R
Rykell
Guest
Trady,
No longer will I “nitpick” as you called it, for I am convinced that you are not open to listening … seeking to be “understood” rather than to “understand.” I have been all over the internet, seeing the heretical and calumnious teachings of traditional websites, and there are many! As long as you frequent them and absorb their insidious poison, there is little I can do to change your mind.
My sensitivity and respect for Holy Mother Church and her Ministers does not permit me to engage in further debates.
For the moment, there is only one thing that I will respond to.
http://bestsmileys.com/signs9/1.gif
No longer will I “nitpick” as you called it, for I am convinced that you are not open to listening … seeking to be “understood” rather than to “understand.” I have been all over the internet, seeing the heretical and calumnious teachings of traditional websites, and there are many! As long as you frequent them and absorb their insidious poison, there is little I can do to change your mind.
My sensitivity and respect for Holy Mother Church and her Ministers does not permit me to engage in further debates.
For the moment, there is only one thing that I will respond to.
Yes it is ludicrous to apply your flawed logic concerning so important a sacrament, because no Pope will ever authorize baptism in the name of another, but only in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit. We have the guarantee of infallibility with regard to this. With respect to liturgy, the Pope may approve changes, as specified in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. [see articles 36.2; 39; and 44]What’s your point? By your “logic”, if a current or future Pope said that the new form for Baptism was, *“I wash you, in the name of the Pope, and the Bishops and Hahns Kuhn”, *that it would still be a valid Baptism because a Pope could not be bound by previous Popes.This is ludicrous.
http://bestsmileys.com/signs9/1.gif