So, then, what you are saying is that if the article had been written 10 years later it would be invalid? wrong? in error? Or that because it was written 10 years prior to the very necessary consecration of Bishops its ok to read? But that if one is to read articles off the SSPX Angelus Website, one should make sure to only read articles prior to the consecration? Because the scholarship becomes deficient then?
Just what do the consecrations have to do with whether or not the article was written?
No, my entire comment was basically a disclaimer, because they're a lot of Catholics on here who are wary of the SSPX.
Or that because it was written 10 years prior to the very necessary consecration of Bishops its ok to read?
Of course, it's "ok" to read. In my opinion, most articles from SSPX publications should be given fair treatment, since most deal with historical information (for example, events or saints) or traditional Catholic devotions.
But that if one is to read articles off the SSPX Angelus Website, one should make sure to only read articles prior to the consecration? Because the scholarship becomes deficient then?
No, that is absurd.
Just what do the consecrations have to do with whether or not the article was written?
Again, as I mentioned above in this post, the comment was basically a disclaimer. In fact, I own the Angelus Press book that compiles the essays Malcolm Brennan wrote on the Martyrs of the English Reformation, among other books that I purchased from Angelus.
If I am to interpret your post correctly, it seems that you are being rather defensive about my comment. Why?
I forgot to mention the primary reason I posted the article on here. My intention was to promote knowledge of and devotion to St. John Fisher. He is a great contemporary of the more-famous St. Thomas More, but it is pretty obvious that he is lesser-known.