*I watch the sspx savagely attack the Body of Christ.I know the sspx has caused those weak in Faith to abandon their fidelity to their Confirmational promises/ duties and to break with the Church Jesus established. I know how that endangers their immortal souls.
*I wonder how silence or timidity in the face of savage attacks is "successful" in winning back souls for Christ. I rather think it might convince onlookers of the "justice" of this schism and further erode the Faith and confidence of Christians in union with Rome that the Church Jesus established has not apostasized and been taken over my Satan's henchmen.
*It is Tradition that silence in the face of evil is complicity.
*In any event, I don't delude myself I am the instrument of the Holy Spirit in re reconversion. That is solely the action of the Holy Spirit. I imitate the Early Church Fathers in their reaction to schism. They didn't suffer silently the savage, hateful and public attacks against she they loved. In my neck of the woods, silence or inaction in the face of savage attakcs against loved ones is considered, well, unmanly.
*I am one of the few on here who acts like a Traditioanlist when it comes to a schism. Read your Bible. Read the Early Church Fathers; read what they said to schismatics
Ranting used to give me pleasure. It didn't actually accomplish anything, but it did give me the pleasure of hearing my own comebacks and opinions of contempt, expressed cleverly and at a loud volume.
*Mike, I hope it really isn't your arguement the Early Church Fathers were acting out of ego-gratification not love for Holy Mother Church.
*One acts like as Christian not because one can see tangible results in his lifetime. One acts like a Christian because he is a Christian; and it is Christian to publicly and forcefully stand in opposition to those attacking his Church. As to experiencing pleasure in defending one's Faith, is that now sin?
* I have yet to publicly take to task those who don't act like Traditionalists in the face of a schism but I have been taken to task for acting like a Traditionalist in the face of a schism. It is rather odd that timidity, pacificism, and silence is now thought a useful approach towards schism.
* Maybe the critics of the Church who claim the Church in the West has been "feminized" to such an extent that the female values of compromise and non-confrontationalism now so predominate and, subsequently, weaken men that the Church in the west is in mortal peril are more right that they imagine.
Once in a while, it attracted to me people who also loved hearing their own comebacks and opinions of contempt, expressed cleverly and at a loud volume.
Now I'll probably be accused of being arrogant.
* Brother mike, I don't know you but from reading your posts I'd have to say you are a very knowledgeable and intelligent man but there is no doubt we see things differently when it comes to a Christian response to schism.