide. Quelqu’un m’a dit aujourd’hui : - Il paraît que vous avez dit que toutes les traductions rendaient la messe invalide ! Je n’ai jamais dit une chose comme cela, jamais. J’ai dit que ça donnait un doute sur la validité, un doute, c’est vrai. Mais écoutez, je ne suis pas justement un super-pape, alors moi je ne peux pas trancher des choses qui seront peut-être tranchées par le pape dans quatre siècles ! Pourquoi dans quatre siècles ? Et bien, les ordinations anglicanes, c’est le Pape Léon XIII qui a tranché qu’elles n’étaient pas valides. Et depuis combien de temps il y a eu des anglicans ordonnés en quatre siècles ? Et le pape a attendu quatre siècles pour dire publiquement que ces ordinations sont invalides. Alors ne me demandez pas à moi de décider tout à coup : - Ça c’est invalide, c’est sûrement invalide. Je ne peux pas tout décider ! Je pense qu’il y a, à cause de l’assertion de Saint Thomas qui dit que si on change la formule du Précieux Sang, si les mots qui ne sont peut-être pas nécessaires pour la validité mais changent le sens de l’expression Hic est calix sanguinis mei novi et eterni testamenti, si on change le sens du Sang, la conception qu’on a du Sang rédempteur, alors ça rend invalide la messe. Est-ce que de changer le terme pour tous au lieu de pour beaucoup, est-ce que ça change la signification même du Sang rédempteur de Notre-Seigneur ? C’est possible, parce que l’application de ce Sang n’est pas pour tous, elle est pour beaucoup. Ce n’est que l’application, ce n’est pas l’essentiel, si on veut, de la Rédemption. Alors moi, je ne peux pas trancher absolument, ce sont des choses qui sont trop délicates à changer. Je pense qu’il faut vraiment pour cela un pape qui tranche, qui ait lui l’inspiration du Saint-Esprit pour dire : - Toutes ces messes-là étaient invalides. C’est possible peut-être que dans 50 ans, 100 ans, une déclaration solennelle dise : - Ces messes-là étaient invalides. Je n’en sais rien, mais ne me faites pas dire à moi que toutes ces messes-là sont invalides. Il y en a beaucoup d’invalides, de plus en plus d’invalides, c’est vrai parce que l’intention des jeunes prêtres maintenant est de plus en plus mauvaise, est de plus en plus fausse. Ils ne veulent plus faire ce que fait l’Eglise. Alors évidemment les messes deviennent de plus en plus invalides. Ensuite la matière aussi, on change la matière…”
     
     
     
     

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3736
    • Reputation: +3625/-1041
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #127 on: June 09, 2018, 08:44:41 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Archbishop Lefebvre - January 13, 1983
     
    The Mass, what do you think of the Mass? ... I have repeated it a hundred times. - Invalid, not valid? … I think that if it is said with all the conditions required for validity, the intention, it is likely valid. In the translations, I did not say it was invalid. Someone said to me today: - It seems that you said that all the translations made the Mass invalid! I never said a thing like that, never. I said that it gave a doubt to the validity, a doubt, it is true. But listen, I am not a superpope, so I cannot decide things that will maybe be decided by a Pope in four centuries! Why in four centuries? Well the Anglican ordinations, it was Pope Leo XIII who decided that they were not valid. And for how long have there been Anglicans ordained in four centuries? And the Pope waited four centuries to say publicly that these ordinations are invalid. So do not ask me to decide all at once: - That is invalid, it is surely invalid. I cannot decide everything! I think it is, because of the assertion of St. Thomas who says that if one changes the formula of the Precious Blood, if the words which are maybe not necessary for the validity but change the sense of the phrase Hic is calix sanguinis mei novi et eterni testamenti, if one changes the sense of the Blood, the conception that one has of the redemptive Blood, then that makes the Mass invalid. Does changing the term for all instead of for many even change the meaning of the redemptive Blood of Our Lord? It is possible, because the application of this Blood is not for all, it is for many. It is only the application; it is not the essential, if you will, of the Redemption. So I cannot decide absolutely, these are things that are too delicate to change. I think that it is really necessary for a pope to decide, who has the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to say: - All those Masses were invalid. It is possible maybe that in 50 or 100 years, a solemn declaration will say: - Those Masses were invalid. I do not know, but do not make me say that all those Masses are invalid. There are many that are invalid, more and more are invalid, it is true because the intention of the young priests now is more and more wrong, is more and more false. They no longer want to do what the Church does. So obviously the Masses become more and more invalid. Then the matter also, they change the matter ...”
     

    “La messe, qu’est-ce que vous pensez de la messe ?… Je l’ai répété cent fois. – Invalide, pas invalide ?… Je pense que si elle est dite avec toutes les conditions requises pour la validité, l’intention, elle est vraisemblablement valide. Dans les traductions, je n’ai pas dit qu’elle était invalide. Quelqu’un m’a dit aujourd’hui : - Il paraît que vous avez dit que toutes les traductions rendaient la messe invalide ! Je n’ai jamais dit une chose comme cela, jamais. J’ai dit que ça donnait un doute sur la validité, un doute, c’est vrai. Mais écoutez, je ne suis pas justement un super-pape, alors moi je ne peux pas trancher des choses qui seront peut-être tranchées par le pape dans quatre siècles ! Pourquoi dans quatre siècles ? Et bien, les ordinations anglicanes, c’est le Pape Léon XIII qui a tranché qu’elles n’étaient pas valides. Et depuis combien de temps il y a eu des anglicans ordonnés en quatre siècles ? Et le pape a attendu quatre siècles pour dire publiquement que ces ordinations sont invalides. Alors ne me demandez pas à moi de décider tout à coup : - Ça c’est invalide, c’est sûrement invalide. Je ne peux pas tout décider ! Je pense qu’il y a, à cause de l’assertion de Saint Thomas qui dit que si on change la formule du Précieux Sang, si les mots qui ne sont peut-être pas nécessaires pour la validité mais changent le sens de l’expression Hic est calix sanguinis mei novi et eterni testamenti, si on change le sens du Sang, la conception qu’on a du Sang rédempteur, alors ça rend invalide la messe. Est-ce que de changer le terme pour tous au lieu de pour beaucoup, est-ce que ça change la signification même du Sang rédempteur de Notre-Seigneur ? C’est possible, parce que l’application de ce Sang n’est pas pour tous, elle est pour beaucoup. Ce n’est que l’application, ce n’est pas l’essentiel, si on veut, de la Rédemption. Alors moi, je ne peux pas trancher absolument, ce sont des choses qui sont trop délicates à changer. Je pense qu’il faut vraiment pour cela un pape qui tranche, qui ait lui l’inspiration du Saint-Esprit pour dire : - Toutes ces messes-là étaient invalides. C’est possible peut-être que dans 50 ans, 100 ans, une déclaration solennelle dise : - Ces messes-là étaient invalides. Je n’en sais rien, mais ne me faites pas dire à moi que toutes ces messes-là sont invalides. Il y en a beaucoup d’invalides, de plus en plus d’invalides, c’est vrai parce que l’intention des jeunes prêtres maintenant est de plus en plus mauvaise, est de plus en plus fausse. Ils ne veulent plus faire ce que fait l’Eglise. Alors évidemment les messes deviennent de plus en plus invalides. Ensuite la matière aussi, on change la matière…”
     
     
     
     

    The part you underlined towards the top about Archbishop Lefebvre expressing a doubt about the validity of the NOM is prefaced by the words, “In the translations...”

    In other words, he is not speaking of doubt in the NOM as promulgated.

    Tune in to a new thread for a new prediction...
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-



    Offline ignatius

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 59
    • Reputation: +80/-207
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #128 on: June 09, 2018, 09:09:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Starting a new thread again to run away from this umpteenth one you started and are slammed down again for obtuse views?  Everything you start you run away from.

    Offline SeanJohnson

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3736
    • Reputation: +3625/-1041
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #129 on: June 09, 2018, 09:13:38 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!4
  • Starting a new thread again to run away from this umpteenth one you started and are slammed down again for obtuse views?  Everything you start you run away from.

    Ignoramus and Flats:

    You are model CI members, and I have no doubt at all that you two wackos will have a long, popular membership here.
    Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

    -I retract any and all statements I have made that are incongruent with the True Faith, and apologize for ever having made them-


    Offline ignatius

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 59
    • Reputation: +80/-207
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #130 on: June 09, 2018, 09:28:54 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!1
  • Ignoramus and Flats:

    You are model CI members, and I have no doubt at all that you two wackos will have a long, popular membership here.
    Thanks for your flattery.  Your juvenile intellectual capacity is well deserved serving with the rats in the sewer tunnels.  You may want an award for the bully who always runs away.

    Can we progress now with some real conversation without your diminutive qualities?


    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3104
    • Reputation: +1901/-961
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #131 on: June 10, 2018, 11:16:03 AM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • As much as I respect +ABL, he was not a theologian, and nowhere close to the level of +Ottaviani and the others who studied the ‘perfect’ new mass and still found so many deficiencies that they characterized it as a protestantized departure from the catholic understanding of the mass, as taught by Trent.  

    The countless ‘conservative’ novus ordo-ites who factlessly defend the novus ordo and its “abuses” (ie sacrileges) do so under the naive idea that the “true, pure” novus ordo is pleasing to God.  “If only the REAL novus ordo was used, like Paul VI wanted, then the Church’s problems would be fixed”, they say. And they wait for this nirvana-like utopia to one day happen, because they haven’t faced reality - that is, the novus ordo is not pure, will never be perfect and is inherently flawed.  

    +Ottaviani and company studied the “pure, utopian” new mass and came away disgusted by its anti-catholic errors.  They studied the NOM in its “perfect” form, without any abuses/sacrileges, without its full Masonic/humanistic liturgy in place, before the widespread blasphemy of communion in the hand and all the other liturgical mayhem which was added into the Martin Luther-inspired mockery of Christ’s sacrifice of the cross.

    It matters not if +Ottaviani changed his mind 100% about his critical study, all that matters are facts.  What he and his fellow theologians wrote about the evils of this new liturgy is still true, it’s problems still exist (and are now worse), it’s theology is still defunct, deficient and communistically deplorable.  

    Nothing in +Ottaviani’s ‘change of heart’ letter challenges his previous theological assertions, nor does it change the reality that the NOM is a striking departure from Trent and 2,000 years of consistent catholic teaching on the purpose, goal and beauty of the Mass - which many V2 theologians readily, proudly and openly admit.


    Offline arnold

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 1
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #132 on: June 11, 2018, 07:15:08 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • External intention?

    Please quote the passage.

    Internal intention is what is requisite for a valid intention.

    The only bearing an external intention can have in the matter, is if it is a contrary external intention.

    PS: I like how you are trying to make it seem as though Cardinal Ottaviani wrote the "Brief Critical Study."  

    PPS: The Ottaviani Intervention wasa written before the NOM was officially promulgated.  Once that happened, here is what Ottaviani had to say:

    “I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS.” (Whitehead, 129, Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343)

    Cardinal Ottaviani published later yet another very relevant public statement in which he said: “The Beauty of the Church is equally resplendent in the variety of the liturgical rites which enrich her divine cult-when they are legitimate and conform to the faith. Precisely the LEGITIMACY OF THEIR ORIGIN PROTECTS AND GUARDS THEM AGAINST INFILTRATION OF ERRORS. . . .The PURITY AND UNITY OF THE FAITH is in this manner also UPHELD BY THE SUPREME MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPE THROUGH THE LITURGICAL LAWS.”(In Cruzado Espanol, May 25, 1970)
    From the Ottaviani Intervention (emphasis mine):
    ..... All this, in short, changes the modus significandi of the words of Consecration--how they show forth the sacramental action taking place. The priest now pronounces the formulas for Consecration as part of an historical narrative, rather than as Christ's representative issuing the affirmative judgment "This is My Body." [29
    29. As they appear in the context of the Novus Ordo, the words of Consecration could be valid in virtue of the priest's intention. But since their validity no longer comes from the force of the sacramental words themselves (ex vi verborum)--or more precisely, from the meaning (modus significandi) the old rite of the Mass gave to the formula--the words of Consecration in the New Order of Mass could also not be valid. Will priests in the near future, who receive no traditional formation and who rely on the Novus Ordo for the intention of "doing what the Church does," validly consecrate at Mass? One may be allowed to doubt it. 

    Offline Unbrandable

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 89
    • Reputation: +192/-40
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #133 on: June 11, 2018, 07:55:47 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The part you underlined towards the top about Archbishop Lefebvre expressing a doubt about the validity of the NOM is prefaced by the words, “In the translations...”

    In other words, he is not speaking of doubt in the NOM as promulgated.

    Tune in to a new thread for a new prediction...

    Nonetheless, there were/are a lot of "translated" Masses, so that makes a lot of doubtfully valid Masses.

    Offline Jaynek

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2945
    • Reputation: +1384/-741
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Rule Violator #2: JPaul
    « Reply #134 on: June 11, 2018, 11:33:38 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ignoramus and Flats:

    You are model CI members, and I have no doubt at all that you two wackos will have a long, popular membership here.
    You were speculating elsewhere about why you get down votes, Sean.  I have given you many and this is sort of post that leads to it. 

    It is not because I am a sede or object to the R&R position.  On the contrary, I voted R&R on a recent forum poll.  I have become more sympathetic to SVs as a result of this papacy.  I moved from considering them schismatic to seeing it as an error of fact.  But I am very far from accepting the SV position.

    When I have voted down your posts, it is because I object to you making yourself an Inquisitor and to your belligerent style. I disliked your style when I saw it in the Anonymous subforum and did not know it was you. 
    Most sweet Jesus, whose overflowing charity for men is requited by so much forgetfulness, negligence and contempt, behold us prostrate before you, eager to repair by a special act of homage the cruel indifference and injuries to which your loving Heart is

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16