Replies

You are talking nonsense. The "whisperings of schismatics" is merely cool reason. There was no schism. You must face the facts: Lefebvre was right, the Pope was wrong--as he has been about a lot of things. There never was any attempt to break with the Church or to deny the papacy. There was a single act of disobedience--which was not schismatic. Not. So you have to place this fact along side everything else: the mess of the prelature, the widespread dissent, the dumbing-down of the liturgy, the scandals--everything. These are not whisperings, these are facts. Meanwhile the traditionalists prosper, their children have the Baltimore Catechism, their teenagers are chaste, their Masses inspire, they read Francis de Sales and de Caussade.
Where am I wrong? I have asked you to show me something, anything, from the Novus Ordo Church which points to something spiritually positive and you come up with remodeled houses. How is this supposed to be convincing?

There was no schism. You must face the facts: Lefebvre was right, the Pope was wrong--as he has been about a lot of things. There never was any attempt to break with the Church or to deny the papacy. There was a single act of disobedience--which was not schismatic. Not.

The Church defines the schism, not you. You are incorrect. It was disobedient to elevate 4 bishops, not one, and to refuse Rome the right to decide who would be elevated. No mental or linguistic gymnastics, no appeal to necessity or emergency, can change the fact that the Pope can and does decide who will be a bishop and how many bishops may be consecrated.

To argue otherwise is simply...schismatic.

We need face no such thing. There are two basic rules:

Rule #1: The pope is right.

Rule #2: If the pope ever seems wrong, go back to Rule #1.

Very simple really, once you get your ego (or more likely your id) out of the way.

Where you are wrong is in ignoring the injunction: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church." Do you actually think that you are going to convince anyone who is actually Catholic to join your schism? You can deny until the cows come home that you are in schism but, in following Lefebvre, you ARE in schism.

From what do you get the impression that the little schismatic SSPX group has some sort of monopoly on the Baltimore Catechism or on chaste teenagers, on inspiring Masses, Tridentine or otherwise, or on reading St. Francis de Sales or de Caussade? You've been away so long, you don't even know what you are fighting against.

When you brush the foam off the beer, it is evident that your cultural tastes have been offended by Novus Ordo Masses so you flee to a little sanctuary of grumpy schismatics similarly offended served by disobedient and rebellious priests and who spin remarkable fantasies about how they and you, legends in your own minds and a scandal to others, are the REAL Church and JP II is not.

Well then, since JP II is sooooo objectionable and falls so far short of your standards, then he must not be pope, right? Since, as ever, Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia, is someone else pope or is the Holy See vacant?