Uh-huh. Sure. Any fool can come on a website and say anything.
I've read Patrick's book, and it's quite good, though I wish he had spread his focus to the independents and sedevacantists.
He makes his points well, however. And, his bona fides are well-established.
I'll believe you backed him into a corner when hell freezes over.
Until then, have fun with your "irresistibilities". No doubt you'll be writing a book for The Remnant, Traditio, or any of a number of sectarian sites, trashing Madrid a-la Woods and Ferrara.
Does Gerry Matatics applaud your following a dead archbishop? I doubt it, since Matatics is thoroughly Catholic, and will not renounce John Paul II.
Uh-huh. Sure. Any fool can come on a website and say anything.
True, but irrelevant.
I've read Patrick's book, and it's quite good, though I wish he had spread his focus to the independents and sedevacantists.
Pick a section and we'll go through it together. Line by line. The book is unfocused and makes more logical fallacies than I'd previously thought possible. It is hardly "Inside" and he defines "Extreme" as anyone who criticizes the Pope.(page 12 paragraph 2) His "background" is completely one-sided, sloppy and lacking in important details regarding the back and forth between LeFebvre and the Vatican. The Vatican actions are not even mentioned, just LeFebvre's reactions. The heart of the story is not schism as he states in the opening paragraphs, it is doctrine.
He makes his points well, however. And, his bona fides are well-established.
In Pope Fiction, Yes. In this book, no. He establishes false premises and relies on loaded language to "poison the well" his logic is found wanting when it comes to debating traditionalists. Here's a snippet pieced together from an exchange he and I had on Envoy Encore: http://www.envoymagazine.com/EnvoyEncore/ArchiveWeek.asp?WeekStart=7/25/2004#1962
Patty Bonds: "I just have to say that I'm puzzled when people read two hundred some comments, half of which are hostile, angry, chest beating accusations against the Pope, the Church and against Patrick and Pete and their book"
Gerard: I'm puzzled as to why you're puzzled that someone would rise to defend the Catholic Faith from cloudy-minded, modernist influenced extreme conciliarists when a book is promoted that on its face presents a biased view of the good people of the SSPX.
Patrick Madrid: "Extreme Conciliarist"? Now that's a fun new term! What exactly does it mean, Gerard? And would you apply the term "Extreme Conciliarist" to, say, St. Athanasius, for his stalwart and unswerving defense of the validity and teachings of teh First Council of Nicea against the errors of the Arians?
Gerard: It's like "extreme traditionalist" but with reference to reality. It's the stretching of logic, plain common sense, theology and the doctrines of infallibility and indefectibility to extremes. An overemotional attachment to the conciliar Church and a markedly knee-jerk negative reaction to common sense, particularly when one points out the absurd state of affairs in Christ's Church organization. The sensus catholicus is overshadowed by an emotional and intellectual imbalance. Pride is a major factor, covering up an insecurity that is the result of the loss of grace and consequent guilt by participating in the Conciliar destruction of the Church organization.
"And would you apply the term "Extreme Conciliarist" to, say, St. Athanasius, for his stalwart and unswerving defense of the validity and teachings of teh First Council of Nicea against the errors of the Arians?"
No. St. Athanasius didn't exaggerate the teachings of Nicea or extend the priveleges of the Church beyond all revelation. St. Athanasius by the way withdrew to hiding in a house in to order to avoid the traps set by his enemies. Much like archbishop LeFebvre not walking into the Lion's mouth. Though LeFebve cuts an even more heroic figure than even Athanasius. The crisis that LeFebvre faced and we face is even greater than the Arian Heresy and it encompasses the entire world. (none of this AmChurch nonsense)
I'll believe you backed him into a corner when hell freezes over.
eh. Learn the hard way then. I crossed swords with him on multiple occasions and he floundered each time. This is simply because I didn't challenge him when I knew he was right but only when he's wrong. He's just not willing to admit when he's in over his head. Pride is quite a stumbling block.
Until then, have fun with your "irresistibilities".
Not going to deal with it? That's okay. I see you were afraid to answer the simple question of whether the Pope is irresitible or not. It was a simple "yes" or "no" Remember, make your "yes" mean "yes" and your "no" mean "no".
No doubt you'll be writing a book for The Remnant, Traditio, or any of a number of sectarian sites, trashing Madrid a-la Woods and Ferrara.
Good idea! Thanks for that. But I'm not trashing Madrid. Just his error-filled ideas. He and the other neo-Catholics can't help but lash out since they have so much emotion invested in their errors. Actual Catholic teaching is painful to them, they can't admit that they were wrong, lead down a primrose path and that God is really calling them to defend the faith for real and not just placate lazy-minded baptized Catholics. I don't hate Madrid even though he boils over with anger when he tries to deal with me. I realize that it's just the conflict going on inside him.
Does Gerry Matatics applaud your following a dead archbishop?
Yes. Actually he does. He knows that Catholics have to go to lengths to get proper doctrine and valid sacraments. He goes where the Mass is. He's been to Mel Gibson's independent Church and had Mass with him and his congregation before speaking to them.
I doubt it, since Matatics is thoroughly Catholic, and will not renounce John Paul II.
I guess you haven't heard Matatics speak much about the problems of the current heirarchy. On one of his tape sets "Traditionalists answer their neo-Conservative Critics" he makes a joke about wanting to print up a bumper sticker that says, "Don't blame me, I voted for Cardinal Siri." Also, since your doubt made me think of it, I took Madrid to task on the Matatics vs. Keating brouhaha and left him stammering in fury (again)simply because he was caught contradicting himself and wouldn't 'fess up to it.
On one of Gerry's tapes he is asked if the See is currently vacant. His response? "I don't know."