[nika]

I didn't think for a minute that I or anyone else would actually be able to open your mind to the truth. I know you have chosen to remain locked up in a mental prison of your own creation.

Even though you have lost the ability to see it, Fr. Most has given us a calm and reasoned view of the extent to which Vatican II is binding on the faithful while acknowledging the disclaimers you point out with such excitement.

By the way, he was an implacable foe of modernists in the church, and your calling him "liberal" and a "modernist" is quite amusing.

There is no doubt modernism is the enemy of the Church and must be contended with. Fr. Most was faithful and fought the good fight until he died. He made much progress and helped many to keep the faith. You didn't stay and fight. You jumped ship. That didn't help at all.

[american colleen]

You didn't stay and fight. You jumped ship. That didn't help at all.

Amen, Nika.

When I first started posting on FR was when I first heard of the SSPX and everything they espouse and uphold. I was very sympathetic to their stance until I got to read more and more posts which eventually came to remind me of Protestant objections amounting to "Non serviam est!" in both cases.

The further along I came on FR the more I realized that the SSPX mentality is a fortress mentality - an "us against them" way of living. It's terribly tragic that the radical traditional souls within the Church, particularly the males, do not see the the seeds of faith they could be planting within the regular parish setting or how, if they attended a Tridentine rite, those parishes would eventually be forced to expand - never mind the vocation spike they would have! Given that scenerio, the traditional element within the Church would be strengthened immeasureably and would overcome the progressive element much more quickly than is happening now. There is indeed strength in numbers.

The break away SSPX has fallen prey to disobedience. One couldn't imagine a happier scenerio for the devil.

[ultima ratio]

Excitement? Hardly. If anyone has been excited, it has been yourself, first claiming Vatican II was "infallible", then retreating to a lesser position, all the while hurling insult and invective. Fr. Most himself accuses those who deny the infallibility of the Council with "ignoring" its teachings. But this is a straw man, as I've shown. Traditionalists don't do this, they simply point out that assent to ambiguity is impossible--which is a reasoned response. Smoke and fog, after all, is a hard thing to get hold of.

As for "jumping ship", this is the kind of smug wisecrack that only illustrates your own intolerance for intellectual opposition. You say this first without having proved your case, and second without having a shred of real appreciation about where I am coming from in this exchange. I am fully congnizance of what teachings I must hold as infallible, the failure of any one of which would mean I have violated the faith and which would put me outside the Church. But failure to agree that Vatican II was infallible is certainly not one of these, despite all your huffing and puffing and eventual backtracking.