Raoul is fond of dropping the line "errors of the SSPX" as if these were self-evident for all to see.  I'm curious, Raoul, can you list these errors?  Also, I'm curious if you are willing to back up your calumnious blurbs and soundbites about Pius XII.  Also, that Scripture quote from the Apocalypse applied to the Vatican II Popes was a masterstroke of proof-texting!  Pretty clever, but does it stand the test of scrutiny?  I've set forth some issues with which you must deal as a matter of justice.  

The floor is yours.

Caminus, this would have been better had you asked him in PM, especially since he's already given his opinions on the SSPX tons of times.

And although I am not Raoul, I will start off by saying that Bishop Fellay's view on sedevacantism alone is an error. Atleast Archbishop LeFebvre had clear and fair views on the position even though he was not one. Bishop Fellay acts almost like the Novus Ordites when dealing with sedevacantists...gasping with horror as if sedes are monsters. It's really overly-dramatic.

I don't know -- I for one can't recall Raoul's elusive list of "SSPX errors" -- so maybe others would like to know as well.

For those who didn't know this already -- It's also common knowledge that PIO is Raoul's biggest cheerleader/fan. He even tries to imitate his style (if you ask me, he  is like the computer-generated remakes of Smurfs/Alvin & the Chipmunks compared to the originals. I know, "ouch!")

Real smooth, Matthew. No response back to that.

I'm my own person.. I respect you but I won't bend over backwards for you like many lemmings and wusses around here.


You can respect that , right?

In fact Matthew, what's wrong with PIO being Raoul's biggest fan? I'll admit I obviously don't agree with everything Raoul says (or everything that anyone here says for that matter) but with all due respect I think that comment you made about PIO was un-called for. I know you were trying to cut up more than anything else but still, PIO is a good man and a good Trad, not to mention a good contributor to this forum (the same applies to Raoul). I don't think it's fair to pick at him for liking someone's posts. It's not like he's a fan of someone dangerous like CM. He's a fan of another big forum contributor whom you yourself said you were glad you un-banned.

I along with Matt do not recall this clear, forthright list of "errors" of the SSPX.  Like I said, he just drops the line.  I do recall challenging him in the past to put up or shut up, but his hit and run posts haven't cleared anything at all.  So, I'd like to see a list of these alleged errors.  Mike's a great social commentator, he's very good at analyzing human behavior, but he is theologically inept, he doesn't understand even basic theological concepts or principles and his scriptural exegesis is equally unsound.  I suspect that's why I've never gotten more than two posts out of him when directly challenged on a theological topic.  

SS, your example of an "error" is absolutely ridiculous.  SVism is an opinion regarding a contingent fact; rejeccting this conclusion doesn't even come close to the censure of theological error.  No one likes a dogmatic sedevacantist, even most sedevacantists don't like dogmatic sedevacantists so really, you should try to confine your list to offenses against Catholic doctrine, not mere opinions.    

That's fine.  Now Raoul on the other hand invokes the principle of invincible ignorance regarding their supposed errors.  The use of this term implies that they err against the faith or a truth that is necessary for salvation.  That language implies moral culpability the matter of which is grave sin.  That is a very serious statement that needs to be demonstrated, not bandied about like a little plaything.  If he can't back it up, then he needs to retract his groundless charges.  

This is actually really important. For Raoul, who as Caminus says rightly, to be a "great social commentator [and] very good at analyzing human behavior" and have obvious influence on good people like PiO, to throw out so many cheap shots at the SSPX and its followers without having the courage or ability to substantiate his claims is wrong. Caminus nails it again, he's "theologically inept". If Raoul can say sweeping statements like"SSPX is erroneous in its theology then whats wrong with Caminus calling someone out on their claims, especially if this person has such influence with others? Nothing

Now you have people like PIO saying all in the SSPX are two sided and other ridiculous claims, not taking into account the best and most trained theologians (not armchair wannabes) are found and helped start the SSPX. Seriously? Go to your sede sspx bashing parties for this if it makes you feel better; after all, thats what they're designed for. Matthew has proven time and time again, he's not a SSPX party-liner- and you cheer him there, right? But if he tries to defend them, you wont have it.

I mean, even CuriousCatholic23 posed the question to Raoul:Question for Raoul: Why do you claim the SSPX has "erroneous theology" that has "dangerous implications" yet you also claim the SSPX is not quite heretical?

What would the SSPX have to do in your opinion to qualify them as heretical?

Sadly, no answer. BUT HEY! He gets a clap from CC23 on the last page of this thread! Yipeeee! Another fanclub member!

I would venture to say this isn't out of some false charity PiO might make Raoul to seem to have, its quite the opposite. He smears without backing up, apart from some feeling he has about the SSPX. I'm not being malicious to Raoul when I say, his 'feelings' haven't got the best track record. So when you're cheerleading PiO, remember that. For all we know, Raoul may end up joining the SSPX based on his track record for changing opinions on subjects. All I can do is pray for the guy. I like him, and really like reading the majority of his posts; but notice the only one who hasn't responded to Caminus here is Raoul... I wonder why... really why.......... pride?