Deciding whether the SSPX is schismatic is not within my competence, nor do I feel an obligation to involve myself in every controversy.Fair enough. Who is that is being called schismatic, and why, that you expressed such concern about earlier? I still find your remark cryptic, especially in view of your answer. It seems to me you are involving yourself in some controversy here, and I’m curious which one? Your remarks:
Here is an outstanding explanation of the superior value of the traditional Latin Mass. Clear and comprehensive, it shows why we should be promoting and attending the Latin Mass, and answers every objection, including the one most often seen on FreeRepublic -- "schismatic."I mean, I don't know of anyone on Free Republic who accuses others of being schismatic merely for attending the traditional Latin Mass. On the other hand the charge is probably frequently leveled when its an SSPX Mass. Thus, I am very curious what you meant?
patent +AMDG
My post was on a different thread referring to previous threads. Yet, perhaps not entirely by coincidence, there's a good example right here on this thread. BlackElk said:
We also need not have growing schism. They attack the pope. They attack the Church. No volume of self-serving denials will diminish that fact.
I don't know where Michael Matt goes to Mass, but I know for a fact that Christopher Ferrara and Thomas Woods attend indult Latin Masses. They do NOT belong to the SSPX.
In an earlier thread, a poster was attacked merely for posting something from the Seattle Catholic website. Peter Miller attends an indult Latin Mass. Like Woods and Ferrara, he has never been a member of the SSPX.
So it's a red herring to imply that the charge of schism is only laid against members of the SSPX. These reckless charges are used indiscriminately in an attempt to delegitimize all those who disagree with the views of certain people.