candor requires that we Catholics (assuming that you are Catholic) recognize evils committed in our name as Catholics.
It is good that you admit the need to "recognize evils committed in our name as Catholics." Our Tradition has always allowed and in fact required that we resist Church officials who distort or fail to pass on the faith, whole and entire. My calling attention the recent popes' liberalism is not blasphemy. You cannot say that resisting errors apparently sanctioned by popes is wrong. Otherwise you reject St. Athanasius for the Arian heresy sanctioned by (non-St.) Pope Liberius. You must reject St. Paul's resistance against the judaizing of St. Peter. You would accept the Monothelite heresy of the subsequently anathematized Pope Honorius.
Some modern respecters of persons have said that St. Paul was unique in history in that nobody else can get away with saying "I resisted him to his face" (Gal 2:11) to a reigning pope. But for almost 2000 years until Vatican II, all Catholics followed St. Paul's admonition "though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." (Gal 1:8)
Therefore, Catholics have always demanded that their leaders be able to say with Paul "For I gave to you first of all what was handed down to me" (1 Cor 15:3). And indeed all real Catholics still do heed St. Paul's admonition by demanding unambiguous conformance to Tradition from leadership. If a leader fails or appears to fail in this regard, it is incumbent upon laymen and religious to resist alongside the Apostles, Saints, and Martyrs. This is what it means to be a Catholic, especially in these times of grave crisis. It is prideful for a Catholic supposing he lives in "enlightened" times to think he is exempt from traditional Catholic duties.
Archbishop Marcel LeFebvre conjuring up a delusional claim of "emergency" to justify his gross disobedience toward legitimate papal authority
It is an insult to human intelligence (and to history) to deny that evils have been perpetrated against Jews by Catholics
It is an insult to human intelligence and to recent history to deny that Vatican II tried to reverse previous Church teaching by professing a theological human "right" of non-Catholics to embrace false religions, such as Protestantism, Judaism, Islam, paganism, and so forth.
The consequence of Vatican II reversals has been an unbroken string of defeats by the Church at the hands of non-Catholics and the takeover of virtually all Catholic schools and most Western dioceses by Modernists and homosexuals. If this does not constitute an emergency, what does? Pope St. Pius' X condemned these Modernists in 1907:
"[Modernists say] the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion." Pope St. Pius' X 1907 Anathema against the Modernists, Pascendi Dominici Gregis
But, but, but didn't Vatican II try to pretend that doctrine can be changed and has changed? Not it has not! It should now be painfully clear to all Catholics that Piux X, the only pope sainted in more than 500 years, was correct in his warning. The promulgation of heresies condemned by Piux X has indeed brought about the "ruin and wreck" of religion in the West. The only confessions where religion is still strong are those that reject the liberal precepts of Modernism. False, non-Catholic religions that reject liberalism are displacing the faux-Catholic liberalism of Vatican II. The greatest bastion of resistance to Modernism today is the SSPX.
If you assist at an Institute of Christ the King parish, you must known about the Fraternal Society of St. Peter. These priests are proud to claim Archbishop LeFebvre as their ecclesiastical father even though they have a status similar to the Institute. Pope Benedict admitted that Paul6's and JP2's failed attempts to suppress the traditional mass were nothing more than deception. This admission occurred in the context of meeting the two preconditions set out by the SSPX for resuming discussions. Still today, many bishops go unpunished while attempting to maintain the deceptive Paul6-JP2 suppression of the traditional mass and traditional Catholic belief.
If you were honest with yourself, you would admit that even the tiny restoration of the Latin Mass so far is mostly the result of Archbishop LeFebvre's legacy.
As a "Traditionalist," dead excommunicated Marcel was on a par with "Pope Michael" of North Dakota and other loons of that ilk. No one did evil to Marcel and his satraps. They got what they deserved from John Paul II and the survivors have so far gotten far better treatment than they deserved from B-XVI. In the Age of Faith, these miscreants would have been subjected to a just inquiry and burned at the stake. We live in gentler times and a good thing for them since it prolongs the period during which they may repent as publicly as they have revolted. If Pope St. Pius X were alive and had available the remedies of the Age of Faith, he would certainly burn these chronic malcontents and eccentrics at the stake for impersonating Catholics.
Blasphemy is against God. Popes are not God. They are however his vicars on earth. See Matthew 6:13-20. Roma Locuta Causa Finita.
You have the entire litany of SSPX rationalizations down pat but repetition does not enhance them to truth.
B-XVI noted that the Tridentine Mass had never been surpressed. Frankly, you could have fooled me but thanks be to God for JP II and Benedict. John XXIII and Paul VI made prudential errors and they are being corrected no thanks to the sulfuric rage of Marcel and SSPX and SSPX's ceaseless attacks on the Church. Fellay is still presuming to instruct the papacy on Catholicism (flea, elephant's leg, rape in mind). Has de Mallerais gotten control over his infernal mouth yet? Did Marcel die excommunicated and in schism? Were John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II popes or not? Did they have the keys or not? Were any of Marcel and his malcontents ever popes or not? Is Williamson still rampaging against history as well as against Catholic tradition or not?
As to non-Catholics (including SSPX?) having a "right" to embrace their religions, we Catholics have a name for it: free will. We are not Calvinists. We are not Feeneyites. We draft no one and we leave it to God to judge each person including ourselves. It is above our pay grade to substitute our judgments for His and futile in any event. Catholicism is a far easier glide path to heaven with all of the Mass, the sacraments and the races available to Catholics but God knows better than you and better than Marcel and better than me. Don't you think?
The only "crisis" experienced by Marcel and his mad hatters at the hands of the Vatican was that their infernal ids were stylistically offended to such an extent that they launched a rebellion against God's own Church and against his Vicars on Earth. Nothing new under the sun. There have been angry schismatics and heretics from very early on. The Church and the papacy survive them all as Jesus guaranteed. His guarantees are still good and always will be.
Whatever will you folks do when JP II is canonized and Pio Nono and even John XXIII? One of my favorites is Pope St. Gregory VII. I would also like to see Leo XIII and Pius XII canonized and JP II recognized as Saint JP the Great. A very god argument can be made for John Paul I to be canonized as well. Each in his own way resembles Pope St. Pius X. Marcel is about as likely to be canonized as is Alexander VI (Borgia). As to those two, don't hold your breath.
Marcel is a hindrance and not a help but we shall have our Mass back as the norm sooner or later and the sooner the better (which probably requires Fellay, de Mallerais, Willimason, Gallaraga and their minions to dry up and blow away). maybe the miscreants will go the way of the "liberation theologians," of Charles Curran, of Fr. Drinan, etc.
If you make it to heaven and find Protestants or Jews or popes of whom you do not approve there, will you ask God for permission to leave or just try to escape lest the Teaching Magisterium of Marcel and you be transgressed without your resisting God to His Face?
Ron Paul is not a conservative. Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist are not Christians. Cindy Sheehan is no patriot. AND Marcel and SSPX are/were not faithful Catholics. In each case, absent public repentance, Burn 'em bright!
Morning/afternoon, mas cerveza por favor. It’s been a pleasure this morning to read everything you’ve written.