Replies

The short and sufficent answer to all of which is that Dario Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos is Monsignor Perl's boss not vice versa. Even if you were right about the significance of Monsignor Perl's letter, which you are not, since that letter is nothing more than a simple rejection of Donatist heresy, Perl's letter is no rejection of the fact that SSPX is in schism. First, of all, no one died and left him pope either. All Perl is saying is that no matter how sinful, disobedient, schismatic, defiant, impudent and scandal-mongering your schismatic clergy and their illicitly consecrated superiors in schism may be, their Masses are still Masses and their Eucharist is still the Eucharist and a SMALL contribution to defray expenses will not trigger punishment. Nothing more. Perl answered specific questions and did not give the schismatics license to go off to the races as usual drawing impious inferences to support their sinfulness.

You do not merely attend regularly the Masses of the SSPX schismatics without, in all likelihood, just cause, you very actively promote the schism itself by waging a campaign of its lies on this website to recruit Catholics away from the Church and into schism. The pope says SSPX is a schism. Last time I checked, he outranks any other living authority and crushing the schism is within his job descrtiption. If he lacks adequate stamina, we pray that the next pope will not lack the health or stamina. If the pope says you are in schism, you are in schism.

Eastern Orthodox Masses and Eucharist are every bit as valid as SSPX Masses or Eucharist and as Catholic Masses and Eucharist. In each, the bread and wine, by transubstantiation, become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. No Catholic authority encourages attendance at Eastern Orthodox Masses because the Eastern Orthodox are in schism. Nor does any Catholic authority encourage attendance at SSPX Masses for precisely the same reason. There is one distinction. Most Eastern Orthodox were born into their ancient Faith. Most SSPX have made the personal decision to apostasize from the Roman Catholic Church.

You write, "You very actively promote the schism itself by waging a campaign of its lies on this website to recruit Catholics away from the Church and into schism. The pope says SSPX is a schism. Last time I checked, he outranks any other living authority and crushing the schism is within his job descrtiption. If he lacks adequate stamina, we pray that the next pope will not lack the health or stamina. If the pope says you are in schism, you are in schism."

Please tell me what lies were used to recruit followrs? Name a single lie. One. You can't--because there are no lies, nor does the SSPX need to lie since the facts speak more loudly than any lies might do. If you really believed they or I lie, you wouldn't be so much at pains to use the excuse that the Pope is old--and should be forgiven his lapses--his failure to reform the seminaries, for instance.

Regarding the Pope's poor health, I would not dispute this as a mitigation, but his derelictions go back to the years when he was in his prime. It does not excuse the elevation of so many bad, truly corrupt churchmen during his long papacy. The roster really is scandalous. As for the seminaries--they have been bastions of dissent and a growing gay subculture for decades--and they still are to this day. No changes have ever been imposed. None.

I take note of this because this Pontiff, so tolerant of the left's dissent and corruption, nevertheless has trouble tolerating Catholic tradition. Over the years he has continually directed his animus towards the Traditional Movement. This has not been the result of a confused old age, it has been the result of a conscious papal policy. One archbishop may be an open heretic, publicly doubting the historicity of the Resurrection or the Divinity of Christ, and he is rewarded with a red hat. Another insists he must consecrate traditional bishops if Catholic beliefs and the ancient Mass are to be preserved, and he is directly declared schismatic. I am not making any of this up, or telling lies, or recruiting anybody to my point of view. The facts speak for themselves.

As for the Pope's outranking everybody else--that's not exactly true. He doesn't outrank God. And he doesn't outrank Catholic Tradition, which comes to us under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and which even a pope is obliged to defend. And while it's true JnPII apparently believed Archbishop Lefebvre was in schism because of the latae sententiae excommunication for an act of disobedience, the Pope's letter announcing this was far from infallible and he clearly was mistaken--as even some highly-placed canonists now admit. How do we know? --because his own Canon Law says so--and the Pope's own Canon Law outranks any papal letter, especially a letter so wanting in theological precision.

Your last claim is equally specious. I never doubted Eastern Orthodox believe in the Real Presence. My point was that the words of Consecration are not evidence of Catholic orthodoxy per se. You seemed to think they proved this for the Novus Ordo and cited them in that context. As for your ridiculous statement that Catholics "apostasize themselves" by attending SSPX Masses, you need to reread the letter from Ecclesia Dei which states precisely the opposite. If you won't believe even Rome, which you are usually at pains to defend, then once again it's clear that it is your spleen you are venting, rather than any sort of reasoned argument.