|
Post by monkeyman on Feb 16, 2010 20:52:19 GMT
quote author=monkeyman board=tlm thread=142 post=7153 time=1266353112]This is not a breaking news. Bishop Tissiers de Malerais had said several times that Pope Benedict mentioned heresies. Maybe he was quoting Cardinal or Bishop Ratzinger, known to be quite liberal in his youth. Well yes and no. Firstly I've always thought there is something inherently weird about laymen supposing and surmising about what goes on in clerical circles especially ones related to the SSPX- they often speak in the same terms and reverential awe that most normal men reserve to their favourite football club...don't these guys have any lives?? The other thing is Ratzinger was never what can be properly termed a liberal, radical in his thought yes but wanting to make the basics of the faith clearer. The SSPX don't care about this as they are only able to speak of the Church in political terminology. How many of the Fathers of the Society of St Pius X study patrisitics to any level? I doubt you will find any, they think Thomas Aquinas invented the wheel. A very good friend of mine who years ago had flirted for a time with atheism, read himself purposely into a variety of faiths- he read Ratzingers "Introduction to Christianity"- he quickly returned to Catholic practise- so much for a man who for when he wrote the book, was castigated as being liberal/modernist. The SSPX fail to appreciate that it just might be possible that the likes of the Arch-conservaties of the conciliar era, Ottaviani, Bacci et al may have been a tad OTT. As someone said recently...if you want to know why there are liberals then look at the way the conservatives act.[/quote] [/blockquote] No doubt what I have just said will seem like blasphemy to SSPX ears but thats only because their entire worldview relies upon these persons who are central to the Pixie take on Vatcan II.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 17, 2010 11:52:01 GMT
Monkeyman; I know nothing whatsoever about the abbe de Nantes except that he was an ultra-traditionalist who at one time was close to the Pixies; I get the impression somewhere that he verged on sedevacantism if he didn't fall over. I asked for prayers for him on the news of his death as a matter of Christian charity, not because I have any sympathy with him. If Redmond died tomorrow I would ask for prayers for the repose of his soul in the same way, but that doesn't mean I have any respect for his witterings.
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Feb 17, 2010 19:38:40 GMT
Since it is the Holy season of Lent I am compelled more than usual to admit my lack of charity. So yes you are right. But, in some ways it was motivated by charity for the Office of the Pope. I'm not sure if you've read the late Abbé de Nantes "open letters" to the Holy Father? Well I've read a few and they really are bad...the shocking familiarity towards the Pope and accusing nature of the language contained therein should be noxious to the nose of any Catholic who loves his faith.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 18, 2010 12:59:44 GMT
Sounds like that Attila Sinke Guimaraes piece on "Why John Paul II should not be canonised" I fisked recently. It is amazing how some radtrads sound exactly like Paisleyites when discussing the Vatican.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 18, 2010 13:06:55 GMT
Part of the problem with the "everything begins and ends with Aquinas" mindset is that it fails to take account of the extent to which Thomism rests on certain intellectual assumptions and is therefore not fully accessible to those who don't share them. The patristic turn was meant to take account of this. There is an oddity who writes for CHRISTIAN ORDER whom I frequently mention because my brief acquaintance with his writings fills me with such horror. When denouncing "The Heresies of Joseph Ratzinger" (back when JR was Prefect of the CDF) he declared that attachment to St. Augustine was inherently suspicious and mentioned all Augustine's youthful vagaries (which we know about, of course, because he himself confessed them). One got the distinct impression that if he dared this man would have called St. Augustine a heretic; he also claimed the Orthodox Churches are not Christian at all. I think this reflected the same hyper-pseudo-Thomist mindset.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Feb 19, 2010 7:49:33 GMT
Monkeyman; I know nothing whatsoever about the abbe de Nantes except that he was an ultra-traditionalist who at one time was close to the Pixies; I get the impression somewhere that he verged on sedevacantism if he didn't fall over. I asked for prayers for him on the news of his death as a matter of Christian charity, not because I have any sympathy with him. If Redmond died tomorrow I would ask for prayers for the repose of his soul in the same way, but that doesn't mean I have any respect for his witterings. Abbé de Nantes never belonged to the SSPX. He was a rebel priest who created the "Contre Réforme Catholique". Abbé de Nantes suffered from a Suspens a divinis, but never was excommunicated. This is the article from Wiki concerning his movement : The League for Catholic Counter-Reformation (Ligue de la contre-réforme catholique in French-language, also known as CRC), is a nationalist and ultramontane organization founded in 1967 by Georges de Nantes, a former abbot who was suspended a divinis on 25 August 1966.[1] The movement is composed of two religious communities in Saint-Parres-lès-Vaudes, in the Aube department, and in Quebec. [edit] Beliefs The CRC defends the thesis of the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin.The CRC denounces Vatican II, which it considers as invalid and accused of many errors because it was not submitted to the pope infallibility. For example, the movement denounces the ecumenical dialogue and worship of man. The CRC also denounces all religious freedom in the world as well as the freedom of conscience in the Roman Catholic Church, while recognizing that the principle of equality between religions runs counter to the notion of truth taught by Christ. Georges de Nantes and deacon Bruno Bonnet-Eymard defend the thesis of the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. According to the CRC, the relic was a victim of "fraud" in the carbon 14 analysis in 1988, fraud "premeditated" by the "mafia" of Freemasons ; the 1997 fire, which seriously damaged the Cathedral of Turin, where the Shroud is kept, would be a "final solution" found by "these hidden forces, that Freemasonry".[2] [edit] Status The organization is outside the Catholic Church which had suspended a divinis Georges de Nantes before he founded the CRC. In 2001, Georges de Nantes was struck by a forbidden to celebrate, give and receive the sacraments anywhere. This is the highest penalty before excommunication. The CRC is not recognized by the Catholic bishops. The community of the "Petits Frères et Petites Sœurs du Sacré-Cœur", which belongs to the CRC, was considered as a cult by French Commission on Cults in the 1995 report.[3] [4] In 1997, the Belgian parliamentary commission established a list of 189 movements containing the CRC (see Groups referred to as cults in government documents).
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 19, 2010 12:13:21 GMT
I notice that for him it was not enough to argue that the Shroud of Turin is genuine. (For the record, I think it probably isn't though I'm not sure about it.) He couldn't admit that there could be any room for doubt on the subject, so of course any evidence to the contrary had to be forged by the Freemasons. I wonder what he thought of Fr. Herbert Thurston's discovery c.1930 that around the time of its first appearance a bishop recorded that he had not only prohibited the display of a shroud of this type, but had hauled the artist before his court and got him to confess how he did it? This is not absolutely conclusive (it's not absolutely clear it was the same shroud; since we are not told how it was done, the artist's confession could be dismissed as under duress; the photonegative image is certainly remarkable) but it's highly suspicious. Better to use it as a devotional aid, as one might use a picture, without asserting that it proves anything.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 23, 2010 12:19:11 GMT
There is a whole load of material which I wish to address, and I may not be able to do it justice in one post, but bear with me. I think some of the last posts in this and related threads are driving toward an SSPX mentality. If there is such a thing forming, we can take it for granted that there is a schism and if this is not healed in the ongoing talks, there will a new denomination in Christianity (BTW, the circle of believers that inedifix posted on the atheist board was inadequate and I always thought an agnostic was someone who believed the existence of God could neither be proved or disproved - but that is a separate matter). But let's get back to the discussion. First Beinidict's post: a couple of dated letters from the Irish Catholic. The excommunications were lifted in 2009, but the debate as to whether they existed between 1988 and 2009 is still current. Well, one of the correspondence is writing his own parables and showing historical ignorance of the events leading up to Summorum Pontificum and other concessions - and the role of Archbishop LeFebvre in any of them. The problem is the elevation of the person of Archbishop LeFebvre and the institution of the SSPX as a person and an institution above criticism. Basically the President of the LMSI posed a case which was critical of the SSPX position on the excommunication, but this criticism was open-ended. Indeed it was a question: 1. The Holy See guarranteed the SSPX a bishop from their own ranks on 15 August 1988 in the Protocol of Accord of 5 May 1988; 2. Archbishop LeFebvre repudiated the Protocol a few weeks later and then cited the relevant sections of the Code of Canon Law; 3. He and Bishop de Castro-Meyer consecrated 4 bishops on 30 June - all were declared to be excommunicated; and 4. Both consecrating bishops were still alive for nearly three years after the events - Archbishop LeFebvre died in March 1991 and Bishop de Castro-Meyer died in April 1991. Now the point, as I understand it, is this. Archbishop LeFebvre repudiated the agreement on the grounds of immediate necessity, and out of suspicion Rome would renege on the agreement. He may have been justified in suspecting Rome would renege - but he did not wait a further seven weeks, between 30 June and 15 August, to see. He wasn't the only 'traditional' bishop in the world at the time - Bishop de Castro-Meyer was also around. And both lived over two and a half years after the date Rome announced for the consecration of an SSPX bishop and the regularisation of its chapels. As I said, the Archbishop may have been right in his suspicions of Rome. But he didn't wait to see - he went ahead and consecrated the four bishops. This weakens his case of necessity. Anyway, the case of necessity made by the Archbishop comes very close to stating the Church was defectible (I don't know what Redmond is even thinking about in his reply). The case of necessity as envisaged by canon law relates to a region, for example China, where the faith might suffer permanent loss without immediate action. This is not what Archbishop LeFebvre was dealing with. BTW, I am not saying he had no case, nor do I believe the letter makes that point - I am saying it is possible to question him. The problem is that SSPX adherents don't believe the Archbishop or his motives are open to question. This is a hallmark of a cult. I'll come back to this, but I have more excommunication remarks. We all have heard of the case of the Honolulu Six. This was where Bishop Ferrario of Honolulu excommunicated six lay people who were involved in an independent chapel and who invited one of the SSPX bishops to confirm their children. The Holy See overturned the excommunication and it received a lot of publicity. Sometime later, Bishop Bruskevitz of Lincoln, Nebraska excommunicated members of eight specific groups. These included SSPX supporters, freemasons and members of Call to Action. As far I am aware, these excommunications still stand (the SSPX or its supporters never appealed; Call to Action did and the excommunications were upheld). The key difference between the Honolulu and Lincoln dioceses was that Bishop Bruskewitz was more than accomodating to trads in his diocese - to the extent of building an FSSP seminary in Denton and allowing all his priests to use whichever form of the Roman Mass they choose in advance of Summorum Pontificum. The point is that there isn't a one size fits all response to the current crisis in the Catholic Church. Bishop Bruskewitz central point is that the SSPX cannot claim, as they do, that they are in union with Rome when they refuse unity with the local bishop appointed by the Bishop of Rome. See these links: www.sspx.org/diocesan_dialogues/Lincoln_diocese1.pdf; www.sspx.org/diocesan_dialogues/Lincoln_diocese2.pdf; and www.sspx.org/diocesan_dialogues/Lincoln_diocese3.pdfTo return to the original point, Beinidict also posts Bishop Williamson's infamous condemnation of The Sound of Music. In a way, what is at issue here is not the bishop's opinions, which are simply nutty, but rather the attitude of SSPX adherents to them. Some brave souls, J. Christopher Pryor is an example (and please remind me - a long term SSPX supporter in England - I forget her name), have spoken out. Most don't - and even attack those who do. This is while they are well able to demolish any bishop in communion with the Bishop of Rome - see the letters to Bishop Bruskewitz' in the links. This is an example of a cultic mentality which has been developing for some time. To touch on what Monkeyman and Hibernicus have been saying above, the Abbé de Nantes maintained a distance from the SSPX and Archbishop LeFebvre reciprocated (wisely, I think). However, a lot of the Abbé de Nantes anti-papal rants have found their way into SSPX rhetoric. Archbishop LeFebvre is dead nearly 19 years now and there has been a lot of water under the bridge since then - not least in the election of a bishop as superior general of the SSPX against his originally stated wishes. The society assumed a life of its own. Whether that may be accomodated within the Church or not will be determined by the current dialogue (not by my views - I will follow Peter in the matter), but whether the dialogue succeeds remains to be seen.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Feb 23, 2010 16:13:03 GMT
There is a whole load of material which I wish to address, and I may not be able to do it justice in one post, but bear with me. I think some of the last posts in this and related threads are driving toward an SSPX mentality. If there is such a thing forming, we can take it for granted that there is a schism and if this is not healed in the ongoing talks, there will a new denomination in Christianity (BTW, the circle of believers that inedifix posted on the atheist board was inadequate and I always thought an agnostic was someone who believed the existence of God could neither be proved or disproved - but that is a separate matter). But let's get back to the discussion. First Beinidict's post: a couple of dated letters from the Irish Catholic. The excommunications were lifted in 2009, but the debate as to whether they existed between 1988 and 2009 is still current. Well, one of the correspondence is writing his own parables and showing historical ignorance of the events leading up to Summorum Pontificum and other concessions - and the role of Archbishop LeFebvre in any of them. The problem is the elevation of the person of Archbishop LeFebvre and the institution of the SSPX as a person and an institution above criticism. Basically the President of the LMSI posed a case which was critical of the SSPX position on the excommunication, but this criticism was open-ended. Indeed it was a question: 1. The Holy See guarranteed the SSPX a bishop from their own ranks on 15 August 1988 in the Protocol of Accord of 5 May 1988; 2. Archbishop LeFebvre repudiated the Protocol a few weeks later and then cited the relevant sections of the Code of Canon Law; 3. He and Bishop de Castro-Meyer consecrated 4 bishops on 30 June - all were declared to be excommunicated; and 4. Both consecrating bishops were still alive for nearly three years after the events - Archbishop LeFebvre died in March 1991 and Bishop de Castro-Meyer died in April 1991. Now the point, as I understand it, is this. Archbishop LeFebvre repudiated the agreement on the grounds of immediate necessity, and out of suspicion Rome would renege on the agreement. He may have been justified in suspecting Rome would renege - but he did not wait a further seven weeks, between 30 June and 15 August, to see. He wasn't the only 'traditional' bishop in the world at the time - Bishop de Castro-Meyer was also around. And both lived over two and a half years after the date Rome announced for the consecration of an SSPX bishop and the regularisation of its chapels. As I said, the Archbishop may have been right in his suspicions of Rome. But he didn't wait to see - he went ahead and consecrated the four bishops. This weakens his case of necessity. Anyway, the case of necessity made by the Archbishop comes very close to stating the Church was defectible (I don't know what Redmond is even thinking about in his reply). The case of necessity as envisaged by canon law relates to a region, for example China, where the faith might suffer permanent loss without immediate action. This is not what Archbishop LeFebvre was dealing with. BTW, I am not saying he had no case, nor do I believe the letter makes that point - I am saying it is possible to question him. The problem is that SSPX adherents don't believe the Archbishop or his motives are open to question. This is a hallmark of a cult. I'll come back to this, but I have more excommunication remarks. We all have heard of the case of the Honolulu Six. This was where Bishop Ferrario of Honolulu excommunicated six lay people who were involved in an independent chapel and who invited one of the SSPX bishops to confirm their children. The Holy See overturned the excommunication and it received a lot of publicity. Sometime later, Bishop Bruskevitz of Lincoln, Nebraska excommunicated members of eight specific groups. These included SSPX supporters, freemasons and members of Call to Action. As far I am aware, these excommunications still stand (the SSPX or its supporters never appealed; Call to Action did and the excommunications were upheld). The key difference between the Honolulu and Lincoln dioceses was that Bishop Bruskewitz was more than accomodating to trads in his diocese - to the extent of building an FSSP seminary in Denton and allowing all his priests to use whichever form of the Roman Mass they choose in advance of Summorum Pontificum. The point is that there isn't a one size fits all response to the current crisis in the Catholic Church. Bishop Bruskewitz central point is that the SSPX cannot claim, as they do, that they are in union with Rome when they refuse unity with the local bishop appointed by the Bishop of Rome. See these links: www.sspx.org/diocesan_dialogues/Lincoln_diocese1.pdf; www.sspx.org/diocesan_dialogues/Lincoln_diocese2.pdf; and www.sspx.org/diocesan_dialogues/Lincoln_diocese3.pdfTo return to the original point, Beinidict also posts Bishop Williamson's infamous condemnation of The Sound of Music. In a way, what is at issue here is not the bishop's opinions, which are simply nutty, but rather the attitude of SSPX adherents to them. Some brave souls, J. Christopher Pryor is an example (and please remind me - a long term SSPX supporter in England - I forget her name), have spoken out. Most don't - and even attack those who do. This is while they are well able to demolish any bishop in communion with the Bishop of Rome - see the letters to Bishop Bruskewitz' in the links. This is an example of a cultic mentality which has been developing for some time. To touch on what Monkeyman and Hibernicus have been saying above, the Abbé de Nantes maintained a distance from the SSPX and Archbishop LeFebvre reciprocated (wisely, I think). However, a lot of the Abbé de Nantes anti-papal rants have found their way into SSPX rhetoric. Archbishop LeFebvre is dead nearly 19 years now and there has been a lot of water under the bridge since then - not least in the election of a bishop as superior general of the SSPX against his originally stated wishes. The society assumed a life of its own. Whether that may be accomodated within the Church or not will be determined by the current dialogue (not by my views - I will follow Peter in the matter), but whether the dialogue succeeds remains to be seen. Alasdair, the problem of this forum (despite the atheists) is that there is no members or sympathizers of the SSPX. I won't mind to try to defend her, but i don't think i would do a good job. I might contact some of my friend I know from another forum, who is 500 % SSPX but i am not sure of his level of English. I say that because I think it is not fair to attack or critic the Society while there is nobody to respond and/or the expose another point of view.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Feb 23, 2010 17:14:04 GMT
The 1988 consecrations had different motivations :
1) The infamous Assise gathering in 1986. This kind of gathering for "peace" had been condemned by different popes before JPII, including Saint Pie X and Leo XIII.
2) The confirmation by JPII and Cardinal Ratzringer of the Religious liberty. Condemned also by many popes the false liberty aknowledges every religion the right to preach and practice errors in opposition to the Gospel.
Because of this, Bishop Lefebvre did not have any trust in the Post conciliar Catholic Church and its main leaders. So yes, his act is justified by the case of necessity. In order to maintain that he believed to be the pure and authentic tradition of the Catholic Church, and the Mass of course, bishop Lefebvre had no option but to go ahead regarding the consecration of the 4 bishops.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Feb 23, 2010 19:46:26 GMT
The 1988 consecrations had different motivations : 1) The infamous Assise gathering in 1986. This kind of gathering for "peace" had been condemned by different popes before JPII, including Saint Pie X and Leo XIII. 2) The confirmation by JPII and Cardinal Ratzringer of the Religious liberty. Condemned also by many popes the false liberty aknowledges every religion the right to preach and practice errors in opposition to the Gospel. Because of this, Bishop Lefebvre did not have any trust in the Post conciliar Catholic Church and its main leaders. So yes, his act is justified by the case of necessity. In order to maintain that he believed to be the pure and authentic tradition of the Catholic Church, and the Mass of course, bishop Lefebvre had no option but to go ahead regarding the consecration of the 4 bishops. Guillaume, if you said you might have a point. As it stands, you are dodging the question - had Archbishop LeFebvre waited another 7 weeks for Rome to renege on its commitment to consecrate an SSPX bishop, his hand would have been strengthened. As he didn't, it is clear he was only justifying himself, that he committed the sin of despair - that he believed the Church was defectible without his disobedience. Yes - that helps the case for the prosecution here - and the advocatus diaboli in the cause for the canonisation of Marcel Lefebvre. BTW, how does consecrating a nutty Protestant like Dickie Williamson, a man who clearly has no sensus Catholicus, I'll answer the question. It doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by hythlodaye on Feb 28, 2010 21:37:03 GMT
I've been following the argument about the SSPX for quite some time now, and I feel I should join in, tentatively--even though the arrogance of some of the Pixies annoys me intensely. However: 1) The word "schism" is not an adequate description for the situation of the Lefebvrists as a whole . It does not correspond with the term as used in the code of canon law. Yes, I know that what Lefebvre and those he ordained bishops did was described a "schismatic act" but in fact it wasn't. However, they DID incur the automatic penalty of excommunication for disobedience. They are the only people involved who can be known with certainty to be excommunicated latae sententiae. The Vatican body which deals with these matters--the-something-or-other for the Interpretation of Texts (don't have time to look up the full title now) says the priests MAY well be guilty of schism in the internal forum, but no one has the right to say they definitely are. As for the laity involved, unless they have refused communion with the Catholic Church, they are not in schism. Most canonists would maintain that there is no sin involved in attending an SSPX Mass, provided one does so for devotion and not because one believes the Novus Ordo to be invalid. They also say auch attendance can fulfil the Sunday obligation. Indeed, a footnote in Canon Law, Letter and Spirit (I think that's the title) says it can reasonably be argued that one may fulfil one's Sunday obligation by attending even an Eastern Orthodox Mass. If I am wrong (and of course I could be) would someone who knows what they are talking about please put me right, as I myself have frequently attended SSPX Masses and I would prefer not to endanger my eternal salvation. Bishop Bruskewitz was quite within his rights in declaring the Pixies in his diocese excommunicate. He is one of the few bishops fulfilling the wishes of Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI as expressed in Ecclesia Dei and Summorum Pontificum by making generous provision for the Extraordinary Form. Another point (and it's a question I haven't yet answered to my own satisfaction): Can it not be plausibly argued that the situation of much of the Church was in just as serious a state of emergency in the 1980s as it was in the fourth century when St Athanasius ordained his own bishops for dioceses in North Africa in the hands of heretical Arian bishops? You will recall that Athanasius was excommunicated by (I think) Pope Liberius for doing so. Is there not a disturbing parallel here? One final point: It's been suggested that the Lutherans are part of the Mystical Body. In that case, what about the SSPX. Are THEY?
|
|
|
Post by monkeyman on Feb 28, 2010 22:33:49 GMT
I must remember not to hit the back button when trying to post...just lost an hour of work on answering this....
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 1, 2010 17:40:52 GMT
In response to Hylothdaye: I seem to remember that at the time of the excommunications a number of Econe seminarians signed a letter to Rome in which they declared that they associated with the bishops' actions and asked to be excommunicated as well. That certainly suggests a schismatic mentality. I am personally slightly surprised that Rome did not uphold the Honolulu excommunications, because those excommunicated did not merely attend SSPX masses; they brought a SSPX bishop into the diocese to administer communion {this should be "confirmation - the point is lost unless you realise this is an act which is clearly reserved to the diocesan bishop - Mea culpa for the slip - Editor} to their children. If that is not refusal of communion with the local bishop who is himself in communion with Rome (whatever Bishop Ferrario's failings, which I understand were extremely numerous) I find it hard to understand what qualifies as such.
St. Athanasius was the Patriarch of Alexandria - an apostolic see deriving from St. Mark. Archbishop Lefebvre did not have comparable standing. (BTW my understanding is that Athanasius did not merely consecrate bishops to replace Arians - he deposed and replaced Bishops who were Semi-Arian - that is, they might have been orthodox in their personal belief but were not prepared to unambiguously exclude Arians from communion. This I think makes a much stronger parallel for the Lefebvrist claim than the way hylothdaye states it.)
Some sort of formula about grace has been reached with the Lutherans (though I understand arguments are still going on about it). This does not mean that Lutherans are part of the visible church, if that is what you mean by the Mystical Body. If you mean the invisible Church Triumphant on earth and in heaven, then I daresay many virtuous good-faith Lutherans and members of other heretical and schismatic bodies are part of it but as individuals rather than members of those bodies. the same would apply to individual SSPX members.
|
|
|
Post by hythlodaye on Mar 17, 2010 21:16:33 GMT
In reply to Hibernicus: Yes, the strictures by you and others about the SSPX are quite justified, but nevertheless I would make the following points. 1) It is true that Lefebvre did not have a standing comparable with that of St Athanasius, but he had a very important position all the same--the post of Superior-General of the Holy Ghost Fathers was very prestigious. His record as a missionary in Africa was at least equal to that of anyone else in the last century. Supposing his position HAD been as important as that of Athanasius, would that have made his case even stronger? I doubt it. 2) There is surely considerable strength in the argument proposed by many of those sympathetic to the SSPX (though not necessarily part of it) which went, roughly: If Weakland and Hunthausen (and one could add Mahony) are inside the Church, how can one possibly say that Lefebvre was outside? What I find astonishing is that Rome was able to move so quickly against the Pixies and never got round to dealing with some of the most egregious episcopal heretics. 3) Bishop Ferrario, if I remember correctly, could barely be described as a Catholic. I think I might have done the same thing as the Honolulu Pixies. 4) Surely one should not try to more Catholic than Benedict XVI? He is doing his utmost, in charity, to reconcile the Pixies, and even allowed them to celebrate a High Mass in St Mary Major. It is difficult, I agree, to be charitable about them when they pitch their demands so absurdly high. Also, the political views of some of them are simply rebarbative. 5) All the same, I think we should never forget that without the SSPX, it is extremely doubtful that we would have got Ecclesia Dei--the foundation for Summorum Pontificum. Thanks for this thread; I think it's very important, and I have no doubt I will learn a lot more through the contributions of yourself, Alasdair and Monkeyman.
|
|