Thanks. I've only had time to read a fraction of what he says. The first quote which started the fiasco came from what I think was a recent edition of Angelus magazine, which I only started buying from the chapel bookstore three months ago. I don't know what most others in SSPX think, so I couldn't answer that part of the question (except with respect to the reconciliation - all I've talked to say the faith needs to be restored before reconciliation begins).
1. Actually, there were several countries in Europe which had Catholicism as the official state religion, and if I remember correctly, forbade non-Catholics right to hold public office. You don't need a dictatorship for it; a constitution which recognizes Catholicism as the true religion and official state religion, grants the Church the freedom to conduct its business (even allowing for a pope to remove a heretical monarch or politician), and codifies Catholic morals into law is all that's needed. Seeing the mess we have in the U.S., though, I'm starting to think maybe a monarch is needed here sometime soon.
2. I had to stop there only because I had an idea that I wanted to add in, but I still can't find the words for it. I don't know exactly how you look at traditionalists, but I don't see anything wrong with an education - my only question at that moment was whether it was for the right reasons (that's the getting degrees for the sake of getting degrees part). I do believe there are different natures and set roles for both man and woman. There's no way getting around that reality. I would think that one could do something which is morally permissible as long as it didn't divert the person from normal duties.
And what happened to women pursuing vocations? Why is it necessary to do what the world expects all the time?
3. About the rosary: I don't have a problem with praying the rosary, with one exception. I don't use the "luminous" mysteries at all. I even told my friends that I refuse to do so. I think we may end up heading toward tension someday, but I don't believe anyone has a right to tamper with tradition. This they know about, but we'll have to see how they really handle it when it counts. And, last week before praying the rosary with some of them, they had this "divine mercy" chaplet. I kept silent on that one for the entire time, because it's not a Church-approved devotion.
4. I need have to comment because it was self-explanatory. I was in a charismatic group back in those days. And guess what? We heard one of the prayer leaders talk about the WTC incident as a chastisement from God. Which, if you had included this quote, from the same Williamson letter, would eliminate any hint of "anti-semitism" that was alleged:
This problem of the United States is politically insoluble, because it is a religious problem! The United States is caught between these two scourges of God, because it has turned away from God. God chastises those whom He loves (Heb. XII, 6), so that if God were not now chastising the United States, it would be the proof not that He loved, but that He did not love the United States! Let us be grateful that God is using Arab and Jew to chastise us! And let us therefore, with no thought of hating Arab or Jew, because they are NOT the real problem, turn to the real problem, which is the sins by which we offend God. Let us take the Ten Commandments in reverse order, culminating in the first.I would like to say that the religious liberty that Masons promoted when setting up the foundation for the U.S. government got us in trouble: from it we have the Americanist heresy, the religious indifferentism even among self-proclaimed Catholics, and of course, intimidation via political correctness. And I haven't begun to start talking about the Vatican II heresies which are related to this.
5. Christian morals, like Church teaching, do not change. I don't where you see a problem with my comments on "Sound of Music". We can't find any decent movies nowadays.
6. That other women wear pants doesn't change the fact that the Church disapproves of it. Even Scripture condemns this idea: "A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God" (Deuteronomy 22.5). Now before we start leveling accusations of chauvinism, I should let you know that I posted three links earlier to articles regarding modesty. One describing what the Magesterium teaches, another is article about proper women's attire, written by a woman, and a third is a site about modesty, by an organization called Ladies Against Feminism. Now, if women agree to Church teachings, where's the chauvinism? It's modernism and feminism which is the real problem here.
As for the link to abortion, it's a Castro de Mayer statement which happened to be repeated. I don't know how they made the connection, but logically speaking, it's not that far off. If a feminist wanted to really go further, sterilization is not that difficult to deal with.
Clarification: an extreme feminist would be likely to advocate sterilization because there would be no need to worry about children in the first place.
So much talk about human rights, abortion rights, etc., but not one thing from most freepers here about God's rights. I wonder why that is. . .
What do you mean it isn't a Church-approved devotion? Which Church are you referring to, the Lutheran church? The person that the devotion originated from, Faustina Kowalska, was canonized in 2000, and a plenary indulgence was granted for the Divine Mercy Sunday devotions this past year.
Speaking of the rosary, the current form of joyful, sorrowful, and glorious mysteries for the rosary came from Pope Pius V in 1569, who was a former Dominican. Before that, the rosary was known as a "Paternoster," for obvious reasons.