[B Knotts]

I think Weigel is all wet on his reading of the topics at hand. The questions are not whether the SSPX accepts the various things George Weigel would like them to accept; the questions are what do various things mean? And what are Catholics actually required to believe?

For instance, what does religious liberty mean? It presumably cannot mean exactly the opposite of what it meant before Vatican II (e.g., the condemned idea that man is free to choose not to believe truth).

It is that sort of thing that is the puzzling aspect of Vatican II. As vague as the conclusions it made seem to be, what does it really mean, and what must Catholics believe about it? That is what I believe is being discussed.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

I think Weigel is all wet on his reading of the topics at hand. The questions are not whether the SSPX accepts the various things George Weigel would like them to accept; the questions are what do various things mean?

Well said. Weigel has been a disappointment in the way he allows his personal bias to color his commentary on traditional Catholic issues.

[Dajjal]

For instance, what does religious liberty mean? It presumably cannot mean exactly the opposite of what it meant before Vatican II (e.g., the condemned idea that man is free to choose not to believe truth).

bumpus ad summum