[ELS]

This whole article seems chock full of insulting and sarcastic language. Read through it and not the number of times it speaks with sarcasm or insult, when the logic of its argument might have been left on its own, for better or for worse.

Yes, I do wish that Mr. Ferrara had edited out the sarcasm and insults. I do not agree with his characterization of whom I consider to be other orthodox Catholics.

I'll get back to you later on the schism point.

[patent]

thank you for the benefit of the doubt.

No problem, I am relieved. ;-)

#49:

At the same time, The Remnant has publicly disagreed with Pope John Paul over his positions on such questions as ecumenism, granting the "altar girls" permission, consorting with the United Nations, and his unqualified and complete support of the Second Vatican Council and all of its unfortunate results.

A statement that certainly makes Mr. Ferrara’s statement in this article seem a bit disingenuous, no?

How exactly does one "resist" the Second Vatican Council? Did the Council generate some kind of ecclesiastical forcefield to which Catholics must submit, as if to the ministrations of a hypnotist? What teaching of Vatican II does Vere claim traditionalists are "resisting"? What does Vatican II require Catholics to believe which they had not always believed before the Council? The answer is nothing, of course.

It seems many do seek to resist the Second Vatican Council, and the Pope’s support thereof. There are many in the Traditionalist camp quite fond of rejecting the Council, or at least parts of it, though some deny this when it doesn’t suit their purposes. In particular Mr. Ferrara’s Remnant colleagues of “we resist you” fame have spent a fair amount of time doing exactly that, they criticize Vatican II in a document called “we resist you”, how else is that to be taken but resisting Vatican II? From chapter 1:

The documents of Vatican II Dignitatis humanae and Unitatis redintegratio represented respectively the embrace by the leaders of the Conciliar Church of the errors of religious indifferentism of the State and its acceptance in the spiritual sphere.

labeling you refer to, I believe, is done by Christopher Ferrara and not necessarily all SSPX members or traditionalists.

Reread the interview with Bishop Fellay. How many times does he intimate or outright say that various Cardinals in the Vatican don’t understand this or that, usually a relatively forthright theological position that anyone can understand:

The Cardinal does not understand the problem with the new Mass, so I tried to explain it to him.

Bishop Fellay almost seems to act as though only Society people can understand liturgy, and he takes a Cardinal’s disagreement or the Cardinal’s diplomatic tact not to air disagreement as a lack of understanding. This labeling may be more subtle at the top of the SSPX, but the arrogant tone is not something invented at the bottom, but rather something that trickles its way down from on high.

Dominus Vobiscum

patent  +AMDG