FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: bp williamson 5 30 column
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Liberalism is war on God, and it is the dissolution of truth. Within today’s Church crippled by liberalism, sedevacantism is an understandable reaction, but it still credits authority with too much power over truth. The modern world has lost natural truth, let alone supernatural truth, and here is the heart of the problem.

For our purposes we might divide all papal teaching into three parts. Firstly, if the Pope teaches as Pope, on Faith or morals, definitively and so as to bind all Catholics, then we have his Extraordinary Magisterium (EM for short), necessarily infallible. Secondly, if he does not engage all four conditions but teaches in line with what the Church has always and everywhere taught and imposed on Catholics to believe, then he is partaking in what is called the Church’s “Ordinary Universal Magisterium” (OUM for short), also infallible. Thirdly we have the rest of his teaching, which, if it is out of line with Tradition, is not only fallible but also false.

By now it should be clear that the EM is to the OUM as snow-cap is to mountain. The snow-cap does not make the summit of the mountain, it merely makes it more visible. EM is to OUM as servant to master. It exists to serve the OUM by making clear once and for all what does or does not belong to the OUM. But what makes the rest of the mountain visible, so to speak, is its being traceable back to Our Lord and his Apostles, in other words, Tradition. That is why every EM definition is at pains to show that what is being defined was always previously part of Tradition. It was mountain before it was covered in snow.

By now it should also be clear that Tradition tells the Popes what to teach, and not the other way round. This is the basis on which Archbishop Lefebvre founded the Traditional movement, yet it is this same basis which, with all due respect, liberals and sedevacantists fail to grasp. Just see in the Gospel of St John how often Our Lord himself, as man, declares that what he is teaching comes not from himself but from his Father, for instance: “My doctrine is not mine but his that sent me” (VII, 16), or, “I have not spoken from out of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak” (XII, 49). Of course nobody on earth is more authorized than the Pope to tell Church and world what is in Tradition, but he cannot tell Church or world that there is in Tradition what is not in it. What is in it is objective, now 2,000 years old, it is above the Pope and it sets limits to what a Pope can teach, just as the Father’s commandment set limits to what Christ as man would teach.

Then how can liberals and sedevacantists alike claim, in effect, that the Pope is infallible even outside of both EM and OUM ? Because both overrate authority in relation to truth, and so they see Church authority no longer as the servant but as the master of truth. And why is that ? Because they are both children of the modern world where Protestantism defied the Truth and liberalism ever since the French Revolution has been dissolving objective truth. And if there is no longer any objective truth, then of course authority can say whatever it can get away with, which is what we observe all around us, and there is nothing left to stop a Paul VI or a Bishop Fellay from becoming more and more arbitrary and tyrannical in the process.

Mother of God, obtain for me to love, discern and defend that Truth and order coming from the Father, both supernatural and natural, to which your own Son was as man subject, “unto death, even to the death of the Cross”.

Kyrie eleison

The loss of objective truth in depth explains
The Church’s sedevac and liberal pains.
More doctrinal chaos, packed with errors.

"Bishop Williamson" Wrote:For our purposes we might divide all papal teaching into three parts. Firstly, if the Pope teaches as Pope, on Faith or morals, definitively and so as to bind all Catholics, then we have his Extraordinary Magisterium (EM for short), necessarily infallible. Secondly, if he does not engage all four conditions but teaches in line with what the Church has always and everywhere taught and imposed on Catholics to believe, then he is partaking in what is called the Church’s “Ordinary Universal Magisterium” (OUM for short), also infallible.

You see here the insoluble tangles one gets into when one chooses to abandon the proper terminology and starts inventing theology.  The magisterium is an OFFICE, a function, a set of powers and prerogatives, EXERCISED by men with authority.  Somebody doesn't "partake in" the magisterium.  That's nonsense, absolute BS.  He's a past professor of philosophy with a clear, disciplined, mind which he has proven again and again to be more than capable of strict, clear, expression.  There is no excuse for not applying that mind properly to these matters.

The ordinary, universal, magisterium is the activity of the bishops throughout the world in their daily teaching, that is, preaching, writing encyclical letters to their flocks, approving catechisms, approving devotions, etc., all under the supervision and approval of the Roman Pontiff.  This activity is the exercise of that office which is the means by which our Lord Jesus Christ arranged for His revelation to be brought to the people of every era, without possibility of error.  The Roman Pontiff equivalently commits the Church to a particular doctrine and therefore acts infallibly when he teaches something repeatedly by a variety of teaching acts so as to make clear that it is part of the Deposit.  This exercise of the magisterium by the Roman Pontiff alone, but not solemnly, is infallible also.  The nub of the issue is whether he commits the entire Church to the doctrine - if he does, he cannot err.  If not, he can err.  But of course the potential error cannot be dangerous, as Cardinal Franzelin makes clear.

It's perfectly orthodox to question whether Paul VI, on the hypothesis that he was pope, committed the Church to any doctrine at all, because he himself said confusing, novel, and contradictory things about the authority of Vatican II.  So there's no need even for a sedeplenist to engage in this trashing of sacred theology in order to answer sedevacantist arguments based upon the infallibility of the Church.

"Bishop Williamson" Wrote:Thirdly we have the rest of his teaching, which, if it is out of line with Tradition, is not only fallible but also false.

The Roman Pontiff cannot preach heresy.  I challenge Bishop Williamson to find a theologian who admits the possibility in any official (i.e. authoritative, or authentic) act.

"Bishop Williamson" Wrote:By now it should be clear that the EM is to the OUM as snow-cap is to mountain. The snow-cap does not make the summit of the mountain, it merely makes it more visible.
Rubbish.  They are both the same thing, merely exercised in a different mode.  The Church is infallible.  She speaks via the Roman Pontiff alone when he exercises the magisterium in an extraordinary manner, and she speaks via the bishops and the Roman Pontiff together when they exercise the magisterium in the ordinary mode. 

"Bishop Williamson" Wrote:EM is to OUM as servant to master. [!!!] It exists to serve the OUM by making clear once and for all what does or does not belong to the OUM.
This is just terrible!  What confusion of thought!  Whatever is taught by the ordinary universal magisterium is, by the very definition of the term, clear and undisputed.  If it isn't clear, or if it is disputed, then it isn't taught universally in the ordinary exercise of the magisterium.  The whole point of an extraordinary exercise of the magisterium is that it settles in one act what is unclear or disputed.  So there's no difference in clarity between the extraordinary and the ordinary acts of the magisterium.  They are both "snow" on the mountain, which if it is anything is the Deposit of Faith itself.

Illustrations.  The Immaculate Conception was not universally and clearly taught by the Church prior to 1854.  Theologians do not say that it was taught by the ordinary universal magisterium but remained unclear.  That would be nonsensical.  What they say is that it was part of the Deposit but remained legitimately disputed.  Then the pope acted in an extraordinary way - that is, exercised the magisterium extraordinarily, by solemnly defining the doctrine, which made it clear and obliged all to hold it as a dogma, a divinely revealed truth.  The dogma of Christ's divinity was not legitimately disputed prior to Nicea.  It was already a dogma, clear and undisputed by Catholics.  It was solemnly defined in order to reaffirm the Church's faith in the face of heretical confusion. 

Again, to say that "the EM is to OUM as servant to master" is a total confusion of ideas. To assert that "the EM exists to serve the OUM by making clear once and for all what does or does not belong to the OUM" is an absurdity.  Both the EM and the OUM exist to make clear what belongs to the Deposit of Faith.  If the OUM does so effectively, there's no need for any extraordinary acts of the magisterium (and indeed, if men were not subject to Original Sin, darkening our intellects and weakening our wills, with concupiscence turning us towards evil, there'd be no need for any extraordinary magisterium - we'd hear the truth once, taught by the Church in the ordinary way, and believe it perfectly and forever).

"Bishop Williamson" Wrote:But what makes the rest of the mountain visible, so to speak, is its being traceable back to Our Lord and his Apostles, in other words, Tradition.
Where will this confusion end?  What is tradition, understood as something traceable?  The term has several meanings in theology, but in this context it means the acts of the magisterium.  That is, not the doctrines themselves, but the doctrinal acts, that the Church has performed in each and every age.  There are loads of them in Denzinger.  Official texts.  Likewise in the Fathers.  Texts.  That's what we refer to when we speak of tracing a doctrine back to the Apostles.  We look at the texts and we see that they agree.  So, if the "mountain" is the ordinary, universal, magisterium, then it's visible because its fruit is the texts that the Church has issued.  It is, in that sense, "tradition" (i.e. that which has been handed down).

"Bishop Williamson" Wrote:That is why every EM definition is at pains to show that what is being defined was always previously part of Tradition. It was mountain before it was covered in snow.

No, the reason that solemn definitions are at pains to show that their doctrine is traditional is to aid the faithful to accept the doctrine, and to explain its proper sense.  There's no absolute need for the obiter dicta which popes add to solemn definitions, and it was not traditionally added in every case.  If the extraordinary exercise of the magisterium is the snow on a mountain, the mountain is the Deposit of Faith.  THAT is what it is clarifying and displaying for all to see.  And the ordinary exercise of the magisterium has exactly the same function.  There is no difference except in the mode of exercise.

There really isn't any need for confusion over these concepts, they are actually simple - if one sticks with proper terminology and ensures that one knows the definitions of those proper terms and keeps them in mind.

"Bishop Williamson" Wrote:By now it should also be clear that Tradition tells the Popes what to teach, and not the other way round.

True, but irrelevant.  The whole point of the magisterium is to make clear what belongs to Tradition (in the other sense, essentially the Deposit) and what does not, and it does this by being the true, divinely-aided judge and teacher.  So we are back to the circularity problem - who is the judge of what belongs to Tradition, the Roman Pontiff or the fellow in the third pew?

"Bishop Williamson" Wrote:This is the basis on which Archbishop Lefebvre founded the Traditional movement, yet it is this same basis which, with all due respect, liberals and sedevacantists fail to grasp.

Bishop Williamson is all at sea because of the utter confusion of what has gone before.  The reason we cannot accept lying novelties is because we have already been obliged, by an infallible authority, to profess the objects of faith.  Authority comes first, for us, precisely because otherwise we wouldn't know what is true and what isn't.  But having been taught, we now have a solemn obligation, binding under pain of damnation, not to believe anything contrary, or even to doubt.  We don't reject novelties because authority has no right to teach them, we reject them because we cannot accept them.  It's impossible.

"Bishop Williamson" Wrote:Then how can liberals and sedevacantists alike claim, in effect, that the Pope is infallible even outside of both EM and OUM ? Because both overrate authority in relation to truth, and so they see Church authority no longer as the servant but as the master of truth. And why is that ? Because they are both children of the modern world where Protestantism defied the Truth and liberalism ever since the French Revolution has been dissolving objective truth. And if there is no longer any objective truth, then of course authority can say whatever it can get away with, which is what we observe all around us, and there is nothing left to stop a Paul VI or a Bishop Fellay from becoming more and more arbitrary and tyrannical in the process.

Actually, the liberalism is all Williamson's.  He is preaching against authority, just as the French Revolutionaries did.  Why?  Because otherwise he can't see his way clear to remain safe in the faith in the face of lying novelties preached by those who appear to have authority.  He's throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  In his ineffective effort to escape error from apparent authority, he ends up making every individual his own pope, the final judge of Tradition.  And that's the very essence of liberalism - the sovereignty of the individual.
What I'd like to ask Bishop Williamson, or anybody tempted by his theology, is to explain what precisely was wrong with the Oriental schismatics' rejection of the Filioque and the Old Catholics' rejection of the definition of papal infallibility. The only possible answer that I can see, on his theory, is that those people were mistaken. That is, they were right to think of themselves as the final judges of tradition, they merely erred in understanding what was traditional and what wasn't. If that doesn't shock him into taking another look at the whole problem, I don't know what will.
(05-31-2014, 02:15 AM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]More doctrinal chaos, packed with errors.

"Bishop Williamson" Wrote:For our purposes we might divide all papal teaching into three parts. Firstly, if the Pope teaches as Pope, on Faith or morals, definitively and so as to bind all Catholics, then we have his Extraordinary Magisterium (EM for short), necessarily infallible. Secondly, if he does not engage all four conditions but teaches in line with what the Church has always and everywhere taught and imposed on Catholics to believe, then he is partaking in what is called the Church’s “Ordinary Universal Magisterium” (OUM for short), also infallible.

You see here the insoluble tangles one gets into when one chooses to abandon the proper terminology and starts inventing theology.  The magisterium is an OFFICE, a function, a set of powers and prerogatives, EXERCISED by men with authority.  Somebody doesn't "partake in" the magisterium.  That's nonsense, absolute BS.  He's a past professor of philosophy with a clear, disciplined, mind which he has proven again and again to be more than capable of strict, clear, expression.  There is no excuse for not applying that mind properly to these matters.

The ordinary, universal, magisterium is the activity of the bishops throughout the world in their daily teaching, that is, preaching, writing encyclical letters to their flocks, approving catechisms, approving devotions, etc., all under the supervision and approval of the Roman Pontiff.  This activity is the exercise of that office which is the means by which our Lord Jesus Christ arranged for His revelation to be brought to the people of every era, without possibility of error.  The Roman Pontiff equivalently commits the Church to a particular doctrine and therefore acts infallibly when he teaches something repeatedly by a variety of teaching acts so as to make clear that it is part of the Deposit.  This exercise of the magisterium by the Roman Pontiff alone, but not solemnly, is infallible also.  The nub of the issue is whether he commits the entire Church to the doctrine - if he does, he cannot err.  If not, he can err.  But of course the potential error cannot be dangerous, as Cardinal Franzelin makes clear.

It's perfectly orthodox to question whether Paul VI, on the hypothesis that he was pope, committed the Church to any doctrine at all, because he himself said confusing, novel, and contradictory things about the authority of Vatican II.  So there's no need even for a sedeplenist to engage in this trashing of sacred theology in order to answer sedevacantist arguments based upon the infallibility of the Church.

"Bishop Williamson" Wrote:Thirdly we have the rest of his teaching, which, if it is out of line with Tradition, is not only fallible but also false.

The Roman Pontiff cannot preach heresy.  I challenge Bishop Williamson to find a theologian who admits the possibility in any official (i.e. authoritative, or authentic) act.

"Bishop Williamson" Wrote:By now it should be clear that the EM is to the OUM as snow-cap is to mountain. The snow-cap does not make the summit of the mountain, it merely makes it more visible.
Rubbish.  They are both the same thing, merely exercised in a different mode.  The Church is infallible.  She speaks via the Roman Pontiff alone when he exercises the magisterium in an extraordinary manner, and she speaks via the bishops and the Roman Pontiff together when they exercise the magisterium in the ordinary mode. 

"Bishop Williamson" Wrote:EM is to OUM as servant to master. [!!!] It exists to serve the OUM by making clear once and for all what does or does not belong to the OUM.
This is just terrible!  What confusion of thought!  Whatever is taught by the ordinary universal magisterium is, by the very definition of the term, clear and undisputed.  If it isn't clear, or if it is disputed, then it isn't taught universally in the ordinary exercise of the magisterium.  The whole point of an extraordinary exercise of the magisterium is that it settles in one act what is unclear or disputed.  So there's no difference in clarity between the extraordinary and the ordinary acts of the magisterium.  They are both "snow" on the mountain, which if it is anything is the Deposit of Faith itself.

Illustrations.  The Immaculate Conception was not universally and clearly taught by the Church prior to 1854.  Theologians do not say that it was taught by the ordinary universal magisterium but remained unclear.  That would be nonsensical.  What they say is that it was part of the Deposit but remained legitimately disputed.  Then the pope acted in an extraordinary way - that is, exercised the magisterium extraordinarily, by solemnly defining the doctrine, which made it clear and obliged all to hold it as a dogma, a divinely revealed truth.  The dogma of Christ's divinity was not legitimately disputed prior to Nicea.  It was already a dogma, clear and undisputed by Catholics.  It was solemnly defined in order to reaffirm the Church's faith in the face of heretical confusion. 

Again, to say that "the EM is to OUM as servant to master" is a total confusion of ideas. To assert that "the EM exists to serve the OUM by making clear once and for all what does or does not belong to the OUM" is an absurdity.  Both the EM and the OUM exist to make clear what belongs to the Deposit of Faith.  If the OUM does so effectively, there's no need for any extraordinary acts of the magisterium (and indeed, if men were not subject to Original Sin, darkening our intellects and weakening our wills, with concupiscence turning us towards evil, there'd be no need for any extraordinary magisterium - we'd hear the truth once, taught by the Church in the ordinary way, and believe it perfectly and forever).

"Bishop Williamson" Wrote:But what makes the rest of the mountain visible, so to speak, is its being traceable back to Our Lord and his Apostles, in other words, Tradition.
Where will this confusion end?  What is tradition, understood as something traceable?  The term has several meanings in theology, but in this context it means the acts of the magisterium.  That is, not the doctrines themselves, but the doctrinal acts, that the Church has performed in each and every age.  There are loads of them in Denzinger.  Official texts.  Likewise in the Fathers.  Texts.  That's what we refer to when we speak of tracing a doctrine back to the Apostles.  We look at the texts and we see that they agree.  So, if the "mountain" is the ordinary, universal, magisterium, then it's visible because its fruit is the texts that the Church has issued.  It is, in that sense, "tradition" (i.e. that which has been handed down).

"Bishop Williamson" Wrote:That is why every EM definition is at pains to show that what is being defined was always previously part of Tradition. It was mountain before it was covered in snow.

No, the reason that solemn definitions are at pains to show that their doctrine is traditional is to aid the faithful to accept the doctrine, and to explain its proper sense.  There's no absolute need for the obiter dicta which popes add to solemn definitions, and it was not traditionally added in every case.  If the extraordinary exercise of the magisterium is the snow on a mountain, the mountain is the Deposit of Faith.  THAT is what it is clarifying and displaying for all to see.  And the ordinary exercise of the magisterium has exactly the same function.  There is no difference except in the mode of exercise.

There really isn't any need for confusion over these concepts, they are actually simple - if one sticks with proper terminology and ensures that one knows the definitions of those proper terms and keeps them in mind.

"Bishop Williamson" Wrote:By now it should also be clear that Tradition tells the Popes what to teach, and not the other way round.

True, but irrelevant.  The whole point of the magisterium is to make clear what belongs to Tradition (in the other sense, essentially the Deposit) and what does not, and it does this by being the true, divinely-aided judge and teacher.  So we are back to the circularity problem - who is the judge of what belongs to Tradition, the Roman Pontiff or the fellow in the third pew?

"Bishop Williamson" Wrote:This is the basis on which Archbishop Lefebvre founded the Traditional movement, yet it is this same basis which, with all due respect, liberals and sedevacantists fail to grasp.

Bishop Williamson is all at sea because of the utter confusion of what has gone before.  The reason we cannot accept lying novelties is because we have already been obliged, by an infallible authority, to profess the objects of faith.  Authority comes first, for us, precisely because otherwise we wouldn't know what is true and what isn't.  But having been taught, we now have a solemn obligation, binding under pain of damnation, not to believe anything contrary, or even to doubt.  We don't reject novelties because authority has no right to teach them, we reject them because we cannot accept them.  It's impossible.

"Bishop Williamson" Wrote:Then how can liberals and sedevacantists alike claim, in effect, that the Pope is infallible even outside of both EM and OUM ? Because both overrate authority in relation to truth, and so they see Church authority no longer as the servant but as the master of truth. And why is that ? Because they are both children of the modern world where Protestantism defied the Truth and liberalism ever since the French Revolution has been dissolving objective truth. And if there is no longer any objective truth, then of course authority can say whatever it can get away with, which is what we observe all around us, and there is nothing left to stop a Paul VI or a Bishop Fellay from becoming more and more arbitrary and tyrannical in the process.

Actually, the liberalism is all Williamson's.  He is preaching against authority, just as the French Revolutionaries did.  Why?  Because otherwise he can't see his way clear to remain safe in the faith in the face of lying novelties preached by those who appear to have authority.  He's throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  In his ineffective effort to escape error from apparent authority, he ends up making every individual his own pope, the final judge of Tradition.  And that's the very essence of liberalism - the sovereignty of the individual.

There have been several popes that have preached heresy.  Pope Liberius and Pope Honorius are two examples.
(05-31-2014, 10:54 PM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]What I'd like to ask Bishop Williamson, or anybody tempted by his theology, is to explain what precisely was wrong with the Oriental schismatics' rejection of the Filioque and the Old Catholics' rejection of the definition of papal infallibility. The only possible answer that I can see, on his theory, is that those people were mistaken. That is, they were right to think of themselves as the final judges of tradition, they merely erred in understanding what was traditional and what wasn't. If that doesn't shock him into taking another look at the whole problem, I don't know what will.

Here ya go: info@dinoscopus.org  and/or letters@dinoscopus.org  Let us know what he says!  :)
(05-31-2014, 10:54 PM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]What I'd like to ask Bishop Williamson, or anybody tempted by his theology, is to explain what precisely was wrong with the Oriental schismatics' rejection of the Filioque and the Old Catholics' rejection of the definition of papal infallibility. The only possible answer that I can see, on his theory, is that those people were mistaken. That is, they were right to think of themselves as the final judges of tradition, they merely erred in understanding what was traditional and what wasn't. If that doesn't shock him into taking another look at the whole problem, I don't know what will.

Aren't the groups you mention more like sedevacantists? The EO, for example, believed the particular Church of Rome (and its bishop) as well as most of the other particular Churches defected from the true Church by embracing the "heresy" of the filioque contra the traditional defined credal formula. They didn't recognize and resist, they have declared the "heretical" bishops, including the putative bishop of Rome, outside the Church. This seems to be exactly what sedevacantists do.

From your perspective, wouldn't they be right in their action, only erring in understanding what was traditional and what was not?
(06-03-2014, 11:49 AM)onosurf Wrote: [ -> ]There have been several popes that have preached heresy.  Pope Liberius and Pope Honorius are two examples.

Your tone of assurance would suggest that you know what you're talking about.  Why is that?

Neither pope preached heresy.  Neither was even alleged to have preached heresy.

But I should emphasise in any case for the sake of others (i.e. people who care to look things up) that I am referring to preaching heresy as pope, not preaching heresy as a private person.  This makes no difference to the above regarding Liberius or Honorius, neither of whom preached heresy at all.
(06-03-2014, 12:29 PM)J Michael Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-31-2014, 10:54 PM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]What I'd like to ask Bishop Williamson, or anybody tempted by his theology, is to explain what precisely was wrong with the Oriental schismatics' rejection of the Filioque and the Old Catholics' rejection of the definition of papal infallibility. The only possible answer that I can see, on his theory, is that those people were mistaken. That is, they were right to think of themselves as the final judges of tradition, they merely erred in understanding what was traditional and what wasn't. If that doesn't shock him into taking another look at the whole problem, I don't know what will.

Here ya go: info@dinoscopus.org  and/or letters@dinoscopus.org  Let us know what he says!  :)

I have his email address.  I sent him the link to the posts immediately after I wrote them.  Silence so far.
(06-03-2014, 12:30 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-31-2014, 10:54 PM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]What I'd like to ask Bishop Williamson, or anybody tempted by his theology, is to explain what precisely was wrong with the Oriental schismatics' rejection of the Filioque and the Old Catholics' rejection of the definition of papal infallibility. The only possible answer that I can see, on his theory, is that those people were mistaken. That is, they were right to think of themselves as the final judges of tradition, they merely erred in understanding what was traditional and what wasn't. If that doesn't shock him into taking another look at the whole problem, I don't know what will.

Aren't the groups you mention more like sedevacantists? The EO, for example, believed the particular Church of Rome (and its bishop) as well as most of the other particular Churches defected from the true Church by embracing the "heresy" of the filioque contra the traditional defined credal formula. They didn't recognize and resist, they have declared the "heretical" bishops, including the putative bishop of Rome, outside the Church. This seems to be exactly what sedevacantists do.

From your perspective, wouldn't they be right in their action, only erring in understanding what was traditional and what was not?

No, the difference is twofold.  One, the Oriental Schismatics do not believe in the living magisterium at all, they have a vague theory by which the faith percolates down through the ages and divine providence ensures that it remains pure.  In this they are exactly like Bishop Williamson.  Both regard the magisterium as a kind of optional extra that is respected when it is right.  Both deny its infallibility.  Two, the Oriental Schismatics are also heretics in denying the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, truths that their forebears clearly and indisputably accepted.  Sedevacantists don't deny these truths, we emphasise them.
(06-03-2014, 09:25 PM)John Lane Wrote: [ -> ]the Oriental Schismatics

:asianbow::asianbow::asianbow::asianbow::asianbow::asianbow:                                                                                                                         
:asianbow::asianbow::asianbow::asianbow::asianbow::asianbow:
:asianbow::asianbow::asianbow:                                                                                                                                                                   :asianbow::asianbow::asianbow:
:asianbow::asianbow::asianbow::asianbow::asianbow::asianbow:
Pages: 1 2