CathInfo.com

What is the name of the trad bishop you were speaking with?

Bumping this thread because epiphany refused to answer the question.

He's persistently promoted a false Modernist notion of what can justify an annulment.  Several posters have corrected him, but he's ignored it, arrogantly responding that he's "pointed out" the opposite (citing the 1983 Code of Canon Law but clearly without any understanding of what even that was saying).

Finally, he attributes his erroneous opinion to a "Traditional Bishop".

When interrogated about which bishop, he refuses to answer.

So this is one of the charges against him I made on another thread that he claimed was slanderous.

Several posters repeatedly tried to correct him on this point, and he's arrogantly and pertinaciously refused to accept correction, but then ends up trying to slander some nameless "Traditional Bishop" as the originator of his theories.

He's consistently promoted misandry on this forum, making absurdly false claims such as that the courts were stacked against women in divorce scenarios, that many Traditional men physically abuse their wives, but the priests and most of the congregation "derided" them for considering a separation.

These are all slanderous claims against Traditional Catholicism in general, and backed up by zero evidence.

Name the bishop who told you than an "undisclosed violent temper" is grounds for annulment.  Name the "priests  and congregation [aka the chapel]" who derided a woman for seeking a separation in the wake of physical abuse.  Otherwise, your assertions are nothing less than a general slander against the Traditional movement.

You've also at another time asserted that most Traditional young men want to find wives who would support them so they would not have to work.

I've got verbatim citations with dates and timestamps for all these statements of yours that you recently claimed were ALL FALSE and slanderous, and a fair number of them were made on this thread here.

Bumping this thread because epiphany refused to answer the question.

He's persistently promoted a false Modernist notion of what can justify an annulment.  Several posters have corrected him, but he's ignored it, arrogantly responding that he's "pointed out" the opposite (citing the 1983 Code of Canon Law but clearly without any understanding of what even that was saying).

Finally, he attributes his erroneous opinion to a "Traditional Bishop".

When interrogated about which bishop, he refuses to answer.

So this is one of the charges against him I made on another thread that he claimed was slanderous.

Several posters repeatedly tried to correct him on this point, and he's arrogantly and pertinaciously refused to accept correction, but then ends up trying to slander some nameless "Traditional Bishop" as the originator of his theories.

He's consistently promoted misandry on this forum, making absurdly false claims such as that the courts were stacked against women in divorce scenarios, that many Traditional men physically abuse their wives, but the priests and most of the congregation "derided" them for considering a separation.

These are all slanderous claims against Traditional Catholicism in general, and backed up by zero evidence.

Name the bishop who told you than an "undisclosed violent temper" is grounds for annulment.  Name the "priests  and congregation [aka the chapel]" who derided a woman for seeking a separation in the wake of physical abuse.  Otherwise, your assertions are nothing less than a general slander against the Traditional movement.

You've also at another time asserted that most Traditional young men want to find wives who would support them so they would not have to work.

I've got verbatim citations with dates and timestamps for all these statements of yours that you recently claimed were ALL FALSE and slanderous, and a fair number of them were made on this thread here.

Just because I choose not to answer does not mean my statements are false.

You are a Feeneyite heretic who does not belong on any Catholic forum.

You continuously slander Traditional Catholicism, making absurd claims that priests deride women seeking separation from physicallly abuse husbands, that Trad young men are looking for wives who will support them so they won't have to work, etc.

Unless you name names and it can be verified (people have a right to know who this allegedly ignorant bishop is so he can be avoided), your statement is to be considered a bald-faced lie to justify your error.  You know full well why you won't name him.  Because if someone were to write to him (if he even exists), they find out that you lied, as he would deny havinig said any such thing.

Here is yet another grave error to which you pertinaciously cling, and which you promote, despite having, on this thread been corrected by multiple posters (who are not Feeneyites by the way).

All you have is your "Feeneyite heretic" crap.  Your heresy about unborn infants who don't receive Baptism being saved has absolutely nothing to do with Feeneyism.

I have said nothing which isn't true.  The only thing you can imply from my choosing not too answer some questions is that i choose not to answer some questions. 

Nadir has been on my ignore list for some time. 

You are a windbag demigod heretic who, it seems, Matthew supports beyond all others, as many of us can no longer downvote you, allowing you to continue your rants against the True Faith.