|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 10, 2008 17:54:59 GMT
Has anyone actually read, or can quote, any BOOK by Lefebvre? In my hand I have "They have uncrowned Him" published in 1988 and it clearly shows that Lefebvre very much saw doctrinal problems all along. It was never a case of just, simply, the Mass. If you continue to maintain this without proof, I repeat, where is your evidence? I continually quote sources. Where is your source? Monkeyman, you said that the SSPX are changing the goalposts; I proved they are not by quoting from their 1988 material; you say that I am making your argument! Does anyone else on this board see a lack of logic? Yes I have its called "Ils l'ont décoronné", its the same one you did and its nonsense. What the SSPX say and do are 2 very different things. Check out their Church in Cork for instance...I believe their prtraits of the Popes only go as far as Pius XII. I know and have known people close to the Archbishop so am hardly in need reading more books than you.
|
|
|
Post by secusia on Jul 11, 2008 22:49:43 GMT
What? A gulf between their official and actual positions? What are you talking about, askel?
|
|
|
Post by secusia on Jul 11, 2008 22:51:25 GMT
I can't believe you dismiss a book of that standard as nonsense. Can you lay out the arguments of the book and your counter objections, please? Because anyone who gives a book the title of "nonsense" should at least prove why they say so.
|
|
|
Post by secusia on Jul 11, 2008 22:53:29 GMT
Funny I was at Sunday's Well (SSPX in Cork) some weeks ago and the priest prayed publicly for the Pope. I didn't look at their portraits, but there are certainly portraits of the present Pope in Corpus Christi Church, Athlone, and in the faithful's hall at St. John's in Dun Laoghaire.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 11, 2008 23:03:12 GMT
Funny I was at Sunday's Well (SSPX in Cork) some weeks ago and the priest prayed publicly for the Pope. I didn't look at their portraits, but there are certainly portraits of the present Pope in Corpus Christi Church, Athlone, and in the faithful's hall at St. John's in Dun Laoghaire. Well then thats a change secusia and one which I'm glad to hear. I would rather that you not be so damned pedantic when it comes to discussing these matters. My intention is to warn to the real dangers of certain individuals in the SSPX such as Dr Richard Williamson who quite frankly are dangerous. The faith was intended by the Lord to be easy enough to locate and without recourse to books like "They have uncrowned him". Most people havent clue to what you are arguing about and will probably be in Heaven long before you or I leading to the question why do you bother frequenting chapels which could put your faith in jeopardy-you never bothered to mention in your previous posts that Msgr Perl (a man I've met) said clearly that the Holy See did not encourage fulfilling ones Sunday obligation at SSPX Chapels. If you cant see that my intention is good then I'm ending all discussion on the matter fortwith.
|
|
|
Post by secusia on Jul 12, 2008 0:29:56 GMT
You said a book was nonsense. I asked why. Bishop Williamson had nothing to do with the book. If you can't explain your criticism of the book, don't make the criticism. Your intentions are not for me to judge. There is room in the Church for both the simple (and very meritorious) faith of the unlearned, AND theological discourses of the learned. Both are necessary in fact. It's true that knowledge does not make holiness, but for those who believe, the profession, and sometimes explanation, of the faith (whether in simple or more complex fashion) is a duty of state. For priests and bishops it binds gravely to explain the faith, as they are the teachers. My faith and understanding of the faith has never been stronger, thank God, than since I began attending the SSPX Mass. Before that, I did hear heresies at the Novus Ordo - not that frequently, thank God. More common was the "heresy by omission" or the total ignoring (probably indeliberate) of dogmas. Universal in the Novus Ordo, were the sacrileges and disobedience (lack of use of a paten, Communion received in the hand without any instruction as to the reverence needed towards the Particles of the Sacred Host, blatant disregard for norms.) In all honesty I knew that something had gone terribly wrong in the Church. the SSPX's arguments make sense to me. Their respect and reverence for the liturgy breathes sincerity and holiness. They are, I presume, not all saints. But the face of the Church is discernible and beautiful there; it's hidden, bruised, disfigured and outraged in the Novus Ordo. I know that the Holy See does not encourage me to go to the SSPX. Incidentally they don't forbid it, though. They would have a job forbidding it, as it's a Catholic Mass.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Jul 12, 2008 11:05:33 GMT
You said a book was nonsense. I asked why. Bishop Williamson had nothing to do with the book. If you can't explain your criticism of the book, don't make the criticism. Your intentions are not for me to judge. There is room in the Church for both the simple (and very meritorious) faith of the unlearned, AND theological discourses of the learned. Both are necessary in fact. It's true that knowledge does not make holiness, but for those who believe, the profession, and sometimes explanation, of the faith (whether in simple or more complex fashion) is a duty of state. For priests and bishops it binds gravely to explain the faith, as they are the teachers. My faith and understanding of the faith has never been stronger, thank God, than since I began attending the SSPX Mass. Before that, I did hear heresies at the Novus Ordo - not that frequently, thank God. More common was the "heresy by omission" or the total ignoring (probably indeliberate) of dogmas. Universal in the Novus Ordo, were the sacrileges and disobedience (lack of use of a paten, Communion received in the hand without any instruction as to the reverence needed towards the Particles of the Sacred Host, blatant disregard for norms.) In all honesty I knew that something had gone terribly wrong in the Church. the SSPX's arguments make sense to me. Their respect and reverence for the liturgy breathes sincerity and holiness. They are, I presume, not all saints. But the face of the Church is discernible and beautiful there; it's hidden, bruised, disfigured and outraged in the Novus Ordo. I know that the Holy See does not encourage me to go to the SSPX. Incidentally they don't forbid it, though. They would have a job forbidding it, as it's a Catholic Mass. Dear Secusia, I agree with you. If I had the choice between attending mass at a SPPX Chapel and a NOM somewhere, I will attend the SPPX mass, no doubt. Unfortunately there are too rare in Ireland and not easy to reach if you don't live in Dublin or Cork or Althone. Monkeyman seems to have a very narrow and nearly hateful point of view regarding the Society, which is a bit pitiful. While he can have some points, his point of view is mainly based on the Bishop Williamson's point of view. Williamson is capable of great extravangaza and personally i don't like him much. We shouldn't judge the whole Society based only Williamson reactions. While, made of men, the SPPX is far to be perfect, we must recognize her role in the maintain of the proper liturgy, the Holy mass, the dogma and the proper doctrine. I do criticize the SPPX when their members are going too far : like the "very liberal Pope" from Bishop Fellay or the reactions of Williamson regarding the Ultimatum. I am for the SPPX to rejoin the Church, so when she shows some reactions in opposition to it, i got mad.... ;D AS you know, the Redemptorists in Papa Stronsay, while being linked to the SPPX for years, had now joined the Church and their situation is "regularised". God bless.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 13, 2008 16:29:53 GMT
You said a book was nonsense. I asked why. Bishop Williamson had nothing to do with the book. If you can't explain your criticism of the book, don't make the criticism. Your intentions are not for me to judge. There is room in the Church for both the simple (and very meritorious) faith of the unlearned, AND theological discourses of the learned. Both are necessary in fact. It's true that knowledge does not make holiness, but for those who believe, the profession, and sometimes explanation, of the faith (whether in simple or more complex fashion) is a duty of state. For priests and bishops it binds gravely to explain the faith, as they are the teachers. My faith and understanding of the faith has never been stronger, thank God, than since I began attending the SSPX Mass. Before that, I did hear heresies at the Novus Ordo - not that frequently, thank God. More common was the "heresy by omission" or the total ignoring (probably indeliberate) of dogmas. Universal in the Novus Ordo, were the sacrileges and disobedience (lack of use of a paten, Communion received in the hand without any instruction as to the reverence needed towards the Particles of the Sacred Host, blatant disregard for norms.) In all honesty I knew that something had gone terribly wrong in the Church. the SSPX's arguments make sense to me. Their respect and reverence for the liturgy breathes sincerity and holiness. They are, I presume, not all saints. But the face of the Church is discernible and beautiful there; it's hidden, bruised, disfigured and outraged in the Novus Ordo. I know that the Holy See does not encourage me to go to the SSPX. Incidentally they don't forbid it, though. They would have a job forbidding it, as it's a Catholic Mass. Dear Secusia, I agree with you. If I had the choice between attending mass at a SPPX Chapel and a NOM somewhere, I will attend the SPPX mass, no doubt. Unfortunately there are too rare in Ireland and not easy to reach if you don't live in Dublin or Cork or Althone. Monkeyman seems to have a very narrow and nearly hateful point of view regarding the Society, which is a bit pitiful. While he can have some points, his point of view is mainly based on the Bishop Williamson's point of view. Williamson is capable of great extravangaza and personally i don't like him much. We shouldn't judge the whole Society based only Williamson reactions. While, made of men, the SPPX is far to be perfect, we must recognize her role in the maintain of the proper liturgy, the Holy mass, the dogma and the proper doctrine. I do criticize the SPPX when their members are going too far : like the "very liberal Pope" from Bishop Fellay or the reactions of Williamson regarding the Ultimatum. I am for the SPPX to rejoin the Church, so when she shows some reactions in opposition to it, i got mad.... ;D AS you know, the Redemptorists in Papa Stronsay, while being linked to the SPPX for years, had now joined the Church and their situation is "regularised". God bless. Good to see a little more sense Guillaume. See my problem is this the Vatican says the faithful who attend the SSPX Masses are Catholics. No if I see something or someone doing I'll oppose it especially if they are causing problems such as the 4 "Bishops". I'm not continuing the discussion with secusia as you can see not because of a lack of charity but because no wilingness on her part o hear the truth. It bolis down to this. The SSPX has retained the truth untarnished-Rome hasn't...quite frankly thats heresy but no-one says in these cirlces. I dont hate Dr Williamson I think hes a very bad man and I hope that he converts properly.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Jul 13, 2008 16:57:12 GMT
well, well, regarding a "schism" within the SPPX, you will be flatered to know the officicial position Rome :
PCED confirms officially: Society of St. Pius X within the Church, not in formal schism; Catholics commit no sin nor incur any canonical penalty for Mass attendance Brian Mershon July 11, 2008 ________________________________________ Msgr. Camille Perl, Vice President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED) has recently responded with a letter dated May 23, 2008, to questions I invoked regarding the official canonical status of the Society of St. Pius X and those Catholics who attend their chapels to fulfill their Sunday obligation.
This article is certain to generate much commentary both from die-hard SSPXers who can't bear to believe their marriages and confessions might be invalid to "more Catholic than the Pope" conservatives who will continue to misconstrue the clear teaching of the PCED, Cardinal Castrillón and the Catholic Church regarding laity who attend SSPX chapels to fulfill their Sunday obligation.
Indeed, the repeated public statements of Cardinal Castrillón that the SSPX is not in formal schism certainly rises above the level of a cleric's private opinion on matters outside of his competence. His statements can be viewed by all Catholics as reflective of the current position of the Catholic Church on these matters. While some canonists, in good faith, might disagree, Cardinal Castrillón and the PCED's responses to private correspondence certainly rise above the level of authority of a mere canonist's opinion.
The responses to the letter below can be acted upon with a moral certitude.
His Eminence Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos President, Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei (PCED) Palazzo del Sant'Uffizio 00120 VATICAN CITY
Monday of Holy Week Anno Domini 2008
Your Eminence,
I have compiled as reference numerous public interviews, both print and television, where you were quoted as stating that the case of the Society of St. Pius X "is not a formal schism" and other words to that effect.
Q: Is this your mere private opinion, or the official teaching of the Catholic Church in your official capacity as head of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei?
PCED: "Statements made by Cardinal Castrillón need to be understood in a technical, canonical sense. Stating that the Society of St. Pius X "is not in formal schism" is to say that there has been no official declaration on the part of the Holy See that the Society of St. Pius X is in schism. Up to now, the Church has sought to show the maximum charity, courtesy and consideration to all those involved with the hope that such a declaration will not eventually be necessary."
Would you please clarify the following for me in this private correspondence so that I can ensure that my family and I are following the current teaching of the Church on this specific matter?
Q: Does the Catholic Church currently hold that the priests and bishops of the Society of St. Pius X are in formal schism with the Catholic Church?
PCED: "The bishops of the Society of St. Pius X are excommunicated according to the prescription of canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law which states that "A bishop who consecrates someone a bishop without pontifical mandate and the person who receives the consecration from him incur a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See." Archbishop Lefebvre was duly reminded of this before his conferral of Episcopal ordination on 30 June 1988 and the Holy Father confirmed that this penalty had been incurred in his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, #3 [cf. AAS 80 (1988) 1495-1498; English translation in L'Osservatore Romano English edition of 11 July 1988, p. 1].
"The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions because they are not properly incardinated in a diocese of religious institute in full communion with the Holy See (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 265) and also because those ordained after the schismatic Episcopal ordinations were ordained by an excommunicated bishop.
"Concretely, this means that the Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit, i.e., contrary to Canon Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. It remains true, however, that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that the priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have proper faculty to absolve, the Church supplies these faculties so that the sacrament is valid (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 144)
"While it is true that participation in the Mass at chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism" (cf. Ecclesia Dei 5, c), such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church. While we hope and pray for a reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X, the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" cannot recommend that members of the faithful frequent their chapels for the reasons which we have outlined above. We deeply regret this situation and pray that soon a reconciliation of the Society of St. Pius X with the Church may come about, but until such time the explanations which we have given remain in force."
Q: Does the Catholic Church currently hold that the situation of the Society of St. Pius X is not one for ecumenical dialogue because the Society of St. Pius X is an internal matter within the Catholic Church?
PCED: "Up to now the Catholic Church has acted as if the situation of the Society of St. Pius X is an internal matter within the Catholic Church and not a matter of ecumenical dialogue."
Q: Do lay Catholics who frequent Society of St. Pius X chapels, either more less frequently, incur any sin or canonical delict by doing so, if done solely out of devotion to the Church's Latin liturgical tradition and not to separate one's self from communion with one's diocesan Ordinary or local pastor?
PCED: "Catholics who frequent the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X do not incur any sin or canonical delict by doing so. However, we further refer you to what we have already stated in #4 above."
[Q]: What level of authority do your answers to this private correspondence hold?
PCED: "As we already stated to you in our letter of 4 July 2007: "This Pontifical Commission does its best to transmit responses which are in full accord with the magisterium and the present canonical practices of the Catholic Church. One should accept them with docility and can act upon them with moral certainty." We would further add that no dicastery of the Holy See will give other responses than those which we have given here."
Please know that you and your staff and the Holy Father are in my family's constant prayers as we prepare to celebrate the Holy Week and the season of Easter.
Pax Christi in Regno Christi,
Brian C. Mershon Commentary on the PCED Responses
1. The current language being used by the Catholic Church avoids saying that the Society of St. Pius X is in formal schism.
2. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the four bishops he ordained in the Society of St. Pius X directly against the express will of the Holy Father incurred excommunication, as outlined by the Code of Canon Law and confirmed by the Congregation for Bishops and Pope John Paul II in his motu proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta.
3. The Society of St. Pius X priests are suspended from priestly ministry. Therefore, objectively speaking, they are committing sins of grave matter by continuing their active ministry without a specific mandate of the Church. Of course, the Society's official claim, wrongly or rightly, is that the salvation of souls and the current state of emergency in the Church forces them to continue to offer their ministries without ecclesiastical approval. There has been no indication by the Catholic Church that the priests, as a whole, are excommunicated or in formal schism.
4. Therefore, all the sacraments offered by Society of St. Pius X priests, with the exception of Penance and Matrimony, are valid, but illicit, meaning "illegal." Penance and Matrimony both require faculties from the local bishop, which the Society of St. Pius X priests do not have; therefore, they are invalid. Cases of supplied jurisdiction apply to those who are, for example, in danger of death. Those who read and understand the PCED's response can no longer claim ignorance regarding the Church's official teaching on these two sacraments' invalidity.
5. Catholic laymen may attend Mass at a Society of St. Pius X chapel without committing any sin nor incurring any canonical penalty. However, the PCED guidance is that it "cannot recommend" attendance at the Society of St. Pius X chapels due to the danger of imbibing a "schismatic mentality." In other words, someone might find some Society priests fomenting division from full communion with the Church, their local Ordinary and/or the Holy Father in their sermons. The PCED's recommendation is not to attend their chapels habitually, but they acknowledge there is no sin committed nor canonical penalty incurred resulting from attending Mass at SSPX chapels solely out of the desire to worship according to the 1962 missal and in order to fulfill their Sunday obligation.
6. The Society of St. Pius X is in an irregular canonical situation and an "internal matter" and therefore is not a case of ecumenical dialogue.
7. Again, the correspondence from the PCED can be accepted and acted upon with "docility and moral certitude" by Catholics. The specific questions I asked were broad enough in nature to constitute an official response for Catholics to use as guidance.
Catholic priests, bishops or laymen who contradict these specific responses seem to be out of step with the Church's current official position. ________________________________________ Brian Mershon is a commentator on cultural issues from a classical Catholic perspective. His trade is in media relations, and his vocation is as a husband to his beloved wife Tracey and father to his seven living children. He attempts to assist his family and himself in attaining eternal salvation through frequent attendance at the Traditional Latin rite of Mass, homeschooling, and building Catholic culture in the buckle of the Bible Belt of Greenville, South Carolina.
|
|
|
Post by secusia on Jul 14, 2008 0:20:16 GMT
Concretely, this means that the Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit, i.e., contrary to Canon Law. The Sacraments of Penance and Matrimony, however, require that the priest enjoys the faculties of the diocese or has proper delegation. Since that is not the case with these priests, these sacraments are invalid. It remains true, however, that, if the faithful are genuinely ignorant that the priests of the Society of St. Pius X do not have proper faculty to absolve, the Church supplies these faculties so that the sacrament is valid (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 144) Leaving aside the terrible scandal of these priests' being refused faculties while ignorant or materially heretical priests flourish and are loaded with faculties, this comment does not quote the full canon 144, which, I read, distinguishes between two types of error regarding a priest's faculties: de facto (actual error) and de iure (error of law.) I'm going to quote the explanations of these canons by canonists, who do actually have a role to play in canonical interpretations. 1. Pugliese, in Palazzini's Dictionary of Moral Theology, 1962, article Jurisdiction, Supplied: the Church supplies jurisdiction in a case of common error. The error may be due to a false conviction concerning the possession of the required jurisdiction. It is necessary, however, that this conviction arise from a positive fact which would cause the faithful reasonably to assume that the priest had the required jurisdiction. A case in point might be . . . that of the priest who, acting as if he had jurisdiction, occupies the confessional or imparts absolution, when in fact he has no jurisdiction . . . (Common error) is called error of law when it stems or may stem from a fact which of itself is such as to lead many people into error even though in fact no one errs.Today it is generally held (and such an interpretation may be called certain) that the error of law is sufficient to require that jurisdiction be supplied. 2. Regatillo and Zalba, Theologia Moralis Summa, 1954, De Matrimonio, 928: Error communis de iure est qui fundatur in facto de se publico quod ex natura sua inducit quemlibet ad putandum talem sacerdotem habere iurisdictionem, cum ea careat; seu qui fundatur in facto per se apto ad inducendum omnes in errore de existentia iurisdictionis. Ut si sacerdos publice sedeat in confessionali, quasi spectans poenitentes. Hodie SENTENTIA GENERALIS EST ECCLESIAM SUPPLERE IURISDICTIONEM AD CONFESSIONES NON SOLUM IN ERRORE COMMUNI DE FACTO, SED ETIAM DE IURE. In my (perhaps innaccurate) translation (feel free to go ahead and try another) this says: "Common error of law is [that] which is founded on a public fact, which by its nature leads any person to suppose that such a priest has jurisdiction, when it (jurisdiction) is [in fact] lacking; as for example, if a priest were to sit publicly in a confessional, as if awaiting penitents. Today, the usual sentence /judgement is that the Church supplies jurisdiction for confessions, not just in actual common error, but also in common error of law."
(Acknowledgements to Fr. Angles, SSPX, Confessions and Marriages in SSPX chapels)
So, if this interpretation of common error de iure, as named in the Code of Canon Law of 1983, is untrue, can Cardinal Hoyos explain what common error de iure means? Logic comes to bear here:
1. The new Code specifically names two types of common error; 2. Thus, the two types of common error refer to separate realities and not just to general ignorance; 3. Therefore, only an explanation of the terms entitles us to decide when precisely jurisdiction is supplied on the grounds of common error.
I must say that this (common error) is not the only ground on which the SSPX claim supplied jurisdiction. People often forget the highest principles of canon law, such as "Salus animarum suprema lex" (The highest law is the salvation of souls.)
[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by secusia on Jul 14, 2008 0:38:15 GMT
Willy quotes the following interesting article "1. The current language being used by the Catholic Church avoids saying that the Society of St. Pius X is in formal schism.
2. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the four bishops he ordained in the Society of St. Pius X directly against the express will of the Holy Father incurred excommunication, as outlined by the Code of Canon Law and confirmed by the Congregation for Bishops and Pope John Paul II in his motu proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta.
3. The Society of St. Pius X priests are suspended from priestly ministry. Therefore, objectively speaking, they are committing sins of grave matter by continuing their active ministry without a specific mandate of the Church. Of course, the Society's official claim, wrongly or rightly, is that the salvation of souls and the current state of emergency in the Church forces them to continue to offer their ministries without ecclesiastical approval. There has been no indication by the Catholic Church that the priests, as a whole, are excommunicated or in formal schism."
1. Of course it avoids saying the SSPX is in schism, because, as I have already outlined on this board, schism is a very particular sin and not just ANY act of disobedience to the Pope. 2. The canon under which Lefebvre and the bishops were excommunicated (#1382) is admitted above to be latae sententiae, that is, automatic. I have shown on the other thread how other canons explain situations where automatic excommunications are not incurred. I repeat myself here as no one, so far, has been able to refute this argument (understandably, since it's not my argument but that of plain unvarnished Canon Law): Canon Law.... proves that the Archbishop was not excommunicated, as no-one can be excommunicated latae sententiae without having committed a subjective mortal sin. A sentence ferendae sententiae was never imposed. It was simply declared that the sentence had been automatically incurred. That's not my opinion, that's a fact. the canons are there. Here they are: A person who violates a law out of necessity is not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of necessity: *if one inculpably thought there was, he would not incur the penalty (canon 1323, 70), *and if one culpably thought there was, he would still incur no automatic penalties (canon 1324, §3; §1, 80). 3. Of course, the state of necessity is key to the whole discussion. If one recognises the gravity of the crisis in the Church, one can accept the SSPX' acting without permission as totally justified. If one does not accept that there is a state of necessity, of course the SSPX would be, objectively speaking, wrong.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 14, 2008 23:31:56 GMT
BASICALLY A RANT...I'VE BEEN LISTENINGNTOMTHIS FOR THE BEST PART OF 20 YEARS....YAWN
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 14, 2008 23:34:47 GMT
Remarkable how people have recourse to the new code of canon law especially when Archbishop Lefebvre included it as a tool of the "new religion"....oh yes lets quote the new code and have our cake.Yawn.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 14, 2008 23:37:27 GMT
By the way the person who is quoting all these canons of the Church has a licienciate in Canon Law.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Jul 14, 2008 23:39:37 GMT
I of course refer to secusia who thinks the Lord himself would approve of this situation.....what ever you bind in earth will be bound in heaven shhhhhh
|
|