Clicks3.2K
en.news
62

BREAKING: Francis Plans To Abolish Summorum Pontificum

Francis told the Italian bishops during their May 24 closed meeting that he wants to go back in time and abolish the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, MessaInLatino.it reports.

It seems that Francis' plan is to re-introduce the obsolete indult system which Benedict XVI overcame with Summorum Pontificum.

Old Rite Communities would be allowed to continue as before. But diocesan priests would in order to say Mass again need a prior authorisation of their anti-Catholic bishops, and they would be exposed to a repressive system, many denials of authorisations, and a ghettoisation.

This step backwards would thus imply a general "prohibition" of the Traditional Latin Mass which, according to Benedict XVI cannot be "forbidden."

Rorate-Caeli.blogspot.com comments, “After Moses, the Liberator, Pharaoh returns.”

Picture: © Mazur/catholicnews.org.uk, CC BY-NC-ND, #newsTpjklsyhcd

Cuthbert Mayne
There’s nothing breaking here except wind. So please put your pitch forks back in the box and await a “document”. The Holy Father will not overturn ordinary magisterium in that fashion as that is contrary to the Hermeneutics of continuity.
Scapular
The word is out Bergoglio has been vaccinated.
Ultraviolet
So the Vatican Press Office assures us. Yet our "publicity Pope" didn't jump at the chance for a photo-op receiving the vaccine. Funny thing, ;-)
Scapular
What ashame!
iwirawan
Obviously reason to supporess TLM is because it is more efficacious against the Evil One. Isn't it obvious who is in which side?
salliperson
The word is out that Jorge Bergoglio has Alzheimers.
Cuthbert Mayne
If this is a joke, then having Alzheimer’s is not. I can assure you. There might be people reading this with family members who have dementia. It’s so hard for them. It’s not appropriate
xandergracie
Douay-Rheims Bible
“Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation.” (Which is the greater?)
aderito
iam Hoping for a Pope that follows the Truth ,Deposit of Faith and the Doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ ,No more modernism , and washi washi ,doctrine
Jeffrey Ade
Patience, there will come a time trust Our Lady of Fatima!
Cuthbert Mayne
The term you want is ‘wishy washy’ (it’s not an advert for a laundrette)
Ultraviolet
@Sp . . Canon lawyers understand what you do not. 1.) Refusal to submit to the supreme pontiff is considered schism under Canon Law 751. 2.) Schismatics incur a latae sententiae excommunication under Canon Law 1364.1 3.) There is no "Vatican court" with the legal authority to try the Pope for crimes or to pass judgement upon him. 4.) Canon lawyers do not have the legal authority to stop him from …More
@Sp . . Canon lawyers understand what you do not. 1.) Refusal to submit to the supreme pontiff is considered schism under Canon Law 751. 2.) Schismatics incur a latae sententiae excommunication under Canon Law 1364.1 3.) There is no "Vatican court" with the legal authority to try the Pope for crimes or to pass judgement upon him. 4.) Canon lawyers do not have the legal authority to stop him from doing anything he wishes. 5.) Pope Francis is not a pagan. 6.) The adjective "pagan" does not need to be capitalized in your sentence. 7.) The term is "canon", not "cannon". :D Hopefully this answers your questions, rhetorical or otherwise.
123jussi
Obedience to the pope is not absolute . Again he must not be obeyed if he orders evil (which this would be) ,nor must he be obeyed if the command is unjust,which this would also be. Unfortunately they control the bricks and mortar and the purse strings so even though unjust you can be punished. Canon law is promulgated for the good of the church not to protect those destroying it. Yes no one can …More
Obedience to the pope is not absolute . Again he must not be obeyed if he orders evil (which this would be) ,nor must he be obeyed if the command is unjust,which this would also be. Unfortunately they control the bricks and mortar and the purse strings so even though unjust you can be punished. Canon law is promulgated for the good of the church not to protect those destroying it. Yes no one can judge the pope and make a legal finding of any sort but we can judge his actions and if they are not in accord with what has been handed down he should be "treated like a tax collector".
Ultraviolet
@123jussi 1.) Canon Law 751 does not use the word "obedience" it uses "submission". 2.) Consequently, as a result of this distinction, your point is irrelevant. 3.) I agree, canon law is promulgated for the good of the church and not to protect those destroying it. The latter group includes every self-appointed, self-empowered reformer going back to Martin Luther who takes it upon themself …More
@123jussi 1.) Canon Law 751 does not use the word "obedience" it uses "submission". 2.) Consequently, as a result of this distinction, your point is irrelevant. 3.) I agree, canon law is promulgated for the good of the church and not to protect those destroying it. The latter group includes every self-appointed, self-empowered reformer going back to Martin Luther who takes it upon themself to personally decide what is or is not "the good of the church" on behalf of The Church. Today, this group includes every two-bit blowhard who can slap together a blog or yammer in front of his web-cam the way the mis-named "Canon 212" never tires of doing. Canon law, especially the ones I cited, is designed to protect that good from precisely such power-hungry malcontents.
GaryLockhart
As a two-bit blowhard yourself, Vi, you likely think that the Peronist Pontiff will also abrogate Sacrosanctum Concilium 36. 1., don't you?
Hugh N. Cry
I’ll say it... so as not to incur excommunication, Francis is the Pope, but I do fear he is the “Man of Sin.” I, as a simple layman cannot do anything to remedy other than pray for him.
123jussi
You sound like a lawyer . And they like doctors can turn things upside down. Forget law made by man,God tells us we cannot obey or submit to something evil and there is no submission required in matters unrelated to the authority given the legislator. Submission to the pope is only required for those things under his authority,he cannot require you to wash his car or do his shopping or believe …More
You sound like a lawyer . And they like doctors can turn things upside down. Forget law made by man,God tells us we cannot obey or submit to something evil and there is no submission required in matters unrelated to the authority given the legislator. Submission to the pope is only required for those things under his authority,he cannot require you to wash his car or do his shopping or believe something contrary to the faith .
gloveraa
@123jussi: Abbe de Nantes: The only one who can judge the Pope, is the Pope. Now if one could only determine which living "pope" is the Pope...
Ultraviolet
What I personally think the Pope will do is irrelevant for two reasons, @GaryLockhart

First, and most importantly, for the ones I already gave SP. Second, discussing the subject with the likes of you is a waste of time. You're stupid, obnoxious, and in this instance , both of these faults won't lead anyone else into error. It takes a special kind of moron to fail at abbreviating "Ultraviolet…More
What I personally think the Pope will do is irrelevant for two reasons, @GaryLockhart

First, and most importantly, for the ones I already gave SP. Second, discussing the subject with the likes of you is a waste of time. You're stupid, obnoxious, and in this instance , both of these faults won't lead anyone else into error. It takes a special kind of moron to fail at abbreviating "Ultraviolet". How difficult is it to type "UV"? Yet even in this you've managed, once again, to display your talent for incompetence in the most unflattering manner. Well done. :D.

Lawyers, like doctors, have made a career out of dealing with extremely complex subjects. @123jussi Just because you may not understand a point of law does not mean the point itself is "upside down" or side-ways or backwards.

"Forget law made by man,God tells us we cannot obey or submit to something evil."

Does He now? Are you quoting God verbatim? No. You're interpreting God's laws in a manner you choose. In essence you're doing the same thing for which you criticize lawyers. Worse, you're doing so in a manner that's contrary to the laws of The Church, which makes no distinction between a good Pope and an evil one.

One reason for this is because obedience and submission are not the same. You obviously recognize that and now seek to conflate the two simply because you don't like the current Pope. That isn't how The Church works. Martin Luther didn't like it either. Too bad.

"Submission to the pope is only required for those things under his authority,"

No such qualification appears in Canon 751. You're adding one of your own where it does not exist.

"he cannot require you to wash his car or do his shopping or believe something contrary to the faith."

...nor does Canon 751 impose any requirement on the laity to do any of the above, particularly the latter. So your point is, in a word, irrelevant.

@gloveraa Since Benedict XVI resigned, he's no longer pope and has already said so. That should clear up who currently is Pope very quickly.
Jeffrey Ade
Sounds ad hominin?
Cuthbert Mayne
@Saveusfromhell I’d rather say save us from saveusfromhell
Ultraviolet
A question, @Saveusfromhell Have you also started reporting all the comments like "As a two-bit blowhard yourself," which was directed at me? Or do you only start "reporting" when I'm replying to such abuse? After all, according to you, "Nobody should have to put up with this" If you're being fair, then that should also include me.

I don't think you report any the abuse I take. Witness …More
A question, @Saveusfromhell Have you also started reporting all the comments like "As a two-bit blowhard yourself," which was directed at me? Or do you only start "reporting" when I'm replying to such abuse? After all, according to you, "Nobody should have to put up with this" If you're being fair, then that should also include me.

I don't think you report any the abuse I take. Witness your self-righteous complaint to the very person who attacked me, eh? No, you start "reporting" only when I give what I get, That's hypocrisy on your part, sweets. ;-)
Ultraviolet
By the way, GTV's Latino community tried the same stunt you're suggesting... "Vamos amigos, let's all report UV." History shows GTV's decision-makers became annoyed with the constant "reports" and banned most of them. The few survivors now tread very softly around me. You should learn from their mistakes before you share their fate.

Now that I've addressed your double-standards in "reporting" …More
By the way, GTV's Latino community tried the same stunt you're suggesting... "Vamos amigos, let's all report UV." History shows GTV's decision-makers became annoyed with the constant "reports" and banned most of them. The few survivors now tread very softly around me. You should learn from their mistakes before you share their fate.

Now that I've addressed your double-standards in "reporting" let's talk translations. I quote the Vatican's own official English translations. You should give the Vatican's Latinists far more credit that you apparently do. Yes, I could quote the Latin text. Later on, I shall. At this point, I might even be argue the issue in Latin as well. But few, if any, on GTV would be able to read (much less understand) such a comment... Least of all you. ;-)

"Your interpertation of a specific english word from a translation of canon law is totally irrelevant and carries zero weight."

On the contrary, your claim of irrelevancy carries zero weight until you show that my interpretation is incorrect. You have not done so here and every time you've tried in the past, I've given you the academic equivalent of a broken nose for your impertinence. Another one follows a few paragraphs down. :D

"Ive listened to a few canon lawers and the difference one word makes in latin is astonishing."

Indeed and they're correct. However, you haven't shown any difference is present here. In short, you're raising an issue that you haven't shown even applies.

"Your not so please refrain from pontificating on something outside your expertise."

That's an assumption on your part with zero evidence shown in support of it. You should take your own advice and apply it here. You should have written "You're not".instead of "your not" The difference one word makes in English is astonishing, too. ;-)

Since the latter language is already well beyond your comprehension, it goes without saying you're incapable of presenting an argument based on interlinear transliterations of Canon Law in Latin.

The issue here is what Canon Law says according to the Vatican's own translation into English. Until you show that I've misquoted the latter, and you have not, then your criticism is baseless.

But, since you've raised the issue, even without showing any change occurs here, let's discuss what Canon Law 751 does, in fact, say in Latin:

*ehem*
"subiectionis Summo Pontifici aut communionis cum Ecclesiae membris eidem subditis detrectatio."

"Subiectionis"
is the genitive singular of "subiectio" which means: subjugation or (wait for it) submission. Canon Law, in Latin, does not use the participle "obedientis" which would translate as "obedience" or "to obey".

In short, my original observations were correct because Canon 751's meaning doesn't change when it's read in English instead of Latin and my fluency in both languages far surpasses your own.
9 more comments from Ultraviolet
Ultraviolet
I'm treated no differently than everyone else. Gary Lockwood hasn't been banned for insulting me, now has he? Yes or no. If no, then your claim just failed.

Where I differ from most everyone else is 1.) I'm a legalist 2.) I've read GTV's rules. 3.) More importantly, I understand how they're applied.

...and I'll wager a month's suspension that you didn't "report" Gary Lockwood for attacking…More
I'm treated no differently than everyone else. Gary Lockwood hasn't been banned for insulting me, now has he? Yes or no. If no, then your claim just failed.

Where I differ from most everyone else is 1.) I'm a legalist 2.) I've read GTV's rules. 3.) More importantly, I understand how they're applied.

...and I'll wager a month's suspension that you didn't "report" Gary Lockwood for attacking me. Not you. ;-) No, you reported me for replying to his attack, for making him look silly after he attacked me. Because that's how your kind always work. It isn't what is said that bothers a hypocrite, it's who says it. And then you of all people complain about double-standards! :D

Again you fabricate a statement I never made. I haven't cursed anyone's family. Outright fabrication on your part.

This is how people like you eventually get banned. You make bogus accusations and then you get infuriated they aren't taken seriously. That grudge compels you to keep "reporting" and "reporting" until the admin simply gets tired of you for wasting their time.

Yes, I called you "sweets". I might also call you sugarplum or buttercup, as well. Those are terms of endearment. because I do so enjoy the way you sit there like a bloated poisonous spider, perched in a web, reading my comments, looking for any chance you can to sink in the fangs and hammer that "report" button.

What would GTV be without users like you, eh?. ;-) You see, sugarplum, snideness isn't against the rules. Refer to my earlier point about being a legalist. ;-)
Ultraviolet
"you cannot take the english transaltion of a word and use a singular specific english meaning from that."

Re-read what you just wrote. You're claiming I can't derive a meaning in English from the English translation of a Latin word. Whoo boy... :P

This is why words differs from one another. As for your claim of "singular", that's a claim you introduced. You do make a habit of that and …More
"you cannot take the english transaltion of a word and use a singular specific english meaning from that."

Re-read what you just wrote. You're claiming I can't derive a meaning in English from the English translation of a Latin word. Whoo boy... :P

This is why words differs from one another. As for your claim of "singular", that's a claim you introduced. You do make a habit of that and it's boringly obvious by now.

In this case, I've already shown the English "transaltion" (sic) is identical to the orignal Latin. You side-stepped that entirely, didnt'cha? ;-)

"Your simple are not qualified to adjudicate on its meaning."

Seems you still haven't figured out the difference between "Your" (possessive) and "You're", i.e "You are" (contraction) Ironic shades of "you have gone back and made the exact same mistake."

Up next, the difference between "simple" and "simply"... and then you have the nerve to criticize my "pontificating" in languages I understand better than you do.

"only a canon lawyer or at a min someone fluent in Latin could do that. your not, and google translate doesn't count."

A pity I didn't use Google Translate. Truly. I say that before God, my salvation forfeit against a lie. Me? Protip: my Latin and my English are far better than yours. You might want to challenge my fluency in either language when I'm not being forced to repeatedly correct your mistakes.

My expertise stands on its own merits and the inability of you, or anyone else, to find any technical fault in it. Cry harder, your tears are delicious. :D
Ultraviolet
"so you think one snide remark against you deserves a ban, from gary lockword, but the rules dont apply to you." @Saveusfromhell

Wrong, again. You're not a psychic and that isn't what I think. You see, I didn't "report" Mr. Lockwood. Ergo, I don't "think one snide remark... deserves a ban". What this shows is both of us were treated equally.

Mr. Lockwoods' comments, which were about as "…More
"so you think one snide remark against you deserves a ban, from gary lockword, but the rules dont apply to you." @Saveusfromhell

Wrong, again. You're not a psychic and that isn't what I think. You see, I didn't "report" Mr. Lockwood. Ergo, I don't "think one snide remark... deserves a ban". What this shows is both of us were treated equally.

Mr. Lockwoods' comments, which were about as "snide" as a slurred drunk in a bar didn't get him banned for the same reason I didn't get banned for mocking the errors he made while doing so. I understand GTV's rules, even if you do not.

But I DO love your double standards, though. You're obviously trying to get me banned for "one snide remark" even while ignoring the fact it's a reply to outright crassness from Mr. Lockwood whom you very obviously didn't "Report". How nice. ;-)

Our pal Gary takes a shot at me, and you're quick to excuse it as "one snide remark". I sneer at him and you're the first one pecking away at the "Report" button... bleating about insults and harrassment. Oh, the humanity! Oh, the hypocrisy.!

"Snipe remarks counts as harrasment."

You're not quoting GTV's rules, so don't make them up as you go along. See my earlier points about legalism. You're a lousy actor so don't play the victim, either..

You went out of your way to initiate this debate, you're continuing to pursue it, and I am under no obligation to pander to whatever you arbitrarily feel is not endearing.

Furthermore, drawing a comparison between your behavior and a bloated spider is not the same as calling you a bloated spider.

The former was a similie. The latter accusation would be the kind of "snide remark" you would never "report" Gary Lockwood or anyone else for making against me. ;-) Funny how that works, eh?
Ultraviolet
Actually, you're not. Quote GTV's rules verbatim and link 'em. As they say in poker games, "put up or shut up"... and there isn't any "name calling" going on here except from Mr. Lockwood. Pretty please stop harasssing me with your false accusations and fake-victimhood. It's hurting my feelings. :P
Ultraviolet
I'm still waiting for your direct quote from GTV's rules and a link to them. You did say, "i am quoting from GTV rules". So quote them word for word and link them. How difficult is that? ;-)

My belief has no bearing on what the rules actually say. You made the claim now back it up! :D

"its then up to them to allow you continue or to ban you."
...or they might just get tired of you …More
I'm still waiting for your direct quote from GTV's rules and a link to them. You did say, "i am quoting from GTV rules". So quote them word for word and link them. How difficult is that? ;-)

My belief has no bearing on what the rules actually say. You made the claim now back it up! :D

"its then up to them to allow you continue or to ban you."
...or they might just get tired of you playing the provebial boy who cried wolf. That's also a possibility. ;-)
Ultraviolet
It remains to be seen if you will quote GTV's rules and link them instead of inventing "the rules" the way you invent claims about what I said, what Cuthbert Mayne meant and so on. Well? Where's the quote? Where's the link? I'm waaaaiting. :D
Ultraviolet
"Because be assured i didn't invent this rule."
So why can't you quote it verbatim and link the page where it appears? ;-)
Ultraviolet
That isn't a quote from the rules or a link to them. In fact, it's a decidedly snide remark. If I were you, right now I'd be whining about "harassment". ;-) This is why your "reports" fall on deaf ears.

"Your not as sharp" ...said the joker who still hasn't learned the difference between "Your" and "You're". ;-)
Ultraviolet
No, I'm just holding you to your word. I know you "couldn't care less" because the truth has no meaning for you. That's why you can lie about me or Cuthbert or GTV's rules without a second's hesitation. "You're every trangression...." :D "You're" reports must be a laugh if this is how you cite the actual GTV laws I've supposedly broken..
mccallansteve
LOL . Let him abolish , Summorum Pontificum. Will that stop me from going to the real Catholic Mass? Never! When Francis speaks, I don't listen because he is out to destroy my Catholic faith
Cuthbert Mayne
Well said
Live Mike
This "Executive Decision" is a perfect illustration as to why the howls for "Synodality" are such a sham.
123jussi
He is being very rigid ,but no one has to obey an unjust order nor any order that the person has no authority to give. His authority extends only to building the church and preserving what has been handed down so no such order would be valid but of course he can and will punish.
Jeffrey Ade
Yes you are spot on. Examine obedience and find our obligation!
Louis IX
If he tries it the Church will split. We are not going back to hippy dippy church.
Jeffrey Ade
Yes that would be a bunch of hippy dippy bologna!
Jeffrey Ade
We should realize the Church split ages ago!
Cuthbert Mayne
Let him try
Krystian N.
Inevitable move from F1. Easy to predict.
Cuthbert Mayne
What’s F1 ? formula one? Do understand that untill a second pope takes the name Francis and is then called Francis II the current Pope Francis will remain just that, Francis. The only time he’d be called Francis I will be when there’s a pope that calls himself Francis II
Now if you didn’t know that then you have no Buissness predicting anything...easy or hard.
Krystian N.
Cuthbert Mayne You gotta work a bit on elasticity of your braincells.
F1 is kinda joke. I thought everyone got it right. You're the only one without the sense of humour.
Augustyn z Hippony
Modern Pope kiss ass the WHO, UN and UE... He will do everythibg what will accept for heretics and schizmatics. He will do all for ecology and Pachamam... even destroy the Catholic Church.
Cuthbert Mayne
He is still the Vicar of Christ and as such deserves respect for his office.
Louis IX
He dropped the title Vicar of Christ, late 2020 or early 2021.
Augustyn z Hippony
I have told about person, Bergolio, nit about Pope. Bergolio callshimself Bishop of Rome. Who is the pope?
Jeffrey Ade
Quo vadis?
Cuthbert Mayne
He may have dropped the title ‘Vicar of Christ’ and may want to call himself Jorge, but he’s still the Vicar of Christ according to Christ Himself, and commands our respect to his office ...
Augustyn z Hippony
But I shell be lissten when his lern is thru, it is mean when lern is corect with Tradition and Bibel. (Vaticanum I, Pastor aeternus). Bergolio cancel from thiss too!
Ultraviolet
Disparaging a man's ability tp accomplish something does not imply making a threat to his person if he attempts to do so @Saveusfromhell That's a Non Sequitur Fallacy.

For example, if Pope Francis claims he can walk on water, I too say, "Let him try." I won't lay a finger on the man should he attempt it. ;-)

From this fallacy. you perceive a "veilled threat" @Cuthbert Mayne did not make. …More
Disparaging a man's ability tp accomplish something does not imply making a threat to his person if he attempts to do so @Saveusfromhell That's a Non Sequitur Fallacy.

For example, if Pope Francis claims he can walk on water, I too say, "Let him try." I won't lay a finger on the man should he attempt it. ;-)

From this fallacy. you perceive a "veilled threat" @Cuthbert Mayne did not make. That's a Strawman Fallacy.

I'll let Cuthbert address the questions you asked of him.
Ultraviolet
"let him try" is a veiled threat, @Saveusfromhell

Repeating the claim and underlining the phrase does not show that it is. You're repeating the premise, not proving it. That's some Argumentum ad Nauseam Fallacy on your chin, dear. :D Incidentally, yes, you and Jeffrey Ade are, still, unintentionally incorrect. Gary Lockwood calling me a "two-bit blowhard" isn't Ad Hominem fallacy, any more …More
"let him try" is a veiled threat, @Saveusfromhell

Repeating the claim and underlining the phrase does not show that it is. You're repeating the premise, not proving it. That's some Argumentum ad Nauseam Fallacy on your chin, dear. :D Incidentally, yes, you and Jeffrey Ade are, still, unintentionally incorrect. Gary Lockwood calling me a "two-bit blowhard" isn't Ad Hominem fallacy, any more than my reply to him.

Asking me what I think the Pope will do isn't an argument. My refusing to answer Mistuh Lockwood isn't an argument, either. He asked rudely, received a surly, disdainful answer, and that's that. Whoops. . ;-)

"it implies consequences for his actions, not his ability to carry it out."

...and you still haven't shown any such consequences will come from Cuthbert Mayne. That's a Non Sequitur fallacy. On the contrary, any resulting consequences from Pope Francis' failure will come from his own actions, not Cuthbert Mayne or Mccallansteve or anyone else.

You really must stop using "veiled" to introduce claims that weren't made. It's sloppy and those shenanigans simply don't work on me.

"As unlike "walking on water" which would require a miracle,"

St. Peter managed the feat until his faith failed him. So walking on water requires faith. The miracle is incidental. I refer you to Christ's famous comparison to the faith the size of a mustard seed. ;-)

"it is without question within his ability and power to abolish Summorum Pontificum..."

It is without question you haven't shown evidence supporting the claim and with good reason. Pope Francis' current strategy is to "interpret" Summorum Pontificum into meaning the opposite of what it says, not to abolish it. Even in this, the CDF doesn't share The Pope's opinion, much less yours. ;-)

Your tortured interpretations of what Mccallansteve said, the emojis used, or your additonal interpretations of Cuthbert's reply to the former's comment, isn't a quote stating a threat. It's your interpretation which, as I've shown elsewhere, is itself fraught with errors. So again, you haven't shown a threat made by Cuthbert What you have shown is just how far you'll go to invent one.

"I also appreciate the unspoken acknowledgement by your post, (offering a defense, albeit weak, to cuthbert and then asking him to join in) that it takes a tag team to defeat my logical posts."

Your "logical posts" are invariably fallacies. :D Such as, fabricating claims like "and then asking him to join in". That particular "logical postt" is directly contradicted by my own statement, "I'll let Cuthbert address the questions you asked of him."

Since I need to spell it out for you, I'm letting Cuthbert fight his own battles and answer the question you directly asked to him, not to me.

When I defer questions to the person they were originally addressed to, I'm not asking them to answer the questions. I'm stating that I will not answer them. Whether the person being asked chooses to answer your questions or not is their own business. Therefore, I didn't ask Cuthbert to join and your "logical post" is exposed as an outright fabrication.

Again, you're falling back on a bad habit (a long series Strawman fallacies, btw) of introducing claims that weren't made via phrases like "veiled" and "unspoken". In this case the "acknowledgement" was unspoken because no such acknowledgement was ever made in the first place.

...and that, Saveusfromhell, is how logic truly works as you're discovering to your chagrin. ;-)
One more comment from Ultraviolet
Ultraviolet
"Repeating the same mistake to try and adding side arguments to deflect doesn't add any weight to it."

In this case, I should be the one saying that. :D

"i wasn't expecting you to admit you were wrong even though we both know you are."

I see GTV has a new psychic who knows what others think. :P

"Logic is not your strong point."

...said the the user who prides themselves on "logical posts"…More
"Repeating the same mistake to try and adding side arguments to deflect doesn't add any weight to it."

In this case, I should be the one saying that. :D

"i wasn't expecting you to admit you were wrong even though we both know you are."

I see GTV has a new psychic who knows what others think. :P

"Logic is not your strong point."

...said the the user who prides themselves on "logical posts" when they don't know the difference between a post and a comment and the latter are riddled with fallacies.

"increasing it to an essay size to make sure you get the last say."

A mistake is easier to make than it is to correct.

"As we both know your wrong."

"your wrong." I couldn't invent stuff like this if I tried. :D
123jussi
Well we will get another chance to see how brave or cowerdly the clergy are!
Jeffrey Ade
True priest are are courageous! Hirelings are not cool!