tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post2114886213459932781..comments2024-03-28T11:04:41.070-04:00Comments on southern orders: ECUMENISM BEGINS AT HOME, ESPECIALLY WITH THOSE GROUPS TENDING TOWARD SCHISM IN AREAS OF CHURCH TEACHING THAT CAN BE QUESTIONED!Fr. Allan J. McDonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16986575955114152639noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-45478134006909631042014-01-30T07:57:14.878-05:002014-01-30T07:57:14.878-05:00Achivist/ PI
Simply because having identified wh...Achivist/ PI<br /><br />Simply because having identified what is schism, the acts that mark one as a schismatic are implicit in the definition. Schismatics leave the Church of their own accord; the Church does not throw them out, indeed she does her utmost to try and prevent those who are in disagreement with certain doctrinal matters from formally separating themselves. There is nothing in the constitutions of the SSPX that suggests that they regard themselves as separated from Rome, or suggest that they ever wish to be. One of Lefebvre's objections to Lumen Gentium was that its definition of collegiality undermined the authority of the papacy (he wasn't the only one; over 300 bishops voted 'non placet' and Paul VI had to withdraw the document and amend it.<br /><br />To return to the point at issue, if someone illicitly consecrates bishops with the intention of setting up a separate Church, as the Old Catholics did in the 19th century, then that could be called a schismatic act in that the act was designed to ensure the continuation of the schism. Otherwise it is a delict, albeit a serious one, which incurs canonical penalties, in this case a disputed latae sententiae excommunication which was lifted anyway on the three survivors in 2009.<br /><br />What I was saying was while Canon Law certainly recognizes certain acts as being schismatic, it is careful not to specify any delict as constituting an act of schism per se. In effect, schismatics define themselves as such. John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-23686397586928186352014-01-29T10:46:26.569-05:002014-01-29T10:46:26.569-05:00John, so I ask again, "how can you make the a...John, so I ask again, "how can you make the argument that Canon Law would specify that illicit ordination of bishops is a schismatic act and at the same time declare "Canon Law does not specify schismatic acts..."?Archivistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-44254257291292499022014-01-28T21:05:55.750-05:002014-01-28T21:05:55.750-05:00Put it this way, Archivist/Ignotus. Canon Law defi...Put it this way, Archivist/Ignotus. Canon Law defines schism, along with heresy and apostasy. If a group makes it clear, in word and deed, that it no longer accepts the authority of the pope, and removes his name from the Canon of the Mass, as Henry VIII did, it is schismatic. If it claims to represent the true Catholic faith but claims the present pope is not legitimate and the See of Peter is vacant, it is schismatic. <br /><br />Lefebvre stated in 1988: "We are not schismatic ... there is no question of our separating ourselves from Rome or of putting ourselves under a foreign government, [a reference to the bishops appointed by the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, who are not automatically considered by Rome to be schismatic] nor of establishing a sort of parallel Church as the Bishops of Palma de Troya have done in Spain. They have even elected a pope, formed a college of cardinals ..."<br /><br />If the SSPX leadership had declared that it no longer accepted the authority of the pope, then it would be in schism, and its followers would he adhering to a schism, regardless of whether Lefebvre performed illicit consecrations or not.<br /><br /><br /><br />John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-56020487840030874772014-01-28T16:40:23.353-05:002014-01-28T16:40:23.353-05:00John - Clearly the "it" in my second sen...John - Clearly the "it" in my second sentence refers to the fact of our disagreement.<br /><br />Clearly it - our disagreement - does not have an effect on negotiations....<br /><br />No incoherence here.<br /><br />No, Canon Law does not specify schismatic acts. That is not in dispute. But you stated, "If consecration of bishops without papal mandate made one a schismatic, then Canon Law would say so; but neither the 1917 nor the 1983 Code does."<br /><br />No, it would not say so because - and I am quoting you here - "Canon Law does not specify schismatic acts, which is the point I have been making all along."<br /><br />So, non-philistine, how can you make the argument that Canon Law would specify that illicit ordination of bishops is a schismatic act and at the same time declare "Canon Law does not specify schismatic acts..."?<br />Archivistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-847644335620964842014-01-28T14:26:04.712-05:002014-01-28T14:26:04.712-05:00Archivist, you're not paying attention. Canon ...Archivist, you're not paying attention. Canon Law does not specify schismatic acts, which is the point I have been making all along. The specific act referred to in Canon 1382 is the consecration of bishops without papal mandate. Some schismatic groups, e.g. Old Catholics and Anglicans do this (although in the case of the latter such consecrations are neither valid nor licit) but it is not this that defines their status as schismatic.<br /><br />Schism is neither a matter of degree (one can't be partly schismatic) nor of opinion.<br /><br />I cannot understand your last comment. To what does the 'it' in your second sentence refer? You have moved from nonsense to incoherence.John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-60748640275941235682014-01-28T10:16:48.776-05:002014-01-28T10:16:48.776-05:00John - The fact that we disagree is not immaterial...John - The fact that we disagree is not immaterial.<br /><br />Does it have an effect on the negotiations between the Vatican and the SSPX? Nope. But I suspect neither you nor I had any such delusion.<br /><br />Yes, the debate is wider than "that," but the discussion was localized. I don't see it as "immaterial" at all.<br /><br />If canon law lists specifics acts as acts of schism, cite the reference. Can 1382 does not refer to schism.Archivistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-84589728507934322172014-01-27T11:52:29.342-05:002014-01-27T11:52:29.342-05:00Archivist/Ignotus,
The fact that you and I disagr...Archivist/Ignotus,<br /><br />The fact that you and I disagree is immaterial. The debate is wider than that. The consequences of which Lefebvre was warned prior to his illicit consecrations were the penalties prescribed in Canon 1382, which were excommunication latae sententiae both for himself and the four piests he consecrated. Canonical penalties cannot and do not apply to schismatics. Nor were any other priests of the Society excommunicated. Lefebvre was also aware that Canon 1323 could well make the excommunications invalid. <br /><br />"Canon Law does not have to name or identify specific acts as schismatic for them to be, indeed, schismatic".<br /><br />On what authority do you base this statement? To be in schism is to be in schism; it is defined juridically. The specific act in question is indeed named and identified by Canon 1382, and the canonical penalty specified. <br /><br />What you say makes no sense at all.John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-21161026881795682052014-01-27T10:13:07.288-05:002014-01-27T10:13:07.288-05:00John - Lefebvre, by his refusal to submit to the a...John - Lefebvre, by his refusal to submit to the authority of the Roman Pontiff in the ordination of bishops, was excommunicated.<br /><br />The refusal to submit is an act of schism - this was not merely a disagreement.<br /><br />No, Canon Law does not have to name or identify individual acts as schismatic for them to be, indeed, schismatic.<br /><br />Lefebvre was given the benefit of the doubt and warned, repeatedly of the consequences of his actions. He rejected the authority of the Roman Pontiff (there's that pesky canonical definition again) and, using a bogus application of the law of "necessity," ordained bishops.<br /><br />Obviously we will continue to disagree on this one. Archivistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-73836635215687392822014-01-27T08:51:18.582-05:002014-01-27T08:51:18.582-05:00Archivist/Ignotus
Your question of 6:34 I have al...Archivist/Ignotus<br /><br />Your question of 6:34 I have already answered (vide supra).John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-44540864896067386412014-01-27T08:37:48.300-05:002014-01-27T08:37:48.300-05:00"How do you know that Gantin's descriptio..."How do you know that Gantin's description of Lefebvre's acts is erroneous?"<br /><br />I don't know, and neither do you. It is my opinion based on a study of the evidence and of Canon Law. But schism is an all-or-nothing matter, legally defined, and if there is any doubt then the benefit thereof must go to the accused. And there is plenty of doubt.<br /><br />Most schismatics make it clear in word and action that they do not accept the legitimate authority of the pope. The SSPX has never done this. Disobedience on a particular matter does not imply a refusal to recognize the authority of the pope per se. If disobedience on a particular matter makes one schismatic, then it would be stated in Canon Law, but it isn't.<br /><br />If a group is sedevacantist, then it has declared that it does not accept that the pope is the pope, and is in effect an anti-pope. This would be schismatic according to Canon 751 which, as I mentioned earlier, must be interpreted strictly.John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-51731369842138589862014-01-27T06:34:38.734-05:002014-01-27T06:34:38.734-05:00John - Those who "adhere" to a schismati...John - Those who "adhere" to a schismatic act - ordaining bishops without the approval of the Supreme Pontiff was a schismatic act - share in the consequences.<br /><br />And you never answered my question - if ordaining bishops illicitly is NOT the act of schism to which Pope John Paul and Cardinal Ratzinger and cardinal Castrillon referred, what WAs the act? Archivistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-69502916020538293222014-01-26T20:35:13.578-05:002014-01-26T20:35:13.578-05:00Archivist,
Charles I at his trial had to remind B...Archivist,<br /><br />Charles I at his trial had to remind Bradshaw that "it is not your opinion, nor mine, which should decide the issue".<br /><br />The lack of clarity in your thinking is evidenced by your assertion that "the Lefebvrites committed a schismatic act". Even if you maintain that illicit consecrations are proof positive of schism, which according to Canon Law they are not, then the act was committed by Archbishop Lefebvre. It cannot be a corporate act, since only Lefebvre had the authority to consecrate bishops.<br /><br />I would like to ask why you are so keen to stigmatize a large number of orthodox Catholics as schismatic. I don't expect an answer, since all you have done so far is to reiterate your original opinion, without volunteering any additional evidence.<br /><br />The other reason why I don't expect an answer is that your last post, both in its layout and in its tortuous illogical argument which holds that if there is no legal definition of a schismatic act then it must exist sine lege is so Ignotian (to coin a phrase) that you must be Fr Kavanaugh. He won't answer questions either.<br /><br /><br /><br />John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-18220101699998294422014-01-26T13:04:56.364-05:002014-01-26T13:04:56.364-05:00John - because a specific action - ordaining bisho...John - because a specific action - ordaining bishops without Rome's approval - is not listed as a schismatic act does not mean that it is not a schismatic act.<br /><br />"Illicit ordination of bishops is not listed as a schismatic act, therefore, it is not a schismatic act" is not a valid argument. <br /><br />As you note, there are NO specific acts listed as schismatic.<br /><br />Schism is, however, defined. "the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." <br /><br />In refusing to submit to the authority of the Roman Pontiff in the matter of choosing bishops, the Lefebvrites committed a schismatic act. <br /><br />This was not criticism, disagreement, or disobedience. It was refusal to submit to the Roman Pontiff in the matter of choosing bishops. Archivistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-53318001197200937912014-01-26T11:40:36.733-05:002014-01-26T11:40:36.733-05:00Archivist,
"Actus schismaticus" as used...Archivist,<br /><br />"Actus schismaticus" as used in EDA in the accusative case, can imply an act that might tend to schism, or an act that might be regarded by some as indicating a de facto schism, but the inconvenient fact remains that according to Canon Law, which is the defining authority in these matters, the action of Lefebvre in 1988 was not in itself schismatic, nor could it have been.<br /><br />An interesting comparison could be made with the Institute of Catholic Womenpriests (North America). In terms of obedience they certainly do not submit to the Roman Pontiff. According to Canon Law their offence comes under the heading of "graviora delicta" and their excommunication latae sententiae is reserved to the Holy See. But are they schismatic? No. They are Catholic laywomen who are excommunicated. Full stop. And no-one in the SSPX is even excommunicated, still less schismatic.John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-48858667839456479562014-01-25T19:46:37.839-05:002014-01-25T19:46:37.839-05:00Archivist smells just like Ignotus, now that you m...Archivist smells just like Ignotus, now that you mention it.Genehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672484450736725268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-37723449630259590862014-01-25T19:25:10.222-05:002014-01-25T19:25:10.222-05:00John - How do you know that Gantin's descripti...John - How do you know that Gantin's description of Lefebvre's acts is "erroneous"?<br /><br />The definition of schism as "the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" is not Congar, but Canon law, no. 751.<br /><br />The act of refusing to submit to the legitimate authority of the Supreme Pontiff is an act of schism - decided not by Congar but my canon law with the full authority of the Church. <br /><br />Lefebvre refused to submit to the authority of the pope regarding the ordination of bishops, a schismatic act. Archivistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-73253401014218837972014-01-25T17:35:02.242-05:002014-01-25T17:35:02.242-05:00Archivist,
If you had been paying attention (sigh...Archivist,<br /><br />If you had been paying attention (sigh!) you would not be still asking the question. The consecration of bishops sine pontificio mandato is not a schismatic act. In fact, the CIC does not identify any single act as being schismatic. Gantin did not say that the SSPX had committed schismatic acts, he maintained (erroneously) that Lefebvre, who at the time was retired and no longer the Superior of the SSPX, had committed a schismatic act.<br /><br />If consecration of bishops without papal mandate made one a schismatic, then Canon Law would say so; but neither the 1917 nor the 1983 Code does. During the Cold War bishops in the Ukraine were consecrated without papal mandate, since to have sought it would have alerted the KGB.<br /><br />It was the liberal theologian Yves Congar who insisted that schism was the refusal to accept the existence of the legitimate authority of the pope, not refusal to accept a decision of that legitimate authority. <br /><br />So, in maintaining that the SSPX is not in schism, we have:<br />1. The stated position of the Society, its actions, its faithful adherence to the 1962 Roman Rite, and its refusal to embrace anything that may be regarded as heretical.<br />2. Canon Law, which is the definitive authority on these matters.<br />3. Definitions of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei and the actions of Pope Benedict, whose aim was to regularize the canonical status of the Society and who lifted the 1988 excommunications without requiring any action on the part of the Society, something that could not happen if those excommunicated were schismatic.<br />4. The lack of any formal pronouncement of schism by the Holy See. <br />The opinions of Cardinals Gantin and Ratzinger, or even Pope John Paul II in 1988 carry no juridical weight, all the more so as they are not in accordance with Canon Law.<br /><br />So the glib syllogism of your last post might convince the uneducated, but is based on false premisses which are easily refuted by referring to the facts. <br /><br />And before you come back with the same inane argument, I shall give you my reply in advance: vide supra.<br /><br /> John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-58814148605684235532014-01-25T14:56:51.271-05:002014-01-25T14:56:51.271-05:00Schism is "the refusal of submission to the R...Schism is "the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." <br /><br />Ordination of bishops, without the approval of the Roman Pontiff, is the refusal of submission.<br /><br />If, as Cardinal Gantin says, the SSPX has committed schismatic acts, and if the ordination of bishops without Rome's approval is not the schismatic act, then what is?Archivistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-88744632781646295252014-01-25T13:10:42.586-05:002014-01-25T13:10:42.586-05:00Also, Achivist, Canon 1323 applies to what it appl...Also, Achivist, Canon 1323 applies to what it applies to, not what you think it should apply to. Who knows, one of these days you might have to rely on the Law. Power without law cannot make law, as Charles I stated at his trial.John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-17501393926340037722014-01-25T12:45:19.074-05:002014-01-25T12:45:19.074-05:00In the interests of clarity, there is a redundant ...In the interests of clarity, there is a redundant and certainly misleading "not" in the penultimate paragragraph of my last post. It is a typographical error. <br /><br />Wouldn't it be refreshing if one's arguments were actually countered, thus adding to debate, rather than have one's antagonists simply repeat what they said before? I suspect Archivist and Pater Ignotus are one and the same person, so utterly convinced of the rightness of his view as to be impervious to all and any argument.John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-13356371038517484012014-01-25T10:40:07.696-05:002014-01-25T10:40:07.696-05:00Archivist, you must be painfully aware that a lot ...Archivist, you must be painfully aware that a lot of the ambiguity and 'double-speak' is far more characteristic of the post-Conciliar Church than that of the pre-Conciliar one. If a pope (Benedict XVI) can criticize a Council document, in this case Gaudium et Spes, as verging on the Pelagian, then the SSPX's questioning of other documents can surely not be regarded as heretical.<br /><br />Your first sentence indicates that you have not read my post and are either ignorant of Canon Law, or, worse, believe that it does not apply and only opinion counts. Consecrating bishops without papal mandate is not a 'schismatic act' in either the present or the preceding code of Canon Law. That is a fact.<br /><br />You obviously don't understand Canon 1323. "Had the irregular ordination not have taken place, no-one would have been deprived of the sacraments, the Church's authoritative teachings, the leadership of our bishops, etc."<br />EXACTLY! So the clause beginning 'nisi tamen ... " which I quoted does not, on your own admission , apply.<br /><br />I don't expect you to be either Latin-literate or conversant with Canon Law. However, simply repeating the same arguments after they have been seriously questioned, if not demolished, does you no credit.John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-85188496547041862632014-01-25T09:26:49.800-05:002014-01-25T09:26:49.800-05:00The idea that one can commit a schismatic act and ...The idea that one can commit a schismatic act and not be a schismatic, is double-speak worthy of George Orwell.<br /><br />By that same reasoning, a person who commits an adulterous act is not an adulterer or a person who commits murder is not a murderer.<br /><br />Such is not reasoning at all, but duplicity.<br /><br />Canon 1323 does not apply to this ordination of bishops without Rome's approval. Had the irregular ordination not taken place, no one would have been deprived of the sacraments, the Church's authoritative teaching, the leadership of our bishops, etc. He acted out of disobedience and ideology, not necessity.<br /><br />Archbishop Lefebvre's actions were based on ideology, not theology. Having been convinced that he, and those who thought like him, were following the true teaching of the Catholic Church, and that the rest of the Church had, in one way or another, strayed from that truth, he took it upon himself to make a determination that was not his to make.<br /><br />Archbishop Lefebvre did not need to be "put on notice" that his forthcoming actions would result in excommunication. Such advance warning is not required for the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae. <br /><br />Archivistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-64029755219967977992014-01-24T20:35:08.459-05:002014-01-24T20:35:08.459-05:00I think the Pope and Church itself carried and sti...I think the Pope and Church itself carried and still does the seeds of the French Revolution. It just smacks of hypocrisy when they teach all people to love and forgive no matter what, and yet the Pope and Church can not do the same..For political reasons...Blah Blah...Sad. Gregorian Massnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-74517240199248764722014-01-24T19:58:27.350-05:002014-01-24T19:58:27.350-05:00Archivist,
Simply quoting from a Vatican document...Archivist,<br /><br />Simply quoting from a Vatican document, even one issued motu proprio by a reigning pope, or citing remarks made in a different context by a CDF Prefect a quarter of a century ago does not prove anything; particularly since EDA 1998 was superseded by SP 2007 and the CDF Prefect, when he became Pope, did not contradict Cardinal Castrillon when he asserted on four occasions that the SSPX were not schismatic. Since the cardinal was head of the Pontifical Commission charged with negotiations with the SSPX, this is surely significant. <br /><br />These things are determined not by opinion, but by law, in this case the Code of Canon Law (Codex Iuris Canonici) promulgated in 1983 to replace the Code of 1917. Canon 751 defines schism tersely as "subiectionis Summo Pontifici aut communionis cum Ecclesiae membris eidem subditis detrectatio" Since schism does not admit of degree, this definition must be applied in the strictest sense, and (like the rest of Canon Law) in favour of the perpetrator. Refusal to be subject to the Roman Pontiff or to be in communion with those members of the Church subject to him is not the same as disagreeing with the pope, criticizing him or even disobeying him.<br /><br />Consecrating bishops without papal mandate (sine pontificio mandato) is a serious matter, and according to Canon 1382 the parties involved occur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Holy See. Lefebvre had indeed been put on notice that if he continued with the consecrations he would incur this penalty. But Gantin's judgement, repeated in EDA, that the consecrations constituted a "schismatic act" has no basis in Canon Law, and is therefore not binding. Ironically the 1917 Code specified for the offence the lesser sanction of suspension 'a divinis', a sanction that the Archbishop was already under, for refusing to close his seminary and continuing to ordain priests.<br /><br />It's doubtful if the excommunications were valid anyway. Canon 1323 gives a list of reasons why penalties may not apply. Number 4 is the salient one: "metu gravi, quamvis relative tantum, coactus egit, aut ex necessitate vel gravi incommode, nisi tamen actus sit intrinsice malus aut vergat in animarum damnum". No-one is suggesting that illicitly consecrating bishops is an intrinsically evil act, and if the Archbishop believed he was acting out of necessity (and he knew he had not long to live) Canon 1323 would apply, even if his belief was erroneous to the point of culpability. As I pointed out earlier, Canon Law tends to favour the "defendant". <br /><br />I don't adhere to the SSPX, and it is quite possible it may end up in schism, which will please the heretics who pretend to remain in communion no end. But I pray it won't happen.<br /><br />John Nolanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027156691859606002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7846189835239594160.post-71173386309437256212014-01-24T09:59:15.926-05:002014-01-24T09:59:15.926-05:00"Hence such disobedience (ordaining bishops w..."Hence such disobedience (ordaining bishops without Rome's approval) - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act."<br /><br />A person or a group that commits a schismatic act is schismatic.<br /><br />"It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond [schism] with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church" (Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, 4).<br /><br />Breaking the ecclesial bonds with Peter is an act of schism.<br /><br />"Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law."<br /><br />It is impossible to adhere to schism unless there is an act of schism. The act of schism was the unauthorized ordination of bishops and those who adhere to that act are schismatics.<br /><br />"...the movement led by Lefebvre has separated itself by a clean break with the Church."<br /><br />A clean break is schism. This was not merely an admonition, but a statement of fact.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Archivistnoreply@blogger.com