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.
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.Of course they don’t belong to the SSPX. They are laity.
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.But you see, the poster and the author aren’t being criticized for where they attend Mass. That is – to use your words – a red herring. They are being criticized and called schismatic for what they write. As 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.He didn’t mention what Mass they attend once did he? Is it not entirely possible to attend a non-schismatic Mass, and yet be schismatic? I know many liberals I would class this way. They simply refuse to obey the Pope no matter how clear things are. I see no reason it can’t apply, for the very reasons BlackElk cited, to conservatives as well.
There is more to being a Catholic than where you attend Mass.
These reckless charges are used indiscriminately in an attempt to delegitimize all those who disagree with the views of certain people.You could probably count on one hand all the times BlackElk and I have agreed on a thread about something. Yet he doesn’t call me schismatic when we disagree, no matter how vehemently. I think the same is likely true for a number of the other people you have in mind.
You are not called schismatic for disagreeing. You are called schimatic when the other poster thinks that your conduct renders a serious blow the unity of the Church, even when that blow is only to your own membership in that body. Promoting hateful attacks on a Pope is not a Catholic action. Instead of complaining about being a victim, you may wish to consider that blunt words can at times set a wayward ship back on course. It is a fine line a traditionalist walks when he struggles against the modernist excesses we see all around us. If some see you crossing it, or following those who have crossed it, should they not do their best to warn?
patent +AMDG