If it was irrelevant to both of our posts, why did YOU bring it up?
I don't live in Chicagoland. I live in rural Northwestern Illinois in the Rockford diocese of Bishop Doran. I live in a relatively narrow circle of friends, none of whom seem to have regarded Bernardin as other than the worst archbishop Chicago ever had and as one who dictated that the music at his funeral be done by the Windy City Gay Men's Chorus to send an obvious message.
Bernardin was about the worst figure in the history of AmChurch surpassing even Law.
We're in the same diocese, funny how you never got wind of how many folks around Chicagoland think of Bernardin the way you think of John Paul the Great. Even the good folks at the Rockford Institute seem to grasp that fact.
6. Ad hominem is Latin for "We know them when we hear from them." They usually don't answer simple questions for obvious reasons. I invited your substantive answers. You decided to keep the argument ad hominem.
I see your latin is about as good as your rhetoric.
I don't confuse myself with God but then I am not and never was SSPX.
Few know Lefebvre's name. Few ever will, as it should be.
Did Marcel Lefebvre die excommunicated?
Was Marcel Lefebvre ever excommunicated?
Same questions as to the Econe 4 Is SSPX in schism? Why? Why not?
Get back to me when you have answered those.
This is all from your post to me. I never mentioned Lefebvre, the SSPX or anything against the authority of the Pope. Do you really expect that I should NOT have taken this post as an implication that I was somehow schismatic? Please.
I have been judging since I was about 5 years old (oh, so many years ago) and generally I have hit the right targets. If someone shows me I am wrong, I generally admit it.
So far you seem to have hit myself and one other poster on this forum with implicit charges of schismaticism. You are not admitting that you're wrong, on the contrary, you seem to have arrogantly dug your heels in.
I invited your substantive answers. You decided to keep the argument ad hominem.
I honestly do NOT even know what you are refering to. I merely told you to not indulge in ad hominem arguments such as wrongly implying that persons on this thread are schismatic. If my telling you that constitutes an ad hominem argument then I'll just have to find out what passes for logic out there in Rockford.
I cannot take seriously anyone who takes the Rockford Institute or other "paleo"delusional institutions seriously. Pearl Harbor happened. 9/11 happened. Even Charles Lindbergh served as an officer in WW II (when FDR finally let him). The America First Committee folded its tent on about 12/8/41. No signs of life have been observed at the AFC gravesite since.
Some Chicago folks may think Bernardin is/was God. No actual Catholic believes such tripe. The dupes at the Institute think that Serbia and Montenegro are ideal places: so locally eccentric (like them), so very colorful, probably have good booze too, never bother others by trying to do the right thing. Accept petty tyranny as a desireable way of life, at least for others. If the Rockford Institute crowd says that rain falls, we should start a new investigation.
I brought up SSPX/you brought up the strawman of SSPX Masses.
If you answer the SSPX questions, you can affirm or deny effectively your connections or non-connections to SSPX. If you do not see fit to answer such simople questions, I will feel free to draw the obvious conclusion as to why. We have reached a point where the SSPX are so committed to lying that they are Catholic that a simple denial of SSPX status will often not suffice. Someone who denies that Stalin was one of the worst mass murderers in human history is reasonably suspected of communist sympathies. Likewise anyone who would deny the efficacy of JP II's actions against Lefebvre, against the Econe 4 and against their schism.
If you want to talk with authority claiming Catholicism, necessarily you must reject schism. Your status vis-a-vis the schism and its excommunicated leaders is relevant.
You have so far given me no evidence to lead to a conclusion that I am wrong. If and when you do and I find the evidence credible, you will have my response that you seek and not before.
See, the deal is that a refusal to answer the basic questions on excommunicated Marcel, the excommunicated Econe 4, and the SSPX schism reasonably calls into question whether you adhere to the schism or not especially when coupled with the whining about being picked on. Therefore, you are keeping the argument on an ad hominem level by refusing to engage on substance as to the schism. If you don't fathom that, you are probably not worth helping.
I translated the entire 300+ page Aeneid in high school. Recognize humor when you see it and you will seem less like SSPX or like the paleofussandfeathers crowd.
If I fail to be arrogant in any action, I probably should avoid the action. There is no social obligation to behave meekly in defense or advocacy of truth and I would reject such an obligation if there were.
Proud to be arrogant in judgment of those who presume to judge negatively the papacy and the Church, clothed in claimed Catholicism. You ARE, by your screenname, suggesting that you are Catholic, are you not?
Eccentricity is not principle, much less some high form thereof. Freedom does not require that you not be criticized. Freedom of speech does not mean that one person's ideas are as good as another's.
I promise not to be concerned over the fact that you and another poster, both of whom apparently refuse to answer simple questions as to schism and schismatics, are somehow offended because I disagree with your respective self-assessments and suspect that you sympathize with a schism that you will not explicitly recognize as schism despite papal judgment of it as schism, and with those excommunicated leaders (excommunicated by JP II) whose excommunication you will not explicitly recognize.
Come on now. You can answer the questions. It is up to you whether you will answer the questions and up to me as to what conclusions I may draw from answers or non-answers. Although, if you actually sympathize with the "paleo" Institute crowd, how can any sensible person of any religious persuasion take you serously? Possible, yes! Probable, much less likely! Ad hominem? Perhaps, but quite correct nonetheless.