What a stupid and evil thing to say. Apart from the fact that tu quoque is no defense, it's literally diabolical to seek to advance one's case by adverting to the sinfulness of one's opponent.
Please don't attack Narses for this quote above, Romulus. He was quoting me. I asked this rhetorical question, not Narses, and I'm no apologist for the SSPX. I was simply pointing out that we ften attack the trads when our own USCCB seems even more schismatic at this point than the SSPX.
So how about I offer a little levity?
This was forwarded to me by an excellent priest from Brooklyn NY:
Communion Advice from the Archdiocese of L.A.
I figured that you would appreciate this one. It is from a blog called "Dyspeptic Mutterings" run by one Dale Price.
http://dprice.blogspot.com/2004_06_01_dprice_archive.html#108783089645150 069
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004 by Dale
Letters to the Editor of The Tidings, June 28, 2004.
Dear Sir: Despite the Cardinal's recent statement that no one would be refused Communion in the Archdiocese, I would appreciate some guidance on the following:
On Sunday, June 27, a man presented himself for the Eucharist at our parish. In his right hand, he held a severed head. In his left, a blood-caked machete. He received Communion from Fr. Hailfellow. Was this correct?
Editor:
Your situation is indeed a delicate and, sadly, recurring one.
According to the Diocesan Liturgy Office, he was indeed entitled to receive, but he should be carefully catechized so that the next time, he receives in the hand as a sign of unity with the rest of the gathered community.
Indeed, and in my haste I overlooked that. But in quoting your text and bolding it, he associates himself with the remarks and makes them his own. I don't seek a quarrel with either of you. Though I don't post as frequently as many on this board, I hope you realise that my sympathy is with the traditional Latin rite, which I attend at home and as often as possible when away from home. Nevertheless I accept the licitness of the NO, even while finding it unlovely, badly flawed, and practically inviting liturgical innovation and ad libs.
I stand by my remark, that it's "diabolical" in the strict and literal sense of the word, to make one's way by accusing others of sin.
God knows that I grieve over the treachery and evil of those working from within to hollow out the sacraments and redefine the Church and man. I hope I have never shilled for these time-serving frauds, but continue to insist that a cynical and deceitful rebellion cannot justify one that's reactive and embittered.
You make an excellent point in asking whether the AmChurch bishops aren't every bit as schismatic, but Narses wrongs you in appropriating those words to bolster his own defective cause.