So disheartened. Feel like leaving Church.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dempsey1919
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Don’t be temped by the SSPX. They are not in communion with the See of Peter and thus are not part of the Church that Christ founded. They are schismatics.

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id9.html

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id18.html

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id60.html

sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id57.html
This is refuted easily enough. Rome does not hold the position that the SSPX is in schism. Read anything from Cardinal Castrillon De Hoyos in the last couple years. Pope Benedict XVI has said the same, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger.

Steve
 
This is refuted easily enough. Rome does not hold the position that the SSPX is in schism. Read anything from Cardinal Castrillon De Hoyos in the last couple years. Pope Benedict XVI has said the same, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger.

Steve
See this thread from Ask An Apologist.
 
This is refuted easily enough. Rome does not hold the position that the SSPX is in schism. Read anything from Cardinal Castrillon De Hoyos in the last couple years. Pope Benedict XVI has said the same, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger.

Steve
Ecclesia Dei, the motu proprio promulgated by the Servant of God Pope John Paul II stated clearly that Archbishop Lefebreve and the bishops he consecrated were excommunicate, the priests of the Society were suspended *ad divinis *(and thus have no faculties), and the laity were warned against the grave sin of schism by association with them. Until Pope Benedict or one of his successors rules otherwise, then this is all we have to objectively go on. See the document at the following link, where the Pope clearly states that “The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition.”

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
 
I came home to the Church about a month ago and I attend an indult Latin Mass.

I fully believe in everything that the Church teaches…but I feel like leaving the Church. I’m so disheartened.

DEAR DISHEARTENED>>>>>>>>>>>

Hang in there.👍 Your biggest problem is the “University” those
places are loaded with anti-God, anti-Americanism, and very
liberal and socialist agendas. I know- I went through it.:eek:
You need to find another Church with conservative priests.
Yes, the Church is wounded but beautiful…the deposit of faith
is there by Jesus…And you have to separate this from the people who are trying to destroy her.
But you must keep your faith in her doctrine. THAT PART IS
THE BRIDE OF CHRIST. Your faith should not be in the people of the Church but in the Church established by Jesus Christ.
CHANGE YOUR CHURCH…DON’T LEAVE IT!.:byzsoc:
 
This is refuted easily enough. Rome does not hold the position that the SSPX is in schism. Read anything from Cardinal Castrillon De Hoyos in the last couple years. Pope Benedict XVI has said the same, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger.

Steve
Actually, Rome hasn’t really spoken to the majority of the SSPX in anything official from the Church save this:
latin-mass-society.org/laitysspx.htm
It’s the only thing that mentions the possible status of the other priests that comes from an official letter or document. More than likely, they are in schism.

As for the bishops illicitly ordained and Lefebvre, the Church has spoken.
 
Yes, the Church is wounded but beautiful…the deposit of faith
is there by Jesus…And you have to separate this from the people who are trying to destroy her.
This is a good point. It’s important to remember that Jesus said the tares would be allowed to grow alongside the wheat, because to rip them out could damage the tender wheat stalks. We can never expect the people around us to be perfect, or even to necessarily be truly God’s. They may be tares, or they may be wolves in sheep’s clothing. Our task is to keep our eyes on Jesus, hold firm to what He has taught us, and let Him take care of the people around us. And maybe He will bless us with the ability to lead others to His truth as well! 🙂

Judy
 
SSPX = Society of Saint Pius X

Indult = a Traditional Latin Mass offered by indult (permission) of the local Bishop - according to the Ecclesia Dei legislation (1988) of Pope John Paul II (i.e. previous to Pope Benedict’s recent motu proprio Summorum Pontificum more completely freeing the TLM - the “extraordinary” form of the Roman Rite)

Hope this helps.
Thanks much! Guess I could have done my own homework, eh? 😃 But thanks for bearing with me.

Judy
 
To be honest, I was struggling with Catholicism for some time, and the more I read here, the more I think I should distance myself from it.
Coach, just for the record, I’m also disturbed by some of the posts here. I’m glad Pax explained that we are in the traditional section and that may explain why some of the tone here is so rigid. I don’t mean to sound impertinent, but I really do not think God worries as much about which language we worship Him in as we think. He is looking at the heart and the spirit, not the law. Heaven forbid, New Testament writers certainly had plenty to say about how we should not be constructing rigid laws to live by–they were done away in Christ. Obedience to Church teachings is one thing, but allowing them to take precedence over such things as love, mercy, forgiveness, humility, etc., is going in the wrong direction.

Fortunately, most of the Catholics I know are not at all rigid, and are in fact some of the kindest and most humble people you could ever want to meet. They are not perfect, of course. But God’s idea of perfection is different from ours anyway. He says in Scripture that He would have mercy, and not sacrifice. We do Him a disservice by thinking we have to observe every jot and tittle of the law (whether it’s Old Testament Law or Church Law) and do not need to be more concerned with the plain old teachings of Jesus, who was the most perfect revelation of God’s will for us.

I hope you won’t abandon Catholicism over what you’re reading here. I do not believe some of this is an accurate representation of Catholicism.

The Catholic Church does hold the most complete deposit of faith, the fullness of the truth of God’s glorious salvation. We believe that God’s grace flows through the Church and extends outward into the world, where it touches the lives of those who do not have the full revelation of the truth yet. We no longer take a harsh view that anyone who isn’t Catholic cannot be saved. We believe that non-Catholics can be saved through the grace God sheds on the world through His Church.

Judy
 
I came home to the Church about a month ago and I attend an indult Latin Mass.

I fully believe in everything that the Church teaches…but I feel like leaving the Church. I’m so disheartened. Here’s the story:

Like I said, I’m a recent revert and I have been meeting with my parish priest for the last two weeks because I want to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. I have spent about 4 years reading and learning about the faith; I wanted to make sure that I believe in EVERYTHING the Church teaches. I would never enter the Church and become a ‘cafeteria Catholic’. As a result of this study, I now have a pretty thorough understanding of doctrine and belief etc.

I was very excited about meeting with my priest every week but now I wish I didn’t bother.

It seems that every Catholic I meet is a liberal who is against the Church’s moral teachings. I recently started University and I visited the Catholic Chaplaincy. The Priest was great but the place seems very liberal, for example, the room where they say Mass has a gay pride flag pinned to the wall. One of the chaplains is an ex-nun (which seems strange). They also let non-Catholics worship there/use the facilities eg. chapel etc.

I’ve just came back from my weekly meeting with the Priest and I feel very demoralised. I decided that I would ask the Priest about everything that troubled me about Catholicism. I don’t think it went well. I asked him about ecumenism and the need for other Christians to become Catholics. He said that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ per se, but that the Church of Christ subsists in it. He said that the Church of Christ is actually the large fellowship of all Christians, irregardless of denomination. He did say that the Catholic Church has the fullness of faith however. He also said that the Roman Catholic Church had placed too much emphasis on the primacy of the Pope and that more needs to be done to accomodate the Orthodox.

I asked him whether he believed in contraception and he didn’t give me an answer. He told me that most Catholics in this country do not have a problem with contraception and that it is not an infallable teaching. I told him that I was against contraception and he looked less than impressed. I told him that I could not in good conscience ever use a condom and he said that while this is ‘proper’ most Catholics disagree.

I told him that I will keep attending the Latin Mass and that I hope other younger people will attend. He didn’t greet that comment with enthusiasm either.

At the end of the meeting, he asked me whether I would like to keep seeing him. I told him that I still wanted to be confirmed but he seemed less enthusiastic than he was last week.

I’m starting to think that there are no faithful Catholics left. Everyone I meet seems so hypocritical. I’m gutted because I really believe what the Church teaches, but it seems that the church is infested with dissenters who look down on orthodox catholic teaching. I wish I met Catholics like the ones on this forum.

I feel like leaving the Church…everyone seems so hypocritical…even the Priests. I don’t know what to do. The SSPX is looking more and more appealing. I’m feel very upset at the moment:( .
I have felt like this many times in my endeavors at my university as well. My suggestion to you would be to really search out the people that are traditional Catholics because they are out there. I I would also suggest to try to do some active work in promoting traditional Catholic ministry because there are people that really thirst for truth and need a strong presence of Christ in their lives. You have a great responsibility because you have knowledge for your life, and if you feel comfortable to try to find others to grow with. If your current church does not work for you then you should probably try to find another church. Good luck with your journey and don’t lose faith, traditional Catholics are out there and we really need to support each other.

Peace,
 
I hope you won’t abandon Catholicism over what you’re reading here. I do not believe some of this is an accurate representation of Catholicism.

The Catholic Church does hold the most complete deposit of faith, the fullness of the truth of God’s glorious salvation. We believe that God’s grace flows through the Church and extends outward into the world, where it touches the lives of those who do not have the full revelation of the truth yet. We no longer take a harsh view that anyone who isn’t Catholic cannot be saved. We believe that non-Catholics can be saved through the grace God sheds on the world through His Church.
Judy
I am sorry to say this, but the truth never changes and the Pope Benedict XVI said so himself, Extra Ecclessiam Nulla Salus, Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation and to say that truth changes i s absurd. If outside the Catholic Church there is salvation then you dont really need the faith and the Catholic faith was just neccessary for just a little bit, and God did not really mean to change your faith that is why when you make statements like those. Its ok if you dont believe if you are a good jew, Good Muslim you will be ok. I am sorry to say Judy, but the Popes themselves said that speaking ex-cathedra under infallibility so I will take all of the Modern Popes and older Popes word for it. Catholics still have that point of view especially if Coach leaves the faith, because he would have no excuse. The Catholic Church does not say that you have to understand everything about the faith, but oyu have to believe in the Dogmas.

St. Paul says; The Catholic Church which was founded by Christ, “is the ground and pillar truth”. No questions asked. Period. The only people who have an excuse are Indians back then but who cares God will know how to Judge them, for the few exceptions out there. There is a very special case and God in his infinite wisdom and judgement will know what to do. For everyone else it does not really concern you, you just need to worry about this statement. OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THERE IS NO SALVATION. Especially if only at one point of your life you heard of it, much less those who willingly leave because they think they know more theology then the Pope’s or the saints themselves and Father’s of the Church.
 
How many of the apostles stayed with Our Lord through the crucifixion?

The Church will always be filled with nominal Catholics.

Pray for this priest and offer things up for him. Help him to see where he is wrong.

Our faith is more than rules and regs. Work on your personal relationship with Christ and the rest will fall into place. The Truth is the Truth no mater what priest believes it.

God bless,

Steve
 
you met one less than truthful priest, you worship in an ultra-liberal setting, and you know a lot of unfaithful Catholics. So on that basis you want to leave the Church. Would it not be better for you to seek out a parish with a proper Mass and reverent worship, an orthodox priest for discussion and confession, and become part of a real parish community life, rather than a group of dissenters, and base your judgement on the real Church, rather than the artificial one?
Yes, but sometimes that’s not possible. I’m in the same mess. The three parishes close enough for me to get to are liberal. It sucks. I have to keep one foot in a Baptist church just to be with people who actually take the Bible seriously. That’s not the way the world is supposed to be, but sometimes it is that way, and yes it does suck.

A Catholic Church is supposed to be a haven for people who take God and the Bible and seriously, but sometimes it’s not. :mad:

But Dempsey, if I can navigate my way through the mess, so can you. You’re not allowed to quit until I quit, and I haven’t quit yet.
 
Also seek out an indult parish in your area. Even if you don’t go to the Tridentine, their Novus Ordo Masses are usually better than the average parish in my experience.
 
Also seek out an indult parish in your area. Even if you don’t go to the Tridentine, their Novus Ordo Masses are usually better than the average parish in my experience./QUOT

People have left the church because of all it’s hatred. No Compassion, Hypocrisy, as our Lord said “Full of Dead Mans bones”.

The Catholic Church is full of corruption. I wish my wife and kids would leave it. :mad:
 
Yes, but sometimes that’s not possible. I’m in the same mess. The three parishes close enough for me to get to are liberal. It sucks. I have to keep one foot in a Baptist church just to be with people who actually take the Bible seriously. That’s not the way the world is supposed to be, but sometimes it is that way, and yes it does suck.

A Catholic Church is supposed to be a haven for people who take God and the Bible and seriously, but sometimes it’s not. :mad:

But Dempsey, if I can navigate my way through the mess, so can you. You’re not allowed to quit until I quit, and I haven’t quit yet.
You should not be going to a babtist church for :eek: “serious Bible studies”. I cant remember which saint said this, “Protestants understand the Bible enough to misinterpret it.” You will get your head hogwashed by a lot of this most used Bible quotes by Protestants. “Nobody comes to the Father but through me”. I know personally two Catholics who left the faith after some pastor read that to them. What people of little faith. THERE ARE THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of online books you could read that have Orthodox Catholic teaching. You can get books in the Ignatious Press, Roman Catholic Books, Angelus Press (SSPX) they have alot of good books that are 1920 reprints about the faith and so on so forth. If there are Catholic who dont care about the scriptures is because they dont even care about their faith at all, w/e the Pope says or a saint or a good priest ultimately it does not matter because they only listen “to their” consciousness. The Haydock Bible is the best I recommend if you are reading the Bible mostly alone. It is the Douay-Rheims Bible fully explained and with material on the side of what do the Doctors in the Church say about this or that. It is AWESOmE. Best Catholic Bible out there. It is about $120 dollars with a fancy cover in it. But if you just want it simple then it is prolly $80-$100. It is very good, but w/e you do dont attend a Babtist Church for your Bible studies, its the worst thing that you could and not only that it is prohibited for Catholic’s to go for instruction outside of the Church and attend their religous ceremonies regardless of what aynone tells you. Council of Trent and Vatican I and even Vatican II if you read it correctly say it so. And logic itself says it so if the Church is the truth why go for half-truths. 😊
 
1.Any decent (and honest) canon lawyer knows that the excommunication issue must be dealt with from Cardinal Gantin’s canonical warning alone and not Pope John Paul II’s motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, which has no legal bearing on the case. As the pope simply repeated what Cardinal Gantin stated, it is not a matter of “what the pope said”, but rather, what does the Code of Canon Law state.
2.It has been proven by independent canon lawyers that without a doubt per the 1983 (and even the more stricter 1917) Code of Canon Law, Archbishop Lefebvre et al were not ipso facto excommunicated for their actions specifically because of canon 1323, 7 (he subjectively believed that there was a necessity) and other canons. Cf. this page for a brief expose on the matter as well as links to more details articles on this important subject: sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q11_abexcommunicated.htm and sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q12_sspxschismatic.htm.
3.There was no schism; again, any decent canon lawyer will admit that an act of (apparent) disobedience does not equal a schismatic act (e.g., saying “no” to one’s mother does not constitute a rejection of her being your mother); nor does consecrating a bishop without a papal mandate (cf. Cardinal Lara’s remarks). Furthermore, the canon used to accuse the bishops of schism was the one for heretics, which certainly Archbishop Lefebvre was not. If anyone should be accused of schism it is the American Church, which even Fr. Kenneth Baker (a priest in good standing who is the editor of The Homiletic & Pastoral Review) said “is de facto, if not de jure is in a state of schism” for their continual disobedience to the Holy Father.
4.There is no mention at all in Ecclesia Dei Afflicta (vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html) of the priests of the SSPX being suspended; so why is this being misstated as if it were in the document?
5.Rome itself has told the SSPX in private (specifically Bishop Fellay) since 2000 that no excommunications nor a schismatic status was ever incurred because of the 1988 Episcopal Consecrations. However, they are afraid of losing face after having falsely stated the opposite for nearly 20 years. We were actually asked a year ago to draft a statement equivocating this, but we knew due to the aforementioned political reason that they would not agree to the wording. Hence, this is where matters presently rest. Furthermore, Cardinal Castrillion-Hoyes (President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission) stated both in 30 Giorni (30 Days) in September 2005 and on the Italian TV Canal 5 (Channel 5) on November 13, 2005, that the SSPX was not in a state of schism and in fact stated that communion with the Roman Church exists. Cf. the attached Word document for more such quotes.
6.The issue of the correct interpretation of Catholic Tradition is what is at stake in this matter. The issue is first and foremost doctrinal and philosophical. For the traditionally-minded Catholics the nearly 2000 years of the consistent perennial teachings of the Magisterium have been abruptly opposed by the Modernist orientation of the Second Vatican Council, something which the innovators themselves (amongst them Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI) admit are contradictory (e.g., you cannot reconcile religious liberty as declared in Dignitatis Humanae as declared by Mortalium Animos or any other pre-Vatican II teaching on the subject). Tradition is developmental (i.e., organic; e.g., you plant an acorn and you will get a tree), not evolutionary (i.e., revolutionary; e.g., you plant an acorn and if you wait long enough, you will get a 1957 Cadillac DeVille coupe). Cf. this article for details: sspx.org/miscellaneous/true_notion_of_tradition.htm.
Ultimately what the matter comes down to is a political persecution of those Catholics who wish to remain faithful to Catholic Tradition, i.e., what the Church has always taught and practiced, and not a Modernist orientation that was held condemned for over a century by the Magisterium of which over the past 40 years has shown nothing by its fruits other than disaster and a silent apostasy of the Catholic Church as predicted by Our Lady of Fatima.
 
Ecclesia Dei, the motu proprio promulgated by the Servant of God Pope John Paul II stated clearly that Archbishop Lefebreve and the bishops he consecrated were excommunicate, the priests of the Society were suspended *ad divinis *(and thus have no faculties), and the laity were warned against the grave sin of schism by association with them. Until Pope Benedict or one of his successors rules otherwise, then this is all we have to objectively go on. See the document at the following link, where the Pope clearly states that “The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition.”

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html
“The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of tradition”

That doesn’t even make logical canonical sense.

1.Any decent (and honest) canon lawyer knows that the excommunication issue must be dealt with from Cardinal Gantin’s canonical warning alone and not Pope John Paul II’s motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, which has no legal bearing on the case. As the pope simply repeated what Cardinal Gantin stated, it is not a matter of “what the pope said”, but rather, what does the Code of Canon Law state.
2.It has been proven by independent canon lawyers that without a doubt per the 1983 (and even the more stricter 1917) Code of Canon Law, Archbishop Lefebvre et al were not ipso facto excommunicated for their actions specifically because of canon 1323, 7 (he subjectively believed that there was a necessity) and other canons. Cf. this page for a brief expose on the matter as well as links to more details articles on this important subject: sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q11_abexcommunicated.htm and sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q12_sspxschismatic.htm.
3.There was no schism; again, any decent canon lawyer will admit that an act of (apparent) disobedience does not equal a schismatic act (e.g., saying “no” to one’s mother does not constitute a rejection of her being your mother); nor does consecrating a bishop without a papal mandate (cf. Cardinal Lara’s remarks). Furthermore, the canon used to accuse the bishops of schism was the one for heretics, which certainly Archbishop Lefebvre was not. If anyone should be accused of schism it is the American Church, which even Fr. Kenneth Baker (a priest in good standing who is the editor of The Homiletic & Pastoral Review) said “is de facto, if not de jure is in a state of schism” for their continual disobedience to the Holy Father.
 
1.Any decent (and honest) canon lawyer knows that the excommunication issue must be dealt with from Cardinal Gantin’s canonical warning alone and not Pope John Paul II’s motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, which has no legal bearing on the case. As the pope simply repeated what Cardinal Gantin stated, it is not a matter of “what the pope said”, but rather, what does the Code of Canon Law state.
2.It has been proven by independent canon lawyers that without a doubt per the 1983 (and even the more stricter 1917) Code of Canon Law, Archbishop Lefebvre et al were not ipso facto excommunicated for their actions specifically because of canon 1323, 7 (he subjectively believed that there was a necessity) and other canons. Cf. this page for a brief expose on the matter as well as links to more details articles on this important subject: sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q11_abexcommunicated.htm and sspx.org/SSPX_FAQs/q12_sspxschismatic.htm.
3.There was no schism; again, any decent canon lawyer will admit that an act of (apparent) disobedience does not equal a schismatic act (e.g., saying “no” to one’s mother does not constitute a rejection of her being your mother); nor does consecrating a bishop without a papal mandate (cf. Cardinal Lara’s remarks). Furthermore, the canon used to accuse the bishops of schism was the one for heretics, which certainly Archbishop Lefebvre was not. If anyone should be accused of schism it is the American Church, which even Fr. Kenneth Baker (a priest in good standing who is the editor of The Homiletic & Pastoral Review) said “is de facto, if not de jure is in a state of schism” for their continual disobedience to the Holy Father.
4.There is no mention at all in Ecclesia Dei Afflicta (vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei_en.html) of the priests of the SSPX being suspended; so why is this being misstated as if it were in the document?
5.Rome itself has told the SSPX in private (specifically Bishop Fellay) since 2000 that no excommunications nor a schismatic status was ever incurred because of the 1988 Episcopal Consecrations. However, they are afraid of losing face after having falsely stated the opposite for nearly 20 years. We were actually asked a year ago to draft a statement equivocating this, but we knew due to the aforementioned political reason that they would not agree to the wording. Hence, this is where matters presently rest. Furthermore, Cardinal Castrillion-Hoyes (President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission) stated both in 30 Giorni (30 Days) in September 2005 and on the Italian TV Canal 5 (Channel 5) on November 13, 2005, that the SSPX was not in a state of schism and in fact stated that communion with the Roman Church exists. Cf. the attached Word document for more such quotes.
6.The issue of the correct interpretation of Catholic Tradition is what is at stake in this matter. The issue is first and foremost doctrinal and philosophical. For the traditionally-minded Catholics the nearly 2000 years of the consistent perennial teachings of the Magisterium have been abruptly opposed by the Modernist orientation of the Second Vatican Council, something which the innovators themselves (amongst them Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI) admit are contradictory (e.g., you cannot reconcile religious liberty as declared in Dignitatis Humanae as declared by Mortalium Animos or any other pre-Vatican II teaching on the subject). Tradition is developmental (i.e., organic; e.g., you plant an acorn and you will get a tree), not evolutionary (i.e., revolutionary; e.g., you plant an acorn and if you wait long enough, you will get a 1957 Cadillac DeVille coupe). Cf. this article for details: sspx.org/miscellaneous/true_notion_of_tradition.htm.
Ultimately what the matter comes down to is a political persecution of those Catholics who wish to remain faithful to Catholic Tradition, i.e., what the Church has always taught and practiced, and not a Modernist orientation that was held condemned for over a century by the Magisterium of which over the past 40 years has shown nothing by its fruits other than disaster and a silent apostasy of the Catholic Church as predicted by Our Lady of Fatima.
 
Gag! What do you think the SSPX is going to say? It’s interesting to know that several independent canonists say the bishops are excommunicated and in schism. You using the phrase “any decent canon lawyer” over and over isn’t going to make you position or the SSPX’s true. There’s a little issue with them, you, me and all of the other armchair canonists not being the Supreme Legislator. I also think you’ve failed to produce one Church document that says that the SSPX bishops are not in schism or excommunicated. Magazine articles, interviews, etc. are all fun to read and watch and yet really carry no weight in the Church. Hopefully Cardinal Castillon Hoyos will put it in writing and then we can all rejoice.

I’m sure you won’t appreciate this but Pete Vere has outlined in detail the canonical history of the SSPX.
sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id8.html

So, my canonist is better than yours.😛
 
And you have yet to produce a document that means anything. Obviously you can plainly see that ED was wrong to provide the traditional mass by permission of a local ordinary… since the mass had never been abrogated and permission wasn’t needed in the first place.

I’m patient. Not that any pronouncements will change facts. But somehow I doubt the rejoicing you mentioned.

Steve
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top