Replies

"I only mention these because you have made the same mistakes several times (to coin a phrase)."

That would be a lot more effective if I actually had made those errors several times. However, I only made those typos once.

Sometimes white-hot opporobrium makes us so eager to strike a blow that we tromp on our own hooters.

"Bishop Doran is as favorable to the Tridentine Mass as any bishop and allows all of his priests to say it without further permission."

That's very good. If the SSPX hadn't done what they did, Doran would not have permission from the Vatican to allow his priests to say the Tridentine. The indult was only handed down in an attempt to derail the SSPX.

"We did not play bull in a china shop, huffing and puffing, and bossing the archbishop around."

I think that's a mischaracterization. Their disobedience to wrongful orders has been reluctant and reserved.

"Thus, Archbishop Whealon did more than grant special permission, he came down in favor of our Tridentine Mass with his full authority against his own chancery officials."

He's no longer with us, though. Who is there to do that today?

"Marcel's agreement to JP II's terms and to cancel the illicit consecrations as illicit bishops of the Econe Four and his mealy-mouthed cancellation of his agreement"

I don't understand why you keep saying that. Lefevbre agreed to one set of conditions. Having gained his agreement, the Vatican promptly changed the conditions: there would be only one bishop, and Vatican bureaucrats would choose him with no input from SSPX. In other words, it was a dirty little trick aimed at killing SSPX and the Tridentine. By any standards of law and morality, a party can declare a contract null if the other party unilaterally changes or imposes conditions.

"The oft-repeated fantasy that the Hawaii 7 (or whatever number) were excommunicated for attending SSPX Masses "

Well, that's the history I have. If you have evidence to the contrary, please produce it.

"To the best of my knowledge the SSPX schismatic excommunicates have never trespassed on the entire territory of the Archdiocese of Hartford and have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with its Tridentine Masses being allowed."

Without them, the Tridentine would today be completely suppressed.

"in service to his idjit delusion that direct disobedience to the pope and consecration of four illicit bishops was necessary in what passed for Marcel's mind to continue the Church (a direct Marcellian rejection of Jesus Christ's promises to the contrary as well)."

Our Lord promised that the Church would triumph in the end; He never said their wouldn't be battles, and even battles lost. He didn't say, "Okay, you can just kick back, stop fighting the evil one, and wait for the Second Coming."

Frankly, I wonder what the Church would look like today, what road it would be on, if the enemies of the Church had succeeded in suppressing the Tridentine back in the 60s.

"having drunk the SSPX Kool Aid, you"

There's no need to be insulting. I haven't drunk anyone's Kool Aid. I merely seek the truth of these issues, and I think your version of events is unduly biased.

"You may well think that the moon is made of green cheese but that will not make it so."

And back atcha.

There are two stories on "who done what" re the Vat/Lefebvre agreement. Obviously, one can believe whichever one ...

But the Vatican (largely Jos. Ratzinger) had no good reason to double-cross Marcel.

It's just possible (is it not) that Williamson, who is one of the more megalomaniacal folks around, yanked Marcel's chain, no?

Note well that SSPX is still resisting B-16. They claim that HE is a shady character, too. Is EVERY Pope a shady character?

As to Hawaii: the Vatican made two decisions. One was publicized by the SSPX; the other, leading to Ferrairo's immediate retirement, was not.

You presume that the Vatican's silence implies consent to the SSPX's propaganda, and you should know better.