Posted on 09/02/2005 6:51:01 PM PDT by jec1ny
Again, according to whom?
The facts of the case.
The Pope excommunicated the SSPX. Period. Done.
You should really learn about the case before you try and argue it. JPII never formally excommunicated them. He declared them to have excommunicated themselves. This is of course a non-sequitur and the Pontiff taking it upon himself to judge the interior disposition of the men involved and ignore their stated reasons for their actions.
The Pope could of course lift the excommunications, assuming certain unspecified conditions are met.
He could declare the excommunications null. That would be the honest answer. And he needs no conditions. He can do it all on his own.
But once again, the excommunicated doesn't get to decide if they really are excommunicated.
And the Popes can't excommunicate whomever they feel like excommunicating. Reality has a habit of getting in their wasy.
Actually, thinking like that is why you folks got excommunicated in the first place.
I'm not declared excommunicated. I'm in good standing. My local priests encourage me to keep going to the SSPX because it is so good. They are complimenting the orthodoxy and the ability of them to speak from the pulpits Catholic doctrine without getting into trouble from their superiors. Again, learn the facts. It's only the bishops who have been unjustly persecuted with the sentence. The priests are not formally declared to have been excommunicated either. They are supposedly "suspended a divinis."
Dear Gerard.P,
It is your opinion that the excommunication is invalid.
You appear to be at odds with Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.
Get back to me when you are no longer at odds with the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church.
Thanks,
sitetest
Not lifting the excommunications. Declaring them null.
The arrogance grows exponentially!!
The position hasn't changed since 1988.
At first, I thought you were playing semantics games. But actually, you don't just want the excommunication lifted, you want to pretend there never was (real) excommunication in the first place. Keep dreaming.
The SSPX are interested in reality not canonical lies. It's amazing that the Church authorities are giving numerous invalid annulments for valid marriages because they like divorce but you think they won't actually have to make an accounting for ecclesiastical crimes against the innocent.
Do you think because your excommunicable and schismatic (and gravely sinful)
Telling the truth is not excommunicable. Schism doesn't even enter the equation. If it did, I wouldn't think the Pope had the authority to excommunicate or legislate. None of my "behavior" is sinful.
behavior comes from the theologically right (as in direction, not correctness) side of the Church,
There is no theological "left or right" the truth is the truth and it sits on no political side. Conservatives and Progressives in the Church are both contributors to the modernist heresy running rampant in the Church.
you're somehow better than the out and proud homos who also try to cover their own guilt by convincing the Church to approve their behavior and pretend it was never really wrong to begin with? Crazy.
Irrelevant. False ecumenism and religous liberty are not the teaching of the Church. It has no basis in history. It's not a doctrine. Stating the obvious, that the last few Popes have been derelict in their duty and have been willingly or unwillingly (it doesn't matter) diminishing the papacy to the form and shape that Hans Kung has envisioned is not a sin. Resisting them in this endeavor is also not a sin.
Obviously the comparison with gays holds no water. Being correct is not being "better" than anyone. And, as long as the "homos" are still alive they have a chance for redemption like anyone else. The Church has never approved of any sinful sexual practices. Though in recent years those in charge have turned a blind eye to those standing in line for communions dressed immodestly, shacking up, engaging in all sorts of perversity including homosexuality. But they don't get told it's a sin anymore in the confessional. And let's not talk of the wolves who protect pedophiles and the Pope who protected the wolves.
You should run for Pope, since you seem to have all the answers!
Implicit in this is the manifestation I've been talking about. That the Pope somehow has "all the answers." Why is St. Thomas Aquinas and all of those other Doctors of the Church given any creedence? They weren't Popes. Why are "all the answers" that I have which are merely reiterations of previous Popes, Councils, theologians not worth anything? Are they "untrue" now?
I feel sad for you, brother. I will pray for you and your ilk.
The feeling is mutual. Because you've lost (or never had) that spirit of combat for the truth that is the hallmark of the Church Militant. The unwillingness to address real doctrinal points that I've raised and instead going into flames over issues of protocols which are not part of the Catholic Doctrine is evidence of the sad state of things, where in the "conciliar" part of the Church, there is more emphasis on protocol and politics than there is on truth.
It is your opinion that the excommunication is invalid.
So you're willing to concede that excommunications can be invalid?
You appear to be at odds with Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.
We could get into the facts of the case and I could show you where JPII and then Cardinal Ratzinger are in error. By the way, where is it stated that one must love the opinions and policies of the Pope?
Get back to me when you are no longer at odds with the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church.
Again, you don't want to face the precedent in history and inevitable scenario of when a Pope is at odds with a predecessor. And also you seem unwilling to admit that the Supreme Pontiff is not guaranteed that he will not be at odds with the perennial magisterium of the Church. Again, I cite St. Paul. " I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. 7 Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
Dear Gerard.P,
I explicitly stated that I have no desire at all to review your arguments against the Catholic Church once again:
"(not that I want to rehash arguments that have been argued more times than I can count at FreeRepublic, thank you very much)"
I have read and considered these arguments, and from individuals far worthier and better at presenting them than you. I find them without merit.
I will repeat, I DO NOT WISH TO REHASH THIS GARBAGE ANOTHER TIME WITH ANOTHER SUPPORTER OF THE SCHISMATIC SSPX.
Go peddle your stuff elsewhere.
If you insist that our conversations pursue your ideas about how right the schism is and how wrong the Catholic Church is, I would prefer that you just not post to me, at all.
I believe I've asked you not to post to me in the past. I didn't initiate the current conversation with you, but hoped that by providing a mild response, and stating explicitly, but kindly, that I have no wish to go through various SSPX theories again, that you would take the hint and act like a gentleman.
So far, you have not.
In the time that I engaged with supporters of the SSPX schism, I tried very hard to post charitably. For the times I may have failed to post charitably, I've asked forgiveness. For any uncharitable remarks I may have made and for which I have not sought forgiveness, I ask for it here and now.
However, after going around the same block 50 or 60 times with posters who did a much better job of it than you, I determined a few things. First, I wasn't going to persuade them, and they certainly hadn't persuaded me. Second, it was becoming increasingly difficult to maintain a charitable attitude in conversation for me, and I saw that all of these posters had lost any pretense of charity toward those who opposed them. Third, I certainly wasn't having any fun.
On the first point, I became convinced that the best thing to do was to withdraw from direct confrontation and conflict with the followers of the SSPX schism, and just pray for these folks. I pray for specific posters who have posted here at FR, and in general that the SSPX might return to full communion with the Catholic Church. You may think I'm praying for the wrong thing - that's fine - you pray to God for what you think is the right thing, and if we both seek Him with a sincere heart, He'll work it out. I trust Him.
On the second point, I came to the conclusion that although, with a lot of the grace of God, I might be able to maintain charity in posting, it was becoming apparent that the supporters of the SSPX schism were unable. I don't care to post to folks who will sin in posting back to me.
On the third point, I remember when I was studying clinical psychology in graduate school many years ago, that we would say that a mentally ill person would be "perseverating" when he engaged over and over in repetitive, futile, and meaningless behaviors. This was actually taken as a symptom of certain forms of mental illness. This technical observation translates, in the vernacular, to, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
In the case of some, it might be further refined to, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results, and enjoying it when the same futile results are achieved."
In any event, I found that I was not, at least regarding this particular topic, insane. I didn't enjoy the flame wars we had here at FR, and eventually, my method of dealing with them was to try to avoid posting directly to supporters of the SSPX schism at all. Eventually, I found that we could engage in conversations unrelated to these specific matters, and enjoy fruitful, charitable conversation.
But to the degree that I possibly could, I otherwise refrained from posting.
That's worked pretty well for me.
Now, I will say more explicitly to you, Gerard.P. Be a gentleman and refrain from persisting in foisting your arguments, which I considered and found wanting some years ago, on me.
If you would like to engage in discussions of other matters, and you believe that you can refrain from veering back into this topic, then I welcome conversation with you.
Otherwise, don't post to me again.
Thank you,
sitetest
OK, then it is upon you to prove why it was invalid.
LeFebvre's comments over the 20 year period prior to and leading up to his death on the state of emergency in the Church shows that LeFebvre was acting in good faith for the good of the Church. There is no evidence to indicate that he did not believe that the Church was and is in a serious crisis.
Direct from the SSPX.org website:
Now, the excommunication warned of on June 17, for abuse of episcopal powers (canon 1382), was not incurred because:
A person who violates a law out of necessity* is not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of necessity:
1 And yet objectively there is.
If one inculpably thought there was, he would not incur the penalty (canon 1323, 70),
and if one culpably thought there was, he would still incur no automatic penalties2 (canon 1324, §3; §1, 80).
FOOTNOTES FOR ITEM 1 * ("The state of necessity, as it is explained by jurists, is a state in which the necessary goods for natural or supernatural life are so threatened that one is morally compelled to break the law in order to save them." (Is Tradition Excommunicated? p. 26 [APPENDIX II])
2 Excommunication for unlawful consecrations (canon 1382) or schism (canon 1364) are of this kind.
No penalty is ever incurred without committing a subjective mortal sin (canons 1321 §1, 1323 70). Now, Archbishop Lefebvre made it amply clear that he was bound in conscience to do what he could do to continue the Catholic priesthood and that he was obeying God in going ahead with the consecrations (Cf. The Sermon of June 30, 1988, and Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p. 136 [APPENDIX II]). Hence, even if he had been wrong, there would be no subjective sin.
Most importantly, positive law is at the service of the natural and eternal law and ecclesiastical law is at that of the divine law (PRINCIPLE 8). No “authority,” [PRINCIPLE 9] can force a bishop to compromise in his teaching of Catholic faith or administering of Catholic sacraments. No “law,” can force him to cooperate in the destruction of the Church. With Rome giving no guarantee of preserving Catholic Tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre had to do what he could with his God-given episcopal powers to guarantee its preservation. This was his duty as a bishop.
The Church’s approving the Society of Saint Pius X (QUESTION 2) allow it what it needs for its own preservation. This includes the service of bishops who will guarantee to maintain Catholic tradition.
Lfebvre was warned explicitly. He had foreknowledge that what he was doing was disobedience to the Magisterium and would have consequences.
Wrong use of the word, "Magisterium" LeFebvre did not disobey the Magisterium. He disobeyed the Pope and the Curia.
Second, Canon Law provides for LeFebvre's subjective state. Even if he was wrong, he couldn't be given the full penalty.
He chose to cross the line anyway. He was then excommunicated. Don't come crying afterward saying that it was all unfair. Lfebvre was clearly guilty.
Let's see what is clear. The Church is in a crisis and has been since the Council ended. JPII did nothing by his own admission to administer discipline to the modernists. Card. Ratzinger has yet to see the period of the Church after the Council being good. The whole reason he is Pope is because of this destruction. Otherwise knownd at the "Springtime of Vatican II". Card. Law is avoiding indictment for protecting child molesters. All of which was JPII's responsibility as Pope. He did nothing. He and his predecessor virtually destroyed all reverent liturgy even at papal circuses that were called "masses".
Schism of course, was never mentioned in the canonical warning. (but why should the Vatican follow the rules they've established?)
And if the SSPX is truly Catholic, then it should be obedient to the Pope and to the Magisterium. In being disobedient, the SSPX is explicitly not being Catholic.
Based on what? Obedience is a subordinate virtue to Justice. And Vatican I demands "true obedience" not servility (ie. false obedience)
Either that, or they must believe that the post-V2 Popes are impostors with no authority.
Nope. As explained above Obedience is not absolute except to God himself. And Popes are fully capable of retaining their office and trying to destroy the Church. The sedes and the Neos both suffer from this inaccurate view of the papacy.
That would make you sedevacantists, which is an even bigger can of worms.
Nope. Your train of thought has derailed two points back.
But then again, when you're having deathbed delusions of being on a mission from God, you can make the rules up as you go along I guess.
I'm not the one making it up as I go along. Everything I've stated has a doctrinal position. Just once, explain to me this aery faery concept of papal impeccability and absolute obedience to that impeccability.
I explicitly stated that I have no desire at all to review your arguments against the Catholic Church once again:
Correction: They aren't arguments against the Catholic Church. They are arguments concerning the crisis within the Church and they relate to your posts which contain many mistatements of fact, non-sequiturs and answers that have no basis in the teaching of the Church.
I have read and considered these arguments, and from individuals far worthier and better at presenting them than you. I find them without merit.
My motivation is not based on your being convinced or finding my arguments wanting, but when you post a whopper of an inaccurate post, I'm going to correct your post whether you like it or not. It's nothing personal. It's just inaccurate data that needs correcting.
I really haven't even considered that you would be convinced. You haven't even engaged in a real debate on the issues.
I will repeat, I DO NOT WISH TO REHASH THIS GARBAGE ANOTHER TIME WITH ANOTHER SUPPORTER OF THE SCHISMATIC SSPX.
Then don't post. I don't wish to read yours. But I'm certainly not going to try and stop you. If You want to simply "express yourself" unchallenged, write to your heart's content and don't post it. But by the very nature of your posting, it is open to debate on a public forum.
Go peddle your stuff elsewhere.
You're the unhappy one. You go somewhere where no one will challenge your position.
If you insist that our conversations pursue your ideas about how right the schism is and how wrong the Catholic Church is, I would prefer that you just not post to me, at all.
No that is not my position at all. It seems you would rather argue straw man positions than the actual positions I present. For those that actually are interested in my position: There is no schism and the Catholic Church is indefectible. Since you've incorrectly stated my position, your preference is irrelevant.
I believe I've asked you not to post to me in the past.
The protocol of the forum dictates that I ping you. And charity demands that I fraternally correct you.
I didn't initiate the current conversation with you, but hoped that by providing a mild response, and stating explicitly, but kindly, that I have no wish to go through various SSPX theories again, that you would take the hint and act like a gentleman.
You are attacking those who are defending the Catholic Church. That is hardly gentlemanly. I've been asked by others to respond to you for their benefit, not yours.
So far, you have not.
I have not attacked you. I've made points and asked questions. You've ignored them and been unwilling to stand by your own position with facts. You are also unwilling to clarify terms and honestly argue my position. (eg. saying that I'm attacking the Catholic Church)
In the time that I engaged with supporters of the SSPX schism, I tried very hard to post charitably.
That's very admirable.
For the times I may have failed to post charitably, I've asked forgiveness. For any uncharitable remarks I may have made and for which I have not sought forgiveness, I ask for it here and now.
Again, it's admirable.
However, after going around the same block 50 or 60 times with posters who did a much better job of it than you,
I'm sure you've been dazzled by those who do a much better job than I. And I'm sure you vanquished them thoroughly. Keep reminding me how much better they are than I am. I'm remembering your charitableness while I feel the daggers in my heart.
I determined a few things. First, I wasn't going to persuade them, and they certainly hadn't persuaded me.
Obviously you are assuming that you are the one who is the target of persuasion. That is not the case on my part. I'm addressing my points to those who have read and believed your erroneous characterizations.
Second, it was becoming increasingly difficult to maintain a charitable attitude in conversation for me, and I saw that all of these posters had lost any pretense of charity toward those who opposed them.
Perhaps you have an erroneous idea of what "charity" truly is.
Third, I certainly wasn't having any fun.
I take it fun would be posting errors without having to defend them or deal with opposing positions. I personally don't have fun and am not looking for fun. It's a sacrifice I make for the Church on my own.
On the first point, I became convinced that the best thing to do was to withdraw from direct confrontation and conflict with the followers of the SSPX schism, and just pray for these folks.
That is fine.
I pray for specific posters who have posted here at FR, and in general that the SSPX might return to full communion with the Catholic Church. You may think I'm praying for the wrong thing - that's fine - you pray to God for what you think is the right thing, and if we both seek Him with a sincere heart, He'll work it out. I trust Him.
I'll agree with you on those points.
On the second point, I came to the conclusion that although, with a lot of the grace of God, I might be able to maintain charity in posting, it was becoming apparent that the supporters of the SSPX schism were unable. I don't care to post to folks who will sin in posting back to me.
That's actually not your responsibility. You are responsible for your posts. If you are charitable, your opponent is uncharitable and will be held responsible for his or her own posts, you will not.
On the third point, I remember when I was studying clinical psychology in graduate school many years ago, that we would say that a mentally ill person would be "perseverating" when he engaged over and over in repetitive, futile, and meaningless behaviors.
Obviously the terms "futile and meaningless" would require definition because a redundancy (like stating "over and over in repetitive..") would be futile and meaningless additions to a statement.
This was actually taken as a symptom of certain forms of mental illness. This technical observation translates, in the vernacular, to, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
Yet you state categorically that you pray for changes of attitude in your opponents. You've basically condemned the practice of prayer.
In the case of some, it might be further refined to, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results, and enjoying it when the same futile results are achieved."
In any event, I found that I was not, at least regarding this particular topic, insane. I didn't enjoy the flame wars we had here at FR, and eventually, my method of dealing with them was to try to avoid posting directly to supporters of the SSPX schism at all.
Here's an even better solution: Avoid posting on the topic at all. Leave it all to the Holy Father and Bishop Fellay.
Eventually, I found that we could engage in conversations unrelated to these specific matters, and enjoy fruitful, charitable conversation. But to the degree that I possibly could, I otherwise refrained from posting. That's worked pretty well for me. Now, I will say more explicitly to you, Gerard.P. Be a gentleman and refrain from persisting in foisting your arguments, which I considered and found wanting some years ago, on me.
And I will say explicitly to you sitetest. If you don't want to engage in debate or defend your positions, that's fine. Simply refrain from responding to my rebuttals. Or, post them someplace where you will not encounter opposition. Start a blog for example. I'm morally bound to oppose the positions you've stated. I don't care whether you find my arguments compelling, funny or a pale shadow of your previous opponents. I'm addressing errors that you post. You are free to disagree or leave me alone. But if you post errors, I'm going to correct you. I get specific e-mails from people asking me to address some of the arguments (as they are called) against the SSPX and the numerous rumors and agendas against them. According to the protocols of this forum and the generl ettiquette of the internet, you have to be pinged.
Otherwise, don't post to me again.
Again, change the rules of the forum and I won't post to you again. Otherwise as I stated, just ignore my rebuttals.
Baloney. "Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church's law" - Pope John Paul II.
If there is no schism, there can be no formal adherence to the schism. Are the local priests who have instructed me in the confessional that there is no problem with the SSPX and my reasons for going there in formal adherence to this mythical schism?
Dear Gerard.P,
I'm not interested in going around in circles with you.
Others really HAVE done it better, and let me make clear, I have observed those who are far more knowledgeable and able than me crush the actual arguments on the merits. I apologize for leaving the impression that I am the slayer of schismatic arguments.
You appear to mistake an argumentative spirit with a "spirit of combat for the truth that is the hallmark of the Church Militant."
The Religion Moderator has discouraged this type of posting, and in this, I agree with him.
Please do not post to me, again. Ever. About any topic whatsoever.
Thank you.
sitetest
It's contingent on circumstances and this is important as it pertains to the laws regarding punishing illicit actions in the Church. Does the neighbor who drags the hose across your lawn to put out the fire have to be arrested for criminal trespass? What was relative and subjective was the notion that disobedience on this matter "implies" a denial of Petrine authority. What JPII should've said was that the "inference drawn" from LeFebvre's actions would've been a denial of Petrine primacy but that would have reflected on JPII and not LeFebvre and made the canonical citation more irrelevant than they were on their face.
If I believe I am acting in good faith, then I can do whatever I feel is necessary for the good of the Church?
You can do any number of things, but the punishment would be dependent on your disposition. If you publicly set out to destroy the Church and said so, you wouldn't be able to objectively prove that you were acting in good faith. But if you set out to do something great and it all came to pieces (eg. Vatican II and John XXIII) you would not be punished as if you set out to intentionally destroy the Church. The same would apply for someone resisting such efforts.
How is this not modernist itself?
Modernism doesn't even come into this subject. Modernism is a heresy, disobedience is not.
"We allude, Venerable Brethren, to many who belong to the Catholic laity, and, what is much more sad, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who, animated by a false zeal for the Church, lacking the solid safeguards of philosophy and theology, nay more, thoroughly imbued with the poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and lost to all sense of modesty, put themselves forward as reformers of the Church; and, forming more boldly into line of attack, assail all that is most sacred in the work of Christ, not sparing even the Person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with sacrilegious audacity, they degrade to the condition of a simple and ordinary mall."
4. It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement, in a scattered and disjointed manner, so as to make it appear as if their minds were in doubt or hesitation, whereas in reality they are quite fixed and steadfast. For this reason it will be of advantage, Venerable Brethren, to bring their teachings together here into one group, and to point out their interconnection, and thus to pass to an examination of the sources of the errors, and to prescribe remedies for averting the evil results.
5. To proceed in an orderly manner in this somewhat abstruse subject, it must first of all be noted that the Modernist sustains and includes within himself a manifold personality; he is a philosopher, a believer, a theologian, an historian, a critic, an apologist, a reformer. These roles must be clearly distinguished one from another by all who would accurately understand their system and thoroughly grasp the principles and the outcome of their doctrines.
"Let's see what is clear. The Church is in a crisis and has been since the Council ended."
Your subjective and debateable poisition. Nothing more.
No. It's objective and undeniable. When the current Pope agrees with me and not you, you are on shakey ground.
From this year's Stations of the Cross by then Cardinal Ratzinger, now the Supreme Pontiff, Patriarch of the West, Vicar of Christ on Earth, Servant of the Servants of Christ, the Successor of St. Peter.
MEDITATION
What can the third fall of Jesus under the Cross say to us? We have considered the fall of man in general, and the falling of many Christians away from Christ and into a godless secularism. Should we not also think of how much Christ suffers in his own Church? How often is the holy sacrament of his Presence abused, how often must he enter empty and evil hearts! How often do we celebrate only ourselves, without even realizing that he is there! How often is his Word twisted and misused! What little faith is present behind so many theories, so many empty words! How much filth there is in the Church, and even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to him! How much pride, how much self-complacency! What little respect we pay to the Sacrament of Reconciliation, where he waits for us, ready to raise us up whenever we fall! All this is present in his Passion. His betrayal by his disciples, their unworthy reception of his Body and Blood, is certainly the greatest suffering endured by the Redeemer; it pierces his heart. We can only call to him from the depths of our hearts: Kyrie eleison Lord, save us (cf. Mt 8: 25).
PRAYER
Lord, your Church often seems like a boat about to sink, a boat taking in water on every side. In your field we see more weeds than wheat. The soiled garments and face of your Church throw us into confusion. Yet it is we ourselves who have soiled them! It is we who betray you time and time again, after all our lofty words and grand gestures. Have mercy on your Church; within her too, Adam continues to fall. When we fall, we drag you down to earth, and Satan laughs, for he hopes that you will not be able to rise from that fall; he hopes that being dragged down in the fall of your Church, you will remain prostrate and overpowered. But you will rise again. You stood up, you arose and you can also raise us up. Save and sanctify your Church. Save and sanctify us all.
Let SSPX return only by unconditional surrender AND public penance and by public repudiation of its entire history. Otherwise, they can take their subversive claim of ecclesiastical "necessity" directly to God without benefit of membership in the Roman Catholic Church.
If Benedict XVI decides otherwise, his ruling is authority on earth and in heaven.
To balance that, what do you suppose is the "great blessing?"
I just don't wish to drive them further away from full communion. And, regardless of their methods, on a few issues, they have legitimate gripes.
I think that aside from the lunatic fringe, many, if not most, of the people that attend their chapels are decent people who have been the victims of USCCBism.
Michael Celarius was comparable to LeFebvre in terms of objective evil or to Fellay or to Williamson or to the other SSPX bishops who voluntarily and knowledgably entered the schism of SSPX or to those who, fully adult and knowing what they were doing, rejected Rome, revolted against John Paul the Great heaping their hatred upon him who was Christ's Vicar on Earth, and now (at least some of them) dare to approach Benedict XVI with DEMANDS and PRECONDITIONS for the quite dubious privilege of having them back so that they can act as Fifth Columnists, rebels, liars and traitors WITHIN the Church. No thanks. They can adjust their approach and surrender unconditionally to the Vatican, publicly repent, do public penance or stay right where they are.
As leftwing political moonbats are fporever seeking Dubya's apology for anything and everything, so too the SSPX moonbats constantly hoping to undermine the papacy by trying to obtain false apologies from the one authority on earth that owes no apologies to SSPX or any other band of willful miscreants.
If truth bothers you, stay outside in the SSPX darkness baying at the moon. You are not missed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.