Replies

The Church is one, holy, Catholic and apostolic. The SSPX, by practically denying the legitimate authority of the successor of Peter, despite all your double talk about recognizing that authority in theory, is denying the oneness of the Catholic Church. It is in no way fully Catholic, since it has separated itself from the visible Church of Christ. And so now you are saying that the Holy See is not fully Catholic. You are setting yourself as a judge of the magisterium. I guess God has specifically appointed ultima ratio infallible Pope of the ages. I have explained to you countless times, that the Pope is fully orthodox. Your claim to the contrary is slanderous. Whether this or that cardinal meets your specific standards of orthodoxy is beside the point, since you include many reformable customs in the category of irreformable teachings of the deposit of the faith. You may have the right to go to an SSPX mass if there is no indult mass available to you, but you have no right to promote that schismatic organization and throw contempt onan orthodox Pope and the undermine in practice his legitimate authority. The Catholic Church is a visible Church. By separating yourselves from that, you are exiting the fullness of communion. Problems within the Church, which we all recognize and are working to correct, although on earth with fallible human beings they will never be completely corrected, do not justify rebellion against an orthodox Pope.

"The SSPX, by practically denying the legitimate authority of the successor of Peter, despite all your double talk about recognizing that authority in theory, is denying the oneness of the Catholic Church."

Bull. There is no such thing as "practically denying." You either deny JPII is the pope or you don't. You either recognize his authority--or you don't. This attempt to damn by claiming more than is true is typical doublespeak from the Novus Ordo--meant to demean and disparage those who disagree with modernist policies--which, under this pontificate, have effectively wrecked the Church in the West. It is for this you rail against traditionalists--because they dare to speak the unvarnished truth, despite the obvious failures at the very top. As for the Church's being one, holy and apostolic--it is the Vatican crowd that has introduced the revolution that has demolished unity and and holiness and has brought the apostolic succession into disrepute, no other. When since the corrupt Renaissance have so many bishops been found wanting, do you think?

As for my being infallible--nothing I profess is new--it is very ancient and very Catholic, the teachings of the Catholic Church for two thousand years. I do not deny the authority of this pope either--though I believe he is a very bad pope. What sticks in the craw of people like you is that I dare to say this openly--even as I profess exactly the same Catholic truths that have always been believed--nothing more and nothing less. You would like to use my criticism of the Pope to claim I am not a Catholic. But you would be wrong. I may even be a bad Catholic--but I am still a Catholic. This is more than what many in that gang in Rome are, in fact. I have never doubted the Resurrection, for instance, the way a certain cardinal has done--actually rewarded by the pope for his heretical views and given a red hat. Before you sling slurs my way--try dealing with that papal anomaly, if you dare!