Replies

"Hardly, a simple method for that would be to absolutly excommunicate anyone who attends a SSPX chapel, and that has not happened."

No, your argument is not correct. The fact that the modernists haven't been able to excommunicate everyone who attends an SSPX chapel doesn't mean they wouldn't if they could. Several bishops have tried to sanction people who go to SSPX masses, and have been reversed (too gently) by the Vatican.

Additionally, the modernists cannot act too blatantly, because they still need to maintain plausible deniability, the pretext that they are operating out of faith and in the interest of the faithful.

It is true of both political and ecclesial leftists that they must hide their true natures and intentions from the people they plan to rule.

And finally, we must reflect that, were it not for SSPX, the Tridentine Mass would not today be available anywhere on the surface of the planet, to anyone. The modernists came that close to final victory.

"My point was not to fire off another war, but to point out a protest is not in keeping with Catholic practice. Thomas a Kempis would not protest, Padre Pio would not protest"

Thomas a Becket would, and so would Thomas Moore. Joan of Arc was instructed to take to the battlefield. I think you are completely mistaken about that.

"even when the Chinese Church is being chastized you don't see protest."

We don't see anything because of the news blackout by the Chicoms. None of us knows what is going on there.

"Protest is ineffective."

Do you really believe that? Amazing.

"The pretext for declining the Indult was given by those who protested, if they hadn't protested, they would have forced the Bishop to give a less sound reason."

A pretext is still a pretext, and therefore invalid and wrongful, no matter who gave it to whom. You cannot be paralyzed in the face of evil by the notion that evil will seize on any action as a pretext to do what it was going to do anyway.

Further, if they hadn't protested, the bishop wouldn't have had to give "a less sound reason." He wouldn't have had to give any reason to anyone. It was only the protests that forced him to go on record with a transparent pretext, demonstrating that he has no sound reasons.

Modernists in positions of authority are now abusing safeguards designed to protect faithful clergy to shield themselves in their wrongdoing.

Thomas a Becket would, and so would Thomas Moore. Joan of Arc was instructed to take to the battlefield. I think you are completely mistaken about that.

You are full of beans.

Moore did not lead a protest, and Beckett also did not protest. Joan of Arc lead troops in a war that was already being fomented. None of these Saints would even presume to protest against a Bishop of the Church who are in union with the Pope.

In Joan of Arc's trial she defended herself as if the judge was lawful and competent (legally) to try her. She acted and submitted to his usurped authority, for the sake of Christ. She did not stage a sit in. She died like a Saint, without screaming curses at her captors, indeed she shouted prayers to Our Lord, and invoked a litany of Saints as she burned. How dare you make her to be a dirty hippie for the disobedient protestor.

They did something that was not Catholic, they railed against the Catholic authority in that Diocese. When I read St. Claude de la Colombiere, in his Trustful Surrender (hardly modernist) I am taught I should submit in the name of Christ, not make a placard.

If we wish to claim to be Catholics, we ought to rely on the promises of Jesus Christ and not upon the malignant dishonesty and rebelliousness of the likes of Marcel and his ecclesiastical love slaves.

You really have drunk the SSPX Kool Aid if you think that SSPX is responsible for ANYTHING positive much less the availability of the Tridentine Mass in the parish churches of many dioceses. I was married in a Tridentine wedding Mass in Connecticut, courtesy of the late Archbishop John Whealon, two years before Marcel and his co-conspirators and adherent gulls were excommunicated and declared schismatic.

Bishop Ferrario of Honolulu is the only case I know of in which a diocesan ordinary claimed to excommunicate people for attending SSPX Masses. As anyone actually familiar with the case and who practices honesty can tell you, the reason for the excommunications was that the individuals he tried to excommunicate had outed him as a homosexual who kept a former altar boy stashed in San Francisco for his weekend "recreation." Not only were the "excommunications" reversed but Ferrario was forced out as diocesan ordinary relatively promptly.

SSPX is in the very bad habit of telling its gulls the very self-serving (for SSPX) lie that you cite.

If you know of any other bishops who are said to have excommunicated Catholics for attending SSPX Masses, please provide names of bishops and "excommunicates", dioceses, dates and details.

While I question your underlying rationale in the statement "And finally, we must reflect that, were it not for SSPX, the Tridentine Mass would not today be available anywhere on the surface of the planet, to anyone. The modernists came that close to final victory", I cannot deny the fact that the SSPX was responsible for its continuation.

OTOH, I think that all rational Conservatives will be pleased with what B-16 will do in the future.