“The anti-Christ will set up a counter-Church which will be the ape of the Church because, he the devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the anti-Christ that in all externals will resemble the mystical body of Christ."
Introduction
He joins with all the other anti-SSPX, anti-Tradition haters right now currently circling the burning wagon of the SSPX like rabid Comanches fighting white European American settlers. He accuses us of now leaving the Church, advising others to leave the Church, now entering into schism, and following a false “gospel.”
Those are some pretty heavy accusations.
He would not logically nor transparently explain how he got my wife’s email and also sent her this trash, which also applied to her, unnecessarily. From our saved exchanges, I couldn’t get any clear, honest feedback why he did this, this way.
Nothing came through in our communications as he being straightforward or forthright. He being a seemingly smart man, the fact that almost every statement in his email/letter to me and my wife was a literal misrepresentation and distortion of exactly what I’ve said on this blog, and the SSPX, likewise betrays a spirit of duplicity.
He being a clergyman of the diocese, I took the time to very frankly engage him, and with this reply, but he acted as if he would hear nothing of my polite objections of EMAILING MY WIFE, how he got her email, or why he also emailed her, objecting to my questioning.
When I objected, no apologies from him or conciliatory words, only doubling down on his intentions to help us not fall into the “SSPX schism.”
He being a deacon, I’ll hold my tongue and say no more. You can judge for yourself from his email and my response below. The devil is trying to attack the SSPX and Catholics adhering to Tradition right now, using lies to get very ill-willed haters to do shit like this. There is no better word for this than shit. I’m resolved now to put these ill-informed Karen’s on ignore. For the sake of peace.
Deacon Beard
By the way, for context, this man was raised in the FSSP, but jumped ship for the mainstream. When I asked him if he and the pastor of St. Augustine’s would take down the blasphemous icon of Martin Luther King in the church, us trads back in the day when the FSSP was at St. Augustine’s wanting to see it removed, he defended keeping it up with a bit of situation ethics! I was in my late 20’s at the time when he was still studying for his SAT’s.
He literally said it would cause more harm than good by offending all of the African American parishioners, as if he doesn’t trust they will understand the change when explained.
Goodness gracious Charlie! I remember when you were still going through puberty. My point was that since it is intrinsically wrong, and a grave evil, offending God, they were morally obligated to take it down.
In his way of thinking, no they weren’t.
The Email/Letter Sent to Me Today (formally as a Tulsa Diocesan Clergyman to this blog) and to My Wife (?!?) by one Ever So Affable Deacon Charlie Beard
Chris,
I’ve been following your blog with interest ever since the dustup at Sts. Peter and Paul. I see on it now that you are celebrating the excommunications of the SSPX clergy and have written Bishop Konderla to state that you formally adhere to them.
I’m asking as your brother: please do not do so.
I’m asking as your brother: please do not do so.
Two themes come up in your blog: the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Ape of the Church. I believe you are misapplying both of them and using your platform to encourage people to leave Christ’s Church and follow another gospel (Galatians 1:6).
The Law of Non-Contradiction states that two opposing ideas cannot both be true. This is not the Law of Non-Contradiction (???). It states that two opposing ideas cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way.
You state that Vatican II violates the Law of Non-Contradiction on, for example, religious liberty. You fail to note that Vatican II was shifting the perspective by which the question of religious liberty is asked. As you rightly say, religious liberty is a civil right belonging to persons, not a natural right to err.
Your position is actually closer to Dignitatis Humanae than to the Syllabus of Errors. For better or for worse, we are postmodern Americans so it’s easier for us to adopt that shift in perspective. It doesn’t mean we oppose the Church. Indeed, we are applying the perennial (pre- and post-Conciliar) teaching of the Church to our circumstances.
Does error have rights? Of course not! But does a man’s conscience have rights even when wrong? Of course it does! The Church taught both these things before and after the Council. What changed is the perspective. You can prefer the old perspective. You can claim it’s clearer or better or has better results. But you cannot claim a new perspective violates the Law of Non-Contradiction (Yes we can. Case in point Francis allowing Communion for unrepentant adulterers). It simply does not.
Bizarrely, you also deny that the Novus Ordo is intended as a propitiatory sacrifice (We do not). Dom Pagliarani does the same in one of his letters to Pope Leo. That’s simply false. At the risk of an overly long quote, this is what the General Instruction of the (2002) Roman Missal states about the nature of the Mass:
The Law of Non-Contradiction states that two opposing ideas cannot both be true. This is not the Law of Non-Contradiction (???). It states that two opposing ideas cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way.
You state that Vatican II violates the Law of Non-Contradiction on, for example, religious liberty. You fail to note that Vatican II was shifting the perspective by which the question of religious liberty is asked. As you rightly say, religious liberty is a civil right belonging to persons, not a natural right to err.
Your position is actually closer to Dignitatis Humanae than to the Syllabus of Errors. For better or for worse, we are postmodern Americans so it’s easier for us to adopt that shift in perspective. It doesn’t mean we oppose the Church. Indeed, we are applying the perennial (pre- and post-Conciliar) teaching of the Church to our circumstances.
Does error have rights? Of course not! But does a man’s conscience have rights even when wrong? Of course it does! The Church taught both these things before and after the Council. What changed is the perspective. You can prefer the old perspective. You can claim it’s clearer or better or has better results. But you cannot claim a new perspective violates the Law of Non-Contradiction (Yes we can. Case in point Francis allowing Communion for unrepentant adulterers). It simply does not.
Bizarrely, you also deny that the Novus Ordo is intended as a propitiatory sacrifice (We do not). Dom Pagliarani does the same in one of his letters to Pope Leo. That’s simply false. At the risk of an overly long quote, this is what the General Instruction of the (2002) Roman Missal states about the nature of the Mass:
“The sacrificial nature of the Mass, solemnly defended by the Council of Trent, because it accords with the universal tradition of the Church,[1] was once more stated by the Second Vatican Council, which pronounced these clear words about the Mass: ‘At the Last Supper, Our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood, by which the Sacrifice of his Cross is perpetuated until he comes again; and till then he entrusts the memorial of his Death and Resurrection to his beloved spouse, the Church.’[2]
“What is taught in this way by the Council is consistently expressed in the formulas of the Mass. Moreover, the doctrine which stands out in the following sentence, already notable and concisely expressed in the ancient Sacramentary commonly called the Leonine—"for whenever the memorial of this sacrifice is celebrated the work of our redemption is accomplished"[3]—is aptly and exactly expounded in the Eucharistic Prayers; for as in these the Priest enacts the anamnesis, while turned towards God likewise in the name of all the people, he renders thanks and offers the living and holy sacrifice, that is, the Church's oblation and the sacrificial Victim by whose death God himself willed to reconcile us to himself;[4] and the Priest also prays that the Body and Blood of Christ may be a sacrifice which is acceptable to the Father and which brings salvation to the whole world.[5]
“So, in the new Missal the rule of prayer (lex orandi) of the Church corresponds to her perennial rule of faith (lex credendi), by which we are truly taught that the sacrifice of his Cross and its sacramental renewal in the Mass, which Christ the Lord instituted at the Last Supper and commanded his Apostles to do in his memory, are one and the same, differing only in the manner of their offering; and as a result, that the Mass is at one and the same time a sacrifice of praise, thanksgiving, propitiation, and satisfaction.”
(GIRM 2, quoting among others Sacrosanctum Concilium, Eucharistic Prayer III, and Eucharistic Prayer IV)
The teaching of the Mass is the same before and after the Council, except that the Council articulated it differently to an age that no longer understands what we mean by “propitiatory sacrifice.” For this reason the SSPX claims that the Mass according to the reformed missal is in itself, even if valid, displeasing to God! (Think of the absurdity of this statement: Christ’s sacrifice is truly renewed, and God is displeased!)
If Lefebvre and the SSPX are right, then the gates of hell have prevailed over Peter and Christ is a liar. The sacraments in our own parishes cannot save us (once again that IS NOT their position). Council of Trent was wrong when it said that “in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, [the Church] may ordain,–or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient … according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places” (Session XXI, Chapter 2).
If you or the SSPX want to claim the changes of Vatican II were ambiguous, or ineffective, or imprudent, by all means do so! Lord knows many people within the Church make this claim. I think that view is wrong, but sometimes I’m wrong and thank God I’m not judged on my own rightness.
But the SSPX is making a much different claim. The consecration rite this week stated “From Vatican Council II up to the present day, the authorities in the Church have been animated by a spirit that is contrary to that of the faith and have been acting against holy tradition.” (This is obvious). Dom Pagliarani told the Pope in his letter in April that “in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation.”
The SSPX, while claiming to be Catholic, believes that Rome has defected from the faith. This seems to be the basis of the Ape of the Church idea that you attribute to Archbishop Sheen. (Near as I can tell, Sheen was talking about the Communist Party in the Soviet Union deciding Party orthodoxy the way Rome determines Christian orthodoxy; it had little to do with the faith itself.)
“What is taught in this way by the Council is consistently expressed in the formulas of the Mass. Moreover, the doctrine which stands out in the following sentence, already notable and concisely expressed in the ancient Sacramentary commonly called the Leonine—"for whenever the memorial of this sacrifice is celebrated the work of our redemption is accomplished"[3]—is aptly and exactly expounded in the Eucharistic Prayers; for as in these the Priest enacts the anamnesis, while turned towards God likewise in the name of all the people, he renders thanks and offers the living and holy sacrifice, that is, the Church's oblation and the sacrificial Victim by whose death God himself willed to reconcile us to himself;[4] and the Priest also prays that the Body and Blood of Christ may be a sacrifice which is acceptable to the Father and which brings salvation to the whole world.[5]
“So, in the new Missal the rule of prayer (lex orandi) of the Church corresponds to her perennial rule of faith (lex credendi), by which we are truly taught that the sacrifice of his Cross and its sacramental renewal in the Mass, which Christ the Lord instituted at the Last Supper and commanded his Apostles to do in his memory, are one and the same, differing only in the manner of their offering; and as a result, that the Mass is at one and the same time a sacrifice of praise, thanksgiving, propitiation, and satisfaction.”
(GIRM 2, quoting among others Sacrosanctum Concilium, Eucharistic Prayer III, and Eucharistic Prayer IV)
The teaching of the Mass is the same before and after the Council, except that the Council articulated it differently to an age that no longer understands what we mean by “propitiatory sacrifice.” For this reason the SSPX claims that the Mass according to the reformed missal is in itself, even if valid, displeasing to God! (Think of the absurdity of this statement: Christ’s sacrifice is truly renewed, and God is displeased!)
If Lefebvre and the SSPX are right, then the gates of hell have prevailed over Peter and Christ is a liar. The sacraments in our own parishes cannot save us (once again that IS NOT their position). Council of Trent was wrong when it said that “in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, [the Church] may ordain,–or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient … according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places” (Session XXI, Chapter 2).
If you or the SSPX want to claim the changes of Vatican II were ambiguous, or ineffective, or imprudent, by all means do so! Lord knows many people within the Church make this claim. I think that view is wrong, but sometimes I’m wrong and thank God I’m not judged on my own rightness.
But the SSPX is making a much different claim. The consecration rite this week stated “From Vatican Council II up to the present day, the authorities in the Church have been animated by a spirit that is contrary to that of the faith and have been acting against holy tradition.” (This is obvious). Dom Pagliarani told the Pope in his letter in April that “in an ordinary parish, the faithful no longer find the means necessary to ensure their eternal salvation.”
The SSPX, while claiming to be Catholic, believes that Rome has defected from the faith. This seems to be the basis of the Ape of the Church idea that you attribute to Archbishop Sheen. (Near as I can tell, Sheen was talking about the Communist Party in the Soviet Union deciding Party orthodoxy the way Rome determines Christian orthodoxy; it had little to do with the faith itself.)
This is only possible because of Marcel Lefebvre’s novel doctrine contrasting Eternal Rome and Modernist Rome. I suppose he needed this doctrine in order to get out of his own snag in the Law of Non-Contradiction, but it has no basis in Tradition. The distinction between Eternal and Modernist Rome does not, has never, and cannot exist. The Church teaches that there is only one Rome: “If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (St. Cyprian of Carthage).
There is no Ape of the Church; there is only the Church. The wheat and the tares are both in the garden. We do not get to claim the tares are a separate garden juridically inside the garden. I think Pope Leo is wheat, but if he is a tare, he is a tare in the garden. God has willed both the wheat and the tares to grow together until the end. We cannot claim there are two gardens in the same structure. To say otherwise is Donatism.
Every concern you have about the Council and the Mass is solved by receiving it in light of the living Tradition. That may look somewhat different for you than for me, and that’s OK because “the eye cannot say to the hand I have no need of you” (1 Cor. 12:21). What truly violates the Law of Non-Contradiction is to profess fealty to the Church then walk away from her hierarchical constitution that God has (positively or permissively) given to us. That’s what the SSPX is doing, either misunderstanding or lying about the Novus Ordo in the process.
Obviously you must follow your conscience. But following an erroneous conscience, while not morally culpable, still harms the Body of Christ and indeed the world. Please do not follow the SSPX out the door. I disagree with you on basically everything, and the Church still needs your perspective within her. For Christ’s sake, be strong and courageous
Do not depart from his law, either to the right or to the left (Joshua 1:7).
I have been praying for the SSPX ever since the consecrations and will continue to do so.
Dcn. Charles Beard
Deacon Charles Beard
There is no Ape of the Church; there is only the Church. The wheat and the tares are both in the garden. We do not get to claim the tares are a separate garden juridically inside the garden. I think Pope Leo is wheat, but if he is a tare, he is a tare in the garden. God has willed both the wheat and the tares to grow together until the end. We cannot claim there are two gardens in the same structure. To say otherwise is Donatism.
Every concern you have about the Council and the Mass is solved by receiving it in light of the living Tradition. That may look somewhat different for you than for me, and that’s OK because “the eye cannot say to the hand I have no need of you” (1 Cor. 12:21). What truly violates the Law of Non-Contradiction is to profess fealty to the Church then walk away from her hierarchical constitution that God has (positively or permissively) given to us. That’s what the SSPX is doing, either misunderstanding or lying about the Novus Ordo in the process.
Obviously you must follow your conscience. But following an erroneous conscience, while not morally culpable, still harms the Body of Christ and indeed the world. Please do not follow the SSPX out the door. I disagree with you on basically everything, and the Church still needs your perspective within her. For Christ’s sake, be strong and courageous
Do not depart from his law, either to the right or to the left (Joshua 1:7).
I have been praying for the SSPX ever since the consecrations and will continue to do so.
Dcn. Charles Beard
Deacon Charles Beard
But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
—2 Corinthians 12:9
My Response
1. I did not celebrate the "SSPX excommunications." If you read what I wrote, I was characterizing them with an analogy that is not literal. If someone is invalidly excommunicated for keeping the Faith, instead of being downtrodden, you pick yourself up and celebrate for a moment not caving in and compromising on the Faith. Apples and oranges.
2. He writes “The Law of Non-Contradiction states that two opposing ideas cannot both be true. This is not the Law of Non-Contradiction. It states that two opposing ideas cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way.” The second sentence makes no sense and what he is saying is literally what I said. In the same sense at the same time. That’s my point. Assent to the errors in V2 etc violates this.
3. His statements on religious liberty are traditional but that’s not what V2 means. You go by what JP2 etc said over and over that everyone has a public right to false religion always and at all times, unhindered by government, except for public order reasons, not to uphold the true Faith or Christendom. This is just a spin to square the circle, but it Contradicts the Syllabus of Errors. The new catechism describes it as a natural right, when per Tradition it is only at times a civil right. Read all of Archbishop Lefebvre’s interventions on this.
4. We do not reject all statements on religious liberty, but simply temporarily withhold religious assent until there is clarity or correction, traditionally allowed under canon law. Same for all other controversial new pastoral statements that can’t be logically reconciled.
5. No where did I or my wife or the SSPX deny that the “Novus Ordo intends a propitiatory sacrifice.” A word of advise, if you sincerely want to win over the other side, you might not want to characterize their position with terms like “bizarrely.” There is nothing bizarre about observing what is obvious, how the reformed liturgy, despite that definition in the GIRM, when examined side by side with the Mass of the Ages, as does the Ottaviani intervention, obscures the sacrificing nature of the Mass while giving it a practically Protestant form.
6. The Society recognizes the new Mass and sacraments are valid and give grace, and one can of course be saved in the new rite. You again twist the position. The modernist novel system within new rite parishes is a danger and hindrance. That is what is meant. The way you all say Mass as a standard is obviously banal, secularized, and effeminate. This goes beyond legalism what is in the missal or rubrics. This ape of the Mass is de facto the approved norm by the conciliar hierarchy.
7. Re Rome defecting, you again twist what I, my wife, or the SSPX observes. We do not observe as do the sedes a total, formal defection, but material and partial. Who knowing the facts would deny that the majority of clerics running conciliar Rome for the most part are in heresy or apostasy.
8. The irony is if we blindly accept your hermeneutic of continuity, to go into denial about the revolution that came via the Council as an event and in certain of its errors and spirit, then we must also blindly accept the absurdities of Pope Francis allowing communion for public adulterers, inserting into the CCC that the death penalty is now always inadmissible, which obviously contradict the perennial teaching.
—2 Corinthians 12:9
My Response
1. I did not celebrate the "SSPX excommunications." If you read what I wrote, I was characterizing them with an analogy that is not literal. If someone is invalidly excommunicated for keeping the Faith, instead of being downtrodden, you pick yourself up and celebrate for a moment not caving in and compromising on the Faith. Apples and oranges.
2. He writes “The Law of Non-Contradiction states that two opposing ideas cannot both be true. This is not the Law of Non-Contradiction. It states that two opposing ideas cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way.” The second sentence makes no sense and what he is saying is literally what I said. In the same sense at the same time. That’s my point. Assent to the errors in V2 etc violates this.
3. His statements on religious liberty are traditional but that’s not what V2 means. You go by what JP2 etc said over and over that everyone has a public right to false religion always and at all times, unhindered by government, except for public order reasons, not to uphold the true Faith or Christendom. This is just a spin to square the circle, but it Contradicts the Syllabus of Errors. The new catechism describes it as a natural right, when per Tradition it is only at times a civil right. Read all of Archbishop Lefebvre’s interventions on this.
4. We do not reject all statements on religious liberty, but simply temporarily withhold religious assent until there is clarity or correction, traditionally allowed under canon law. Same for all other controversial new pastoral statements that can’t be logically reconciled.
5. No where did I or my wife or the SSPX deny that the “Novus Ordo intends a propitiatory sacrifice.” A word of advise, if you sincerely want to win over the other side, you might not want to characterize their position with terms like “bizarrely.” There is nothing bizarre about observing what is obvious, how the reformed liturgy, despite that definition in the GIRM, when examined side by side with the Mass of the Ages, as does the Ottaviani intervention, obscures the sacrificing nature of the Mass while giving it a practically Protestant form.
6. The Society recognizes the new Mass and sacraments are valid and give grace, and one can of course be saved in the new rite. You again twist the position. The modernist novel system within new rite parishes is a danger and hindrance. That is what is meant. The way you all say Mass as a standard is obviously banal, secularized, and effeminate. This goes beyond legalism what is in the missal or rubrics. This ape of the Mass is de facto the approved norm by the conciliar hierarchy.
7. Re Rome defecting, you again twist what I, my wife, or the SSPX observes. We do not observe as do the sedes a total, formal defection, but material and partial. Who knowing the facts would deny that the majority of clerics running conciliar Rome for the most part are in heresy or apostasy.
8. The irony is if we blindly accept your hermeneutic of continuity, to go into denial about the revolution that came via the Council as an event and in certain of its errors and spirit, then we must also blindly accept the absurdities of Pope Francis allowing communion for public adulterers, inserting into the CCC that the death penalty is now always inadmissible, which obviously contradict the perennial teaching.
9. Non-infallible documents are therefore not infallible. Believe it or not it is possible to contain doctrinal error. See the error in the Council of Florence on the validating matter for priestly ordination, later corrected by Doctors of the Church like St. Robert Bellarmine, long before Pius XII corrected it officially.
10. Re the idea of the Ape of the Church, you twist again what I said, what my wife would say, and what the SSPX says. We do not claim there is literally a new formal false church inside the juridical structure. That is a garden literally inside a garden. The false regime of novelty nearly everywhere is LIKE a false church, effectively but not formally a counterfeit church.
10. Re the idea of the Ape of the Church, you twist again what I said, what my wife would say, and what the SSPX says. We do not claim there is literally a new formal false church inside the juridical structure. That is a garden literally inside a garden. The false regime of novelty nearly everywhere is LIKE a false church, effectively but not formally a counterfeit church.
This is nothing new. The Bible, Saints, Fathers, and Doctors of the Church, not to mention the visionaries at La Salette (the full messages are allowed to be believed), Blessed Ann Catherine Emmerich , etc prophesied this.
This is actually what Venerable, Soon-to-be beatified Archbishop Fulton Sheen ACTUALLY said, clearly speaking of a counter-fit church: “The anti-Christ will set up a counter-Church which will be the ape of the Church because, he the devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the anti-Christ that in all externals will resemble the mystical body of Christ."
11. Lastly, I’ll address the good Reverend’s condemnation right from the beginning of his “pastoral outreach,” that we are leading ourselves and others “outside of the Church” embracing a false “gospel,” even holding positions equivalent to the heresy of donatism.
This is actually what Venerable, Soon-to-be beatified Archbishop Fulton Sheen ACTUALLY said, clearly speaking of a counter-fit church: “The anti-Christ will set up a counter-Church which will be the ape of the Church because, he the devil, is the ape of God. It will have all the notes and characteristics of the Church, but in reverse and emptied of its divine content. It will be a mystical body of the anti-Christ that in all externals will resemble the mystical body of Christ."
11. Lastly, I’ll address the good Reverend’s condemnation right from the beginning of his “pastoral outreach,” that we are leading ourselves and others “outside of the Church” embracing a false “gospel,” even holding positions equivalent to the heresy of donatism.
a) You’re basing this rash judgment on the latest Fake News coming from Fernandez and the Vatican News that the priests, laity, and entire SSPX are excommunicated and now a “formal schism” because they consecrated the equivalent to auxiliary bishops. This is calmuny you and others who exhibit disdain towards the SSPX and like minded traditionalists are spreading right now. But that IS NOT the official canonical judgment per the decree, only the bishops.
Nobody is “about to leave the Church” for a false gospel. Nothing has changed except a few new bishops deemed excommunicated. See Fr Z summarizing the explanations of well respected canonists.
b) the accusation of donatism is actually rather annoying, often hurled at the Society. It is a false and frankly idiotic accusation because the Society DOES NOT question either the validity of conciliar sacraments or the authority of the conciliar hierarchy, due to their scandals. That’s more akin to sedevacantism. Apples and oranges.
Conclusion
This was not a sincere honest letter nor was it sent in a transparent or respectful way. His argument came almost entirely down to ignorance of our positions. Which is just a straw man argument. It accuses us essentially now of going into schism and heresy, when the DDF’s canonical decree itself, and Pope Leo HAVE NOT said anything of the sorts. And you don’t fuck around sending this shit also to my wife, if you respected women and the inner sanctum of holy matrimony.
He’s lucky he is in Holy Orders, which restrains me from saying more. May he consider the facts presented above, and learn more about Tradition.
Life goes on. I'd rather be swimming at Blue Hole Springs.
Nobody is “about to leave the Church” for a false gospel. Nothing has changed except a few new bishops deemed excommunicated. See Fr Z summarizing the explanations of well respected canonists.
b) the accusation of donatism is actually rather annoying, often hurled at the Society. It is a false and frankly idiotic accusation because the Society DOES NOT question either the validity of conciliar sacraments or the authority of the conciliar hierarchy, due to their scandals. That’s more akin to sedevacantism. Apples and oranges.
Conclusion
This was not a sincere honest letter nor was it sent in a transparent or respectful way. His argument came almost entirely down to ignorance of our positions. Which is just a straw man argument. It accuses us essentially now of going into schism and heresy, when the DDF’s canonical decree itself, and Pope Leo HAVE NOT said anything of the sorts. And you don’t fuck around sending this shit also to my wife, if you respected women and the inner sanctum of holy matrimony.
He’s lucky he is in Holy Orders, which restrains me from saying more. May he consider the facts presented above, and learn more about Tradition.
Life goes on. I'd rather be swimming at Blue Hole Springs.
No comments:
Post a Comment