Replies

"As you well know, you are wrong."

Wrong about what? The only thing you said I was right in was JPII speaking of "silent apostasy". So am I to assume I am wrong in being obedient to the pope? You now call the SSPX a nuisance, apostate, and popebashers. So which are they - schismatic, excommunicated, or apostate? I never heard JPII refer to them apostate, and you have yet to prove the are schismatic. The only thing you have to say is wild accusations without reason, logic, or proper arguement.

You also make a unfounded statement they will never be Catholic. So why does Rome seek ecumenical dialogue with heretics when according to your standards those supposedly outside the Church can never be Catholic? Protestants gaining salvation is impossible according to you, so why all the talks with those assured their place in hell?

"I was suggesting that God might punish both Weakland and Marcel by making them roommates in an overheated afterlife."

You can pray that God might punish them here on earth, but to pray they go to Hell is uncharitable to say the least. Scripture says to pray FOR the dead, not that they rot in hell. Are we not supposed to love ALL men, even our enemies? If you loved them, you would pray FOR them, not that they will be punished for all eternity. Weakland can save his soul, so should we not pray for him? Lefebvre has already been judged and the Church has not decreed him a schismatic as you charge, so offering prayers that God might ease his suffering if he is in Pergatory could only bring you merit.

"The schism that Paul VI and John Paul II described as "silent apostasy" might be the Thuc line or many other schisms less noisy than Marcel's parrots."

Once again, if they are schismatic they are NOT part of the church. Where did they mention visionaries? Did you not read the quote? Paul VI described it as wide-spread, reaching into the church even at its highest levels. This apostasy is from WITHIN the church, and at high levels, meaning clergy, which must eliminate what you call schismatics.

I think Broadsword's Gore picture aptly represents how you must look when writing your posts based on your wild statements and irreverence. I am not going to move to a place where I have to fear my bishop may remove his "indult" at any time or leave at which point I am without the Mass and again scouring the world for an "accommodating" bishop. That is a hopeless situation.

Pope John Paul II in Ecclesia Dei excommunicated Marcel and the Econe Four whom he illicitly consecrated AND declared SSPX a schism. That is good enough for me and ought to be good enough for any actual Catholic. I don't have to prove anything to you or to anyone else on the subject. The burden is on the schizzies.

If you claim otherwise, prove it without the usual intellectual contortions of the schism symps to essentially claim that the pope lacked authority somehow in doing so or that Marcel's internal disposition was other than it was. Marcel had plenty of opportunity to publicly proclaim his supposed mental reservations. To the extent that he did, he had zero, zip, nada credibility. The analysis of various Vatican minor domos or Canon lawyers does NOT trump the facts.

I would certainly be pleasantly surprised to find Marcel among the heavenly host if I am fortunate enough to be there myself. Likewise Rembert. I do despise the works and scandals of both. I have far worthier folks to pray for than either.

I never said that Protestants do not go to heaven. In fact, I believe that many do. Whatever God decides is certainly good enough for me.

BTW, your last paragraph says it all. You believe you should get your way even in defiance of legitimate Church authority. Buh-bye! Enjoy whatever Church you now belong to because it is not the Church of Rome.

You must be one who believes the NO Mass invalid given that last paragraph. Coincidentally, the SSPX schismatics have published that belief as their own as evidenced elsewhere on this thread.