[ultima ratio]

I might use the same term about you: you are a heretic insofar as you buy into the modernist heresy which seeks to Protestantize Catholicism. As for your calling me a heretic, the charge is another slander and nothing else. What Catholic doctrine have I ever rejected? Name one. I do not even reject Vatican II, though I have called it unwise and believe it has given the enemies of the faith the excuse they needed to attack the Church from within. Nor have I rejected the Pope, though I have been critical of his policies. So explain how I am a heretic.

[Catholicguy]

St. Catherine of Siena wrote to Barnabas, Viscount Lord of Milan: "He is insane who rises or acts contrary to this Vicar who holds the keys of the blood of Christ crucified. Even if he was a demon incarnate, I should not raise my head against him, but always grovel and ask for the blood out of mercy. And don’t pay attention to what the demon proposes to you and you propose under the color of virtue, that is to say to want to do justice against evil pastors regarding their fault. Don’t trust the demon: don’t try to do justice about what does not concern you. God wants neither you nor anyone else to set themselves up as a righter of the wrongs of His ministers. He reserves judgment to Himself, and He reserves it to His Vicar; and if the Vicar does not do justice, we should wait for the punishment and correction on the part of the sovereign judge, God Eternal." (Letters, Vol. I. Letter No. 28; Vatican's Cardinal Hoyos' Ecclesia dei Commision response to SSPX Bishop Fellay. )."

<> St Catherine forshadowed an accurate diagnosis of Msgr. Lefebvre; and, by the way, you and your ilk<>

[patent]

First, regarding the Williamson article. The fact that Williamson writes as he does demonstrates two things. First, it demonstrates that the Society has indeed usurped these powers that I mentioned:

Where is the Church mandate for consecrating Bishops? Where is the Church mandate for granting annulments? Where is the Church mandate for exercising jurisdiction in various parishes, without the approval of the local ordinary (something far outside traditional Catholicism), where is the Church mandate for opening new orders of nuns, etc.? We could go on, but those are the high points, so to speak.

Second, it proves that the Church documents and law under which the SSPX was created did not give the Society the power to do these things, as obviously he cannot make a single citation to the source for the authority and jurisdiction they have taken. Rather than refuting my point, that the Society had no Church mandate for these actions, he helps prove it.

What he argues is a different point, that the Society had to do it anyway. (“The first major principle that comes into play is that while ordinary cases are dealt with by ordinary laws, cases out of the ordinary, or emergency cases, need to be dealt with by principles behind and above the ordinary laws.”) He is wrong there as well, but that is another issue. The Society had no Church mandate or authority for what it has done, which is to establish a parallel Church structure, one with its own Bishops, its own tribunals, its own seminaries, etc.

If "Catholics follow Trent and Vatican II" as you suggest, why does Rome fight Trent tooth and nail? Why does it use trickery to disguise the Protestant bias of the Novus Ordo?

It doesn’t do any of these things.

Why does it deliberately obscure allusions to the Real Presence or to the Sacrificial nature of the Mass while doing all it can to play up the Memorial Meal aspect in direct violation of Trent?

It doesn’t do this either. We’ve talked about it before, I’ve quoted all the sacrificial language in the Mass to you, but they you babble on about how it doesn’t really mean what it says, etc. You are hopeless here, so I’ll just disagree with you.

I might use the same term about you: you are a heretic insofar as you buy into the modernist heresy which seeks to Protestantize Catholicism.

LOL. Precisely which heresy is this? I do not seek to Protestantize Catholicism, your general term, so your going to have to be more specific about which Church teaching I conflict with.

As for your calling me a heretic, the charge is another slander and nothing else. What Catholic doctrine have I ever rejected? Name one. I do not even reject Vatican II, though I have called it unwise and believe it has given the enemies of the faith the excuse they needed to attack the Church from within. Nor have I rejected the Pope, though I have been critical of his policies. So explain how I am a heretic.

I have called you a heretic for specific things in the past, I’m not going to go look every one up for you again, if you wanted to dispute the term you should have done so then.

patent  +AMDG