02-10-2011, 09:00 PM
I think the will of Rome is a married deaconate that is not continent.
I think you're letting emotion make your arguments, because you've taken the contra-tradition interpretation of every point of law so far in an attempt to defeat me. Wait just a bit and I'll give it to you point by pont and we'll see if you still want to claim that a married, incontinent clergy is possible or that Rome could ever specifically will it or that it should *ever* be considered the default position and the burden of proof be on the other side.
What is the traditional in traditionalist for?
I think you're letting emotion make your arguments, because you've taken the contra-tradition interpretation of every point of law so far in an attempt to defeat me. Wait just a bit and I'll give it to you point by pont and we'll see if you still want to claim that a married, incontinent clergy is possible or that Rome could ever specifically will it or that it should *ever* be considered the default position and the burden of proof be on the other side.
What is the traditional in traditionalist for?
![[-]](https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/images/fisheaters/collapse.png)