SeanJohnson
formerly Seraphim
Reputation: 2352
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 1,802
|
| JohnGrey said: | | Hank said: | | s2srea said: | | Actually, I can confirm the PDF is not a scan of an original. You can highlight and select the text, which is an indication that it was created electronically. Anyone could have altered these, and we would never know it. |
My HP Officejet scans hard copy, and converts it to digital text in the produced PDF file.
So we have two copies inside the PDF file: the image of the hard copy, and digital text that it is keyed to.
Also, the letter might have originally been transmitted as a PDF file with a physical letter to follow later. |
Well, the original letter from the Three to Fellay might be an OCR scan, but the response from Fellay is clearly a scanned-image PDF of an actual letter. You can clearly see the creases in the paper where it's been folded, and there's a letterhead of an entirely different font to the text. More to the point it's irrelevant; we can, by the content of Fellay's response, easily divine the arguments put forth by the Three against reconciliation. I'm very inclined to view the content as genuine.
I'd also like to take the opportunity to thank the intrepid soul that brought the documents to the attention of the traditional community, and Matthew for not only permitting their dissemination but for his rational consideration of their contents and possible consequences. |
I have been selling business grade, freestanding copiers for 5 years, so when I say what I am about to say, I know what I am talking about:
1) The technology now exists to manipulate PDF documents;
2) That a document is formatted in PDF format is no longer a guarantee of originality;
3) The point being that the authenticity of the letter cannot be proven by whether or not it has been posted here in PDF format.
But as an aside, I think there is little doubt, given the tenor, style, content, and recent post of Bishop Williamson (i.e., 3 against 1), as to its authenticity.
|
.........................
Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."
|
| Posted May 10, 2012, 2:54 am |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
SeanJohnson
formerly Seraphim
Reputation: 2352
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 1,802
|
| Melchior Cano said: | Matthew,
You asked:
"So if Vatican II were happening, you'd just say,
"The Pope has the graces of state, and he is promulgating this New Mass, so it must be ok...who am I to resist? Even priests and bishops have no right to question the wisdom of the Pope and Cardinals, who have the graces of state from God to rule the Church..."
Of course not. But Bishop Fellay's point is that no compromise on the Faith is being asked for. Surely you can't equate a prudential decision of the head of a religious order with a question of a clear compromise on the Faith? And even if you were right on this, wouldn't the Catholic response be to sit and wait and see what the document says? Right now, you're equating this deal with Vatican II, the fabrication of the New Mass, etc. and you've never seen the document.
On what grounds do you protest? |
WRONG!!!!
HUGE COMPROMISES AGAINST THE FAITH ARE BEING REQUIRED!!!!
1) Acceptance of a purely practical deal while all the doctrinal issues remain is implicit recognition of doctrinal pluralism!
2) Shees! Do I have to say anything more than what the 3 bishops wrote to Bishop Fellay???
3) Could you please explain why these 3 bishops are erring simpletons who just don't get it?
Some people just don't know when to quit.
Here the 3 bishops lay out exactly their objections, and you callously overlook the whole of their rationales, and revert to "there is no compromise asked" without so much as a reference to their arguments?
Of wait, I forgot, "Ours is not to question why; ours is but to do or die?"
|
.........................
Romans 5:20 "But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."
|
| Posted May 10, 2012, 2:59 am |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
ultrarigorist
Reputation: 380
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 172
|
| Melchior Cano said: |
Bishop Fellay's point is that no compromise on the Faith is being asked for.
Surely you can't equate a prudential decision of the head of a religious order with a question of a clear compromise on the Faith?
you've never seen the document.
On what grounds do you protest? |
But a comprimise will happen, already demonstrated by his willingness to conceal things from the faithful.
I've not seen any prudential decisions from the head of SSPX lately, with regard to peers, subordinates, finances, or negotiations with all those swell chaps who truly hate his flock and everything they represent.
We've seen his vapid document to his fellow bishops, and that's bad enough.
But enough of that Melchior, I'm still stuck at the bit where you turned up on the C.I. list today, only a few hours after this most enlightening correspondence was posted. Coincidence? Pray, fill us in?
|
|
| Posted May 10, 2012, 3:02 am |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
|
|
