[patent]

One of the points we make in the book is that neo-Catholicism is a defense of novelty rather than Catholic doctrine as such.

Once upon a time the Orthodox considered defense of the filoque to be a defense of novelty, rather than a defense of Catholic doctrine as such.
Once upon a time the Old Catholics considered defense of Vatican I’s formal definitions to be a defense of novelty, rather than a defense of Catholic doctrine as such.
Etc.

So many fail to follow the Church because they think it is making a change contrary to the Traditional faith. So many have proven so wrong.

Dr. Thomas Woods and I are putting the finishing touches on a book defending the traditionalist position against attacks from within the neo-Catholic (a.k.a. "conservative" Catholic)

Because they are essentially defenders of novelty, the neo-Catholics are more or less practical liberals, objectively speaking, whether or not individual members of the neo-Catholic movement subjectively understand this.

Yep, that must be me. This whole article seems chock full of insulting and sarcastic language. Read through it and not the number of times it speaks with sarcasm or insult, when the logic of its argument might have been left on its own, for better or for worse.

It speaks rather strongly about the merit of the author’s position that he can’t make his case with straight logic.

While the motu proprio applied the excommunication and the delict of schism by name only to Lefebvre and the four priests he consecrated, since then, true to form, neo-Catholic commentators at EWTN, The Wanderer and elsewhere have with great alacrity denounced as "schismatic" not only Lefebvre and the four bishops he consecrated, but all the priests of the Society of Saint Pius X, any member of the faithful who frequents their chapels, and anyone who defends Lefebvre's actions. The neo-Catholics have even coined the terms "Lefebvrist" and "Lefebvrism" to stigmatize "extreme traditionalists" in general.

I don’t generally speak on who is schismatic and who is not. In my view that is the Pope’s decision, not mine. I would note, however, that Martin Luther was excommunicated. Most of his followers were not. Yet, one suspects, Mr. Ferrara would admit they are schismatic. Even those who don’t know enough about theology to hold any heretical positions are schismatic. One does not have to be excommunicated to be schismatic.

patent  +AMDG

[ELS]

This whole article seems chock full of insulting and sarcastic language. Read through it and not the number of times it speaks with sarcasm or insult, when the logic of its argument might have been left on its own, for better or for worse.

Yes, I do wish that Mr. Ferrara had edited out the sarcasm and insults. I do not agree with his characterization of whom I consider to be other orthodox Catholics.

I'll get back to you later on the schism point.