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.
Anything regarding the SSPX came from YOU not ME. The whole argument is a straw man created by YOU. I feel zero compulsion to answer an argument that has nothing to do with this thread or ANYTHING that I've posted.
Some Chicago folks may think Bernardin is/was God. No actual Catholic believes such tripe.
Of course, but I would venture to say that is is more than "some" in Chicago who believe that.
The dupes at the Institute think that Serbia and Montenegro are ideal places:
No they don't, they merely recognize that the U.S. seems to side with the Muslim population rather than the Christian and that bombing some of the oldest cathedrals in Christendom was in fact, a shame. Things like that get lost in the world of political philistinism, though.
...never bother others by trying to do the right thing. Accept petty tyranny as a desireable way of life, at least for others.
Right. Like the USA's support of Saddam Hussein and Milosevic and any one of a number of petty dictators. Yeah, yeah, I know, when the liberal establishment of either party does it it's okay. If you're in the minority, better watch out in Black Elk's world.
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.
Again, I feel no need to answer questions that are completely irrelevant. You are free to ASSUME what you like, but you know the old saw...(although the second half does not apply as I've already stated that I have NEVER attended an SSPX Mass. For that matter the ONLY association I've even had with any of them was on this forum).
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.
Really? Okay, I reject schism. Dollars to donuts says this statement will not suffice for you.
You have so far given me no evidence to lead to a conclusion that I am wrong.
I see. Have you stopped beating your wife Black Elk?
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?
I am Roman Catholic. Would you like the name of my Parish and Pastor? There is nothing particularly Catholic about saying the pope is above criticism. Why don't you go pick on Dante, translate him first so you can attack him better.
Although, if you actually sympathize with the "paleo" Institute crowd, how can any sensible person of any religious persuasion take you serously?
They, like the Church, take a longer view of history, unlike the neo-conmen who practice their Trotskyite realpolitik. Still waiting for those WMD's that they ALL swore/swear are there. Hmmm. All of the people on the planes were Saudi, yet they are our allies. Whatever. Let's go after the Iraqis. It all makes sense in the Lewis Carroll world of foreign policy according to those wonderful neo-conmen.
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.
Recognize humor when you see it and you will seem less like SSPX or like the paleofussandfeathers crowd.
This is laughable after the inquisition style posts that you posted with all the subtlety of a Howitzer. If you're going to shoot BE at least improve your aim. I'm sure between you and other like-minded Catholics, you've purged that dangerous and dreaded SSPX crowd from FR. I honestly cannot think of any one of their crowd who's left on here. I guess that means that simple orthodox yet traditional Roman Catholics like myself are the NEW Extreme. Now you don't want to get rid of little ol' me because then YOU would be the New Extreme, and they'll come after you. Then who ya gonna call?