Indeed, and in my haste I overlooked that. But in quoting your text and bolding it, he associates himself with the remarks and makes them his own. I don't seek a quarrel with either of you. Though I don't post as frequently as many on this board, I hope you realise that my sympathy is with the traditional Latin rite, which I attend at home and as often as possible when away from home. Nevertheless I accept the licitness of the NO, even while finding it unlovely, badly flawed, and practically inviting liturgical innovation and ad libs.
I stand by my remark, that it's "diabolical" in the strict and literal sense of the word, to make one's way by accusing others of sin.
God knows that I grieve over the treachery and evil of those working from within to hollow out the sacraments and redefine the Church and man. I hope I have never shilled for these time-serving frauds, but continue to insist that a cynical and deceitful rebellion cannot justify one that's reactive and embittered.
You make an excellent point in asking whether the AmChurch bishops aren't every bit as schismatic, but Narses wrongs you in appropriating those words to bolster his own defective cause.
"...but Narses wrongs you in appropriating those words to bolster his own defective cause."
Instruct me please brother. What is my "own defective cause"? What is diabolical in acknowledging objective truth? Help me understand my alleged sin here.