Another blog asked the question, "Do you remember what you did the day before 9-11?" I've never thought of that before and quite frankly I can't remember a thing about 9-10-01. But I can remember 9-11 almost as though it were yesterday. Of course what stands out the most are the images on live TV of the first tower bellowing smoke from what was thought to have been an accident when a "small" plane collided with the building. It wasn't until I saw the passenger jet actually hit the second tower as live TV had cameras fixed on the twin towers that we all realized that something more than an accident was taking place and in an unprecedented way that would change America and our way of life.
What I remember most though is making sure the front doors of our historic church in downtown Augusta were opened wide to indicate to everyone who desired, that a sanctuary of peace and prayer was open to them no matter their religious affiliation.
What I remember is watching people stream into our church to pray and seek comfort from God and divine protection for our nation and those in harms way.
Most of all I remember our daily Mass that day. It is celebrated each day at 12:15 PM. The normal attendance was always around 60 to 100 people. That day the Church was packed:
Church of the Most Holy Trinity, Augusta, Georgia, September 11, 2001, 12:15 PM daily Mass:
What I remember too was singing "America the Beautiful" at the recessional and getting to the last verse which left no dry eye in the church that day:
O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!
47 comments:
And in God's marvelous Providence, today's (September 11, 2011) teach us of the healing power of forgiveness.
Forgive who...what? A bunch of heathen Muslims for killing thousands of our people? A hostile religion that hates the Judaeo-Christian tradition and the West generally? A group of savage pagans who will do it again if they get the chance? Enemies of the Church? Enemies of Israel (both the political entity and God's chosen people)? God's marvelous Providence does not ask us to give up our common sense, our defense of the Church, or our defense of our nation. There is no forgiveness without confession and an acknowledgement of guilt. I have not heard that from any of these heathen savages...that's heathen savages...wanna' hear it again?
We have a responsibility to defend the Church and her traditions and those nations who attempt to embody them, otherwise, there would be no Church. Lay down, if you like,as their blade slices across your throat and your humble prayers are stopped by your gurgling and the pagan cry of Allah akbar!! Enjoy.
My first reaction upon seeing this photo was....Maybe this church is crowded because there is an altar rail.
I listened attentivelt Father Kwiatkowski's Homily on forgiveness yesterday. I even want to try and forgive....but as pin says, isn't acknowledgement of guilt a prerequisite?
I remember that day, Father, as the day I was trying to get hold of my husband who had just retired from 32 years "professoring" at MCG. He was down at MHT volunteer cleaning and carpentering for you on the newly-purchased Baird Bldg. (We hadn't yet gotten our first cellphone). The office staff finally caught up with him just before that Mass... Such a tragic, profound day!
Correct me if I am wrong, but there is a difference between Forgiveness and Reconciliation.
My experience has been that I've had to forgive others when they refuse to say they're sorry or even look at how they hurt me. Not easy. It can be a process and a decision of the will. If we do our best and pray for the ability to fully forgive, the Lord will help us.
Reconciling with the offender may not fully happen without that person being humble enough to understand how they have hurt you, and then see the error of their ways and ask for forgiveness.
Jesus forgave those who crucified him, but they didn't get to reconcile with him if they don't repent! Well, after I imagine a LONG purgatory since he did say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".
What if they don't think they have anything to be sorry for? If they think that the destruction is simply a regrettable alternative route to domination, then can their system coexist with ours? Our Pope got a taste of the cost of truth when he made the most benign address at the University of Regensburg Tuesday, 12 September 2006. Contrasting Islamic views of God with Greek to reach an understanding of Christian understanding of God, brought a firestorm of hatred. This is only to be expected as Christians try to be in harmony with the Logos of the Lord in all aspects and accept His willful nature. The act of destroying those buildings, and enslaving almost 1/3 of the earth, is based on not only accepting the Voluntas nature of God, but being an agent of it. A Christian should know this is as blasphemy and stand against it. The Muslim, on the other hand, is paralysed to inaction against these terrors by his immersion in the concept of God as so totally unrestricted in latitude of action that even the most hideous evil may actually be His will. So in their world view, God contains every possible characteristic except self control.
But the test is not what we believe about Islam, but what believe about ourselves. Do we actually believe that the Catholic Church is the one true Church and the one way? Our priest said in his homily that if you want to believe in witchcraft, or be a Muslim that is OK with him but for him it's Christ as if the decision was a product endorsement. Is it really 'OK' to let people believe what we know is a hurtful lie? How does that fit into salvation?
One innocent man dying for me is enough. So I will defend the rest of them, with word or sword.
"You duped me, O LORD, and I let myself be duped;
you were too strong for me, and you triumphed.
All the day I am an object of laughter;
everyone mocks me.
Whenever I speak, I must cry out,
violence and outrage is my message;
the word of the LORD has brought me
derision and reproach all the day.
I say to myself, I will not mention him,
I will speak in his name no more.
But then it becomes like fire burning in my heart,
imprisoned in my bones;
I grow weary holding it in, I cannot endure it."
Me, too, Jeremiah.
rcg
The church was filled on that day because we had a pastor who taught us well what it is to "seek ye first the Kingdom of God"... -pgal
No, acknowledgment is not a prerequisite. "Father,forgive them, they know not what they do."
Divine mercy makes no "common sense." And it is precisely that common sense that we must abandon if we are going to be able to act in accord with Divine sense.
What might it cost in human terms? Look at the crucifix for your answer.
Anon/Ignotus,
Christ's sayings and parables are often of an eschatological nature. That is why we call them "parables of the Kingdom." While not exactly zen koans, they do point us beyond their obvious and manifest content...they are a foreshadowing of what the Resurrection life will be like. They are NOT a simplistic ethical system for life in the City of Man. This is a favorite theme of liberal theology (neo-protestant and Catholic)...since they do not believe in a real Resurrection life, they have to scramble around here to come up with some kind of "Christian Ethic" that will enable us to make a paradise here on earth. This is, of course, nonsense, but they have tortured every exegesis to try to make it work. Perhaps those Saints who have lived such lives, and they are few, are Christ's chosen "refresher courses" on life in the Kingdom, n'est ce pas?
Such gratuitous forgiveness as you mention belittles God's people and makes a mockery of the Church. But, it is so typically liberal/progressivist. It completely ignores Christ's strong warnings regarding those who reject him, and it also ignores a good bit of NT theology and Church history. If we are instruments of His peace, then can we not also be instruments of His wrath? The Church certainly acted upon this belief in the past, and I see no reason why there is not a basis for it today.
This gratuitous forgiveness is the cry of the Universalist who, as Rheinold Neibuhr said, "brings men without sin into a kingdom without judgement through a Christ without a cross." The logic of it is that, if someone is raping my wife on my kitchen floor and killing my children in the den, I do nothing. So, let's forgive Hitler...and Stalin...and Pol Pot...let the good times rpll, baby!
After all the insightful replies I've receieved the gift of clarity.
It is not my place to forgive the terrorists for they have not sinned against against God. God can forgive them.
Me? I'm up for arranging the meeting.
Now, Anon/Ignotus, Let's take this a bit further. You said, "What might it cost in human terms? Look at the crucifix for your answer."
So, that is what it is about...human terms? The cross represents human suffering, that is what it is all about? So, we have a completely immanent Christology that elevates human suffering to the level of Christ's sacrifice....nice.
I rather believe the Cross represents the failure of all human ethical systems and makes a farce of our efforts to create a Paradise on earth. We killed the only truly Good Man and,in doing so, rejected God in the bargain. The death of Christ, the Good Man, was the death of human morality. So, if Christ is the Son of God who died on the Cross and was buried and rose again (I mean like you could have got it with a camera.),then the Cross represents something far more than human suffering, no? It is both a "no" to man, as well as the only possible "yes." There is nothing in human cost, nothing in human sacrifice, that even approaches the death of God on the Cross. And, there is no true justice, no reconciliation, other than that promised in the Resurrection and the coming Kingdom of God. Which leaves us here with our pitiful ethical systems and diverse religions, some of which say that it is a Holy thing to make war on the Church and to murder people in the name of some pagan God. Forgiving any such anti-Christ is tantamount to making war on the Church yourself. Just a little different take on the Crucifix.
"...thy kingdom come, thy will be done ON EARTH as it is in heaven. ..." No, the words of Christ about forgiveness are not primarily or exclusively eschatalogical.
The Kingdom of God is at hand ... is in our midst. In Christ we are already seated at God's right hand. We are forgiven here and now and we are to forgive here and now. No exception is made for the people you call "savage heathens."
The "theme" is forgiveness which is neither progressive nor conservative. It is merely Christianity.
A sincere meditation on the crucifix reminds us that there is a human cost to discipleship.
I am taught by the Church that I must forgive not seven times, but seventy-seven times - an unlimited number. Nowhere does the Church teach us that we can conveniently label someone the "anti-Christ" and, having done so, act wrathfully toward them.
"He who hates me, hates my Father, also."
The Kingdom of God is an eschatological reality, not a present state of being. "Thy kingdom come" is a petition that this future reality hasten to fruition.
Historically, until fairly recently, the Church saw fit to defend herself against the infidel in direct and aggressive ways. Popes went to war; the Holy Catholic Church condemned heretics, false teachers, and those who would make war on God's people. God was watching then, too. Perhaps it is time for the Church to appeal to her past for guidance.
Pin, I was following you until this 6:02 am post. My memory (tho aging, I admit): Pope JPII asked forgiveness for at least one past papal war against "the infidel".
The cross is the tree of life. We (through Adam) were booted out of Paradise ("death") through the tree, and were given salvation ("life") through the tree. The tree is the means, not the end..
Jenny, "the Tree is the means, not the end..." I agree.
Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius -- Arnaul Amalric AD1209
Templar, You have got to introduce yourself to me at the next EF. I swear you are my lost twin. LOL!
There are nuances in Christian theology (Catholic and Protestant)that are significant. There are also certain code words and phrases that raise flags with anyone acquainted with liberal theology and modernist thinking. For instance, certainly the saying,"the Kingdom of God is within you, is at hand, etc." is an important saying of Christ. There is a huge body of theology and exegesis based upon that saying. Here is a condensation (and I will not go into a long theological discussion because that will make people mad):
There are three understandings of these sayings, 1. The immediacy, or imminence, of the Kingdom...we know not the day nor the hour...this is an exhortation to repentance and watchfulness; 2. the inner changes required for entry into the Kingdom (the "within us" part), which are primarily belief that Christ is the Son of God and confessing the same, and 3.the expectation of the Kingdom coming in the future...in history, in time ("You will see the Son of Man coming in clouds of Glory.").
Now, this is pretty much accepted by Biblical scholars, with some abstruse arguments about fine points.
Now, the problem with people like Ignotus and the progressivists is that they want to interpret this to mean that the Kingdom of God is completed within us, get it? They want a period after the "you," a theological period. Now, Ignotus may not fall into this category, and if he does he would never for all the world admit it, but these people believe that the Resurrection means only existential renewal, a new personal self awareness and love for mankind...indiscriminate love. Their kingdom is limited to what man can bring about here through benign government, personal "niceness," and voting Democratic. In other words, Jesus did not walk out of that tomb and, if we only dig long enough, we will find the body. Am I beginning to make sense now?
The Kingdom of God is most certainly not "completed within us" but it is most certainly begun in us. And Jesus walked bodily out of the tomb.
The idea that we cannot make present in our world today aspects of the Kingdom is a denial of the purpose of grace. The transformation of this world is the purpose of grace. If that grace has operated in our lives, then by that grace we can hope to see God in the face in the life to come.
If you choose not to forgive those who have sinned agsinst you then you are refusing to be changed by grace and, therefore, impeding the establishment of the Reign of God. This includes forgiving any "savage heathen" who may have wronged you.
You make sense, but only in the context of the liberal Protestant schools you, for the most part, have left behind.
Ignotus, we are not in complete disagreement here. We do, however, disagree about aspects of the Christian life as it bears upon our relationship to those who make war on the Church. You, apparently, are willing to allow the infidel to completely run amuck, justifying it by saying, "God will defend his Church." I believe that God defends His Church through us and that we are called to actively condemn Her enemies and fight them theologically, ethically, and physically, if necessary. As difficult as it might be for us, I would love to sit down for a long lunch with you, or maybe a few beers.
Yes, we can make present in our world today aspects of the Kingdom. Amen, amen! We do not agree about which aspects, however...
To this poorly educated person it seems this blog conflict is another manifestation of the dichotomy we embody as Christians and celebrate as Catholics. It is also my observation that Catholics have over glorified the economically poor to the extent that we have protected poverty rather than eradicate it. Similarly we have taken our social tolerance of other faiths to suicidal levels. The product of these actions is the chaotic word we have today. The failure of the Crusades was far more than losing the battles and cities, it was in the execution (not strictly in Templar's sense). Surely it was sinful, but not for the reasons we think.
Winning a war is not in the immediate destruction of the enemy, but the conversion of the foe from being an enemy. The survivors of the conflict and their descendants must see our cultural alternative as a desirable path. Christianity and the Catholic Church has failed in this regard a few times. Examples are the poorly conducted Crusades, and most recently in abandoning the poor to our admiration. In other words the Muslims who one would expect to be converting in hordes despise us not just for our weakness, but also because we offer no relief from their worldly oppressors except our best wishes in the fight.
As for forgiveness: it is the correct thing to do and I do forgive whatever things real or imagined the Muslim nations may have done to me. Yet we still must mount for war. This war has been thrust upon us and the fight is for survival, not revenge.
rcg
RCG, I disagree a little..the Muslims are the worldly oppressors. They hate us because we are Christians and, no, I do not forgive them, theoretically or practically.
"O, Assyria...your people are scattered on the mountains with none to gather them. There is no assuaging your hurt, your wound is grevious. All who hear the news of you clap their hands over you. For upon whom has not come your unceasing evil?" Nahum 3.
We are the Church Militant. Are we not suppossed to fight for the Church in anyway that we are called to do? I can forgive a Terrorist for his actions, while stll killing him, not out of hatred of him but simply because of the threat he poses to the Church, because that is my calling. I do not buy into the notion that forgiveness equates to standing by and allowing attacks to go without response. We are the Church Militant. Are we not suppossed to fight for the Church in anyway that we are called to do? I can forgive a Terrorist for his actions, while stll killing him, not out of hatred of him but simply because of the threat he poses to the Church, because that is my calling. I do not buy into the notion that forgiveness equates to standing by and allowing attacks to go without response.
Let me clear, Islam is oppressive and its adherents oppressors. I have told you my view of their religion and that has not changed.
Forgiveness can be a synonym for exasperation. I have better things to do with the limited time God has given me than chase retribution. Interdiction, however, is a worthwhile endeavour.
Killing is not an easy thing. It is even harder if you truly want to know Christ and the mind of God. One has to feel no anger, nor hesitation, or the poison of that moment will devour you.
It is the understanding that you cannot save your soul by sacrificing the lives of others, that under only slightly different circumstances you would enjoy tea with the people you are about to kill. It is a sense of humility and despair that you cannot get them to lay down their arms or change that moment and yet you cannot let them continue to kill innocents. You should not and can not judge them; and it is not judgement. Within our limits as men we can pray, but we must act or be held accountable for that inaction,
rcg
Pin, you confuse defending the faith with defending the nation. The faith was not attacked on 9/11, the nation was. Christains, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus, and Atheists died that day. All were targets of the radical Muslims who attacked us.
Any aspect of the kingdom can be made manifest on this side of the tombstone. In heaven, there is perfect charity. When, in this life, I love a person who I find to be annoying in the extreme, then charity is present. In heaven, all life is sacred. When, in this life, I counsel a young couple and they do not abort a child, the sacredness of life is present. When, by the, power of the Holy Spirit, Christ is made present sacramentally under the forms of bread and wine, then God himself is in our midst.
Rcg, I do not "tolerate" other religions. As the Church teaches, I respect and embrace all in them that is good and holy. Also as the Church teaches, they have been used by God as means of grace/salvation.
To reject the presence/operation of grace in a person becaise that person is a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or Athiest is to reject the origin of that grace, a dangerous thing to do indeed.
Anon, was killing Christ just killing a man? Did Pilate believe in Christ but think he had better kill Him before things got out of control? Or was Christ murdered because he was not Roman enough?
Conversely, can one person defend or exemplify the Faith?
Finally, if there are no believers is the Faith still here?
We were, and are still, attacked for Faith. Whether we think of ourselves as paragons of Christian living or not, we are targets for its sake.
May God bless you for your counsel of the parents of that unborn child. He can become neither Augustine, nor Pilate, until he chooses.
Life is, and can be held sacred in this world, too. Yet some will die at the hands of others. Even the lamb is slaughtered for our food. It is an matter of survival. I don't eat the wolf, but I kill him without malice. It is a matter of survival.
Do Buddhists reach Grace? Do Muslims? Is there more than one way to it?
rcg
"Whew!"...all this has made me feel exasperated!
I forgive you all for this excessive chatter .
How's that?!
~squeekerLamb
Rcg, as I am sure you are aware, Dominus Iesus reiterated the constant faith of the Church when it taught that anyone who comes to salvation, which is achieved by grace, does so through Christ and the Church.
If and when a Buddhist, Muslim, or anyone for that matter is granted the grace of 1) a virtuous life or 2) entry into eternal happiness, it is thru Christ and the Church.
Christ was crucified for sin, mine, yours, and everyone else's.
It isn't "excessive chatter." These are major issues of faith and belief. We all deal with them on some level, whether we are theologically trained or not.
Confusing attacks against the faith with attacks against the nation you say? Oh, I don't think so....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErzxOz3Dzv8&feature=player_embedded#!
Just because the Lord promised us that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against us, doesn't mean we're supposed to just eat popcorn and watch. If you Love Christ and His Church defend it!! But why should I expect anyone to do so when they can't even get on their knees to receive Him?
Ignotus, I agree with you about the definite but imperfect manifestations of the Kingdom in this life.
RE: Attacking the nation vs the Faith. The Muslims declare this a religious war. Their vapid book teaches that they are virtually engaged in a Holy War all the time. They are setting the parameters. The "national" aspect of the attack is merely an accident in the essential nature of their belief.
Besides, despite the efforts of the abomination in the White House and the minions of the Left, America is a Judaeo-Christian nation. Our enemies know this better than we do. We, along with a few other Western countries, are still the "defenders of the Faith."
Continuing to be sure to say "radical" before Muslim and whining that this is not a religious war is the worst kind of denial.
From the Youth Catechism of the Catholic Church (YOUCAT): "As long as we continue to set our heart on our own plans, our will, and our ideas, earth cannot become heaven. One person wants this, the other that. We find our happiness, however, when together we want what God wills. Praying means making room bit by bit for God's will on this earth." (no 521)
"Thy kingdom come..." is not nmerely a prayer for the fulfillment of an eschatalogical hope. It is also a prayer that here, on this earth and in this life, God's will be done. When this happens, earth becomes a little bit of heaven.
"Thy will be done," and "Thy Kingdom come" are two different petitions. The first asks that God's will be done in our lives, in the Church, and in history. The second is eschatological, even apocalyptic. The relationship between the two is not linear.
"Earth becomes a little bit of Heaven" is a line from a country music song. It is, in a word, trite.
And please don't quote the YOUCAT. That sorry document isn't worth the paper it was printed on. It's got so many holes in it relative to Orthodox Catholic Doctrine you could drive a truck through it. Any wonder too when it was the brain child of the Austrian Council of Bishops?
Yes, Templar, and I love the, "as long as... (insert human initiative)...earth cannot become Heaven." Bad theology and typical liberal thinking. How about deleting all before,"earth cannot become Heaven." Did any of these people ever take a theology course or read the New Testament?
"They will be done on earth as it is in heaven" is the petition, not just "Thy will be done."
This is not a prayer for something to happen in the future, but a prayer for something to happen here, today.
Temp - Pope Benedict seems to disagree with your assesment. In his foreward to YOUCAT he writes, "Study this catechism! This is my heartfelt desire. Study this catechism with passion and perseverance. Study it in the quiet of your room; read it with a friend; form study groups and networks; share with each other on the internet..."
So, whose judgment is a Catholic to trust?
Anon, I am not able to tell what is good and holy in other religions and am not inclined to attempt to do so out of respect for them. I am also inclined to back off this tangent and back to the original point which is 1) that these attacks are against non-Muslims on religious grounds, 2) that Muslims are not inclined to defend non-Muslims on religious grounds.
One interesting aspect of Christianity is the ability to self reference philosophically and ethically allowing for effective and accurate self criticism and correction. I personally think this is evidence of the divine inspiration and foundations of Christianity and the Catholic Church. It is for this reason that the persecution of people in the name of the Church or God by Crusaders or the IRA can be shown to be wrong within Christian ethics without appending any ethos to Christianity.
The problem today seems to be that where we once lacked temperance, we now lack conviction. At your prompting, thank you, I re-read Dominus Iesus and remembered this passage: "Equality, which is a presupposition of inter-religious dialogue, refers to the equal personal dignity of the *parties* in dialogue, *not to doctrinal content*, nor even less to the position of Jesus Christ — who is God himself made man — in relation to the founders of the other religions."
That is all the difference. I am completely disinclined to judge a Buddhist, or even a Muslim, as hell bound based solely on their faith, if for no other reason than that it is not my job. But just as I am not inclined to judge him for the qualities I can plainly see, I cannot project on him qualities I wish he had.
Islam is struggling to show that it can self-correct and is failing. As a man with all the weaknesses of a man I have to admit that I must result to violence at times. It is the ability to reconcile that conflict internally and act rationally that we must develop so we can resort to violence infrequently and only on purpose. This again reflects the contrast of Deus Logos and Voluntas. I don't desire it, I don not believe God desires it, but there is a dichotomy inherent with being human that usually revolves around our personal desires. Certainly we should lay issues at the altar of Christ. There will be times the course of action we must take is what we wish it was not. This is one of those times. It is in not wanting to take it that is our gift to God.
rcg
Anon, did you not even read my post?
I love the way you shady Modernists Clerics like to operate Ignotus. So the forward to a book which even it's Publishers admit is NOT a Catholic Document, is a source worth citing becasue the Pope wrote that forward? So every scribble by the Pope is now to be treated as some golden nugget from God himself? Gimme a break. That's how we got into this train wreck, because Clerics like you abused the laity, trained as we were, to meekly obey every instruction we were given. Whatever V2 was meant to be, the way the Clergy in the past 40 years have handled it has revoked the right of ANY clergy, up to and included the Pope, to have everything they say treated as (pun intended) Gospel Truth. Hierarchy is all well and good, but obligation to Truth trumps obligation to a MAN. If the Pope rules infalliably on something he has my obiedence. Everything is, and by obligation to Turth, subject to questioning. It will take many centuries to restore to the Clergy the power to teach unquestioned. Until then it's Trust but Verify, and any cleric who quotes to me about Catholic Doctrine from a document that at best is admittedly non-Catholic, and at worst has been shown to be so weak in it's doctrine as to be heresy, makes no argument at all.
Why even have such a book as YOUCAT? Our children are not stupid, give them the CCC to learn the Cathechism.
Temp - if you had been properly "trained" you would not be splitting infinitives . . .
And if you think you can know the Truth without benefit of "any man" then you have become an autocephalous Church by your lonesome.
I prefer to stay with the Catholic Church and her Magisterium, which, like it or not, includes Austrian bishops and the German guy in Rome who says "Study this catechism."
Templar, Indeed. Why not just the Catechism? We are using the USCCB Commentary on the Catechism for RCIA and, although the Bishops restrained themselves fairly well, there are still ridiculous profiles of several nut case Catholics and every reference is to a VAT II document. You can also see progressivism rearing its head in some of their language. Plus, why use something that is a couple of levels removed from the real deal...the Catechism? It is a lot easier to read and understand than the USCCB commentary.
Anon/Ignotus, You have omitted to place several necessary commas in your post. Your second paragraph is one long, run-on sentence.
Splitting infinitives, although acceptable to the NYTimes and most other print publications, will always be a sign of moral terpitude in my book.
Training? My training was on the streets of New York, we may not have split infinitives but we sure did split a few lips. You learned to be true or you learned to spit blood.
No doubt your Homilies about grammar are having a similar stirring of morality on your flock. Tell me, are the doughnuts at your Church served before, during, or after tha Mass?
Your grammatical terpitude becomes definitive, Each time you split a new infinitive. In argument, no greater sin than splitting hairs to gain a win,
But, nothing since the sin of Adam,
Compares to having split the atom.
(Thank you, thank you...please,hold your applause.)
Heck, Templar, the doughnuts at Ignotus' Church are probably served for Communion! LOL!
And Temp, since you believe that you can ignore anything the pope says that is not "infallible," you can have no problem with priests who ignore Summorum Pontificum since, as you know, it is merely a motu proprio and not, by any stretch of the imagination, infallible . . .
Post a Comment