Oh really? Does my reputation really proceed me? I think you simply don't know what you're talking about, and ask that you retract your comment.
I simply mean to say that you are not interested in intelectual honesty when it comes to catholasim. You do not deal with the contradictions of tradition and dogma that are clearly a problem in your tradition. You have gone out of your way to belittle others and then hide behind your acusation of their huberis by saying they wont submit to authority. If that is untrue or inacruate then I will retract that statement.
This article is case in point; their were obvious fabrications based on assumptions that are making the text and common sense stand on it's head. But I clearly see the mark of man made tradition and the monopoly of catholasims behind them. To state that an angel has no body based on the simple statement that they " are neither married nor given in marriage" is taking it too far.
This article is repleat with many of these flagrent speculations presented as truth.
That sir, is what I have noted that you do not deal with.
Do not call the scripture "SACRED" if you regard it as some sort of a meaningless joke.