Replies

Not at all. You have a strange way of arguing. First you deny things are abnormal. When I point out they are, you tell me to lighten up. But I was making a point. Lefebvre was using the present crisis as a reason for disobedience. He saw Rome desired to destroy Tradition and would not play along. For this he was punished severely. What do you suppose these threads have been about, if not whether the charge of schism was justified? I have been trying to show it was not--and to do this I must make the case.

It is also to illustrate what the cause of the crisis is. If we can't--or won't--name it, we can't possibly resolve it. Example: the bishops won't come to terms with the gay subculture. But they won't stop the scandals until they do? You, however, would tell them instead to lighten up, the barque of Peter is being tossed, the waves will be calmed eventually in the future. This is hooey. We have got to reform and eliminate corruption--which means naming our problems and desisting in destroying the foundations of our faith.

I have never said a word about Lefabvre. I have not denied that things are "abnormal" I simply say that things are ALWAYS "abnormal." But there are never going to hell. Somehow we stop short of that cliff. The present crisis in the Church is bad, but let us not forget that two hundred years ago, the papacy came within an inch of being snuffed out by Napoleon. It's actual ascendency to a centrality of control of the universal Church took place after that low point. If we look at the Church in the mid 16th Century before the Council did its work, we see a bad situation that WAS remedied when God raised up such saints as Phillip Neri.