CathInfo.com

This time I will use the second person as a deictic reference.

It seems I am woefully misunderstood and misjudged.  [...]

Uh, you have targeted me in some sort of neurotic tirade, even in a new thread you began today, so what you are writing about me only illustrates your myopia. I don't know what it is that makes you so obsessive regarding the fact that I have put you on ignore: can't you just accept that fact and move on? You can ignore me too (please, please do so).

Please feel free to think anything you wish of me: I don't care what others think of me, especially on the internet.

I do not hate you, nor wish you ill. Your emotions do not constitute the reality outside your mind: just because you got hurt or can't handle when people attempt to correct you doesn't mean someone's out to "get you."

I'm sorry you got hurt.

I pray that God grants you the plenitude of every heavenly grace and blessing.

Let's move on...

This is certainly of interest here.

"Elements of Religious Life" by William Humphrey, S.J., Second Edition, Thomas Baker, London, 1903, pp. 16,17.

http://strobertbellarmine.net/Episcopal_state.pdf

ELEMENTS OF RELIGIOUS LIFE

there is no middle or third state; as there is no middle or third state between the state of a teacher and the state of his disciple. While Bishops stand in need of personal perfection, they nevertheless do not receive any special means of acquiring it in virtue of their state. They have, in virtue of their state, those means only by which they exercise perfection for the benefit of others.
The distinction between the two states is real and adequate; as is the distinction between a thing to be done and a thing to be received, or between a man's acquiring a thing for himself, and his communicating that thing to others. A man may exercise himself in works of perfection, although he himself is not perfect. A man may persuade another man to be chaste, while he himself is not chaste. A man may induce another man to practice poverty, although he himself does not even profess poverty.

The stability which is required in order to the idea of a state is, in the episcopate, as it is a state of perfection, derived not from consecration but from prelature. Episcopal consecration is indelible, but it does not constitute a state of perfection. 1t does not bind the man who has been consecrated to the doing of any works of perfection. I t only bestows a capacity and power for the performance of episcopal actions, so far as power of Order is concerned. It does not give pastoral rights. It does not of itself bind the Bishop to any works of counselor perfection; neither does it of itself and ex-officio bind him to the enlightening and perfecting of others. A Bishop is, in virtue of his consecration, bound only by reason of his episcopal dignity to give a greater example of virtue and good living within the sphere of the precepts. This is an obligation which is common, in its measure, to all persons who are placed in any dignity. I t does not by itself suffice to constitute a special state, and much less a state of perfection.

The stability of the episcopate, as it is a state of perfection, springs from prelature. The episcopate once accepted carries with it a perpetual obligation of permanence in the episcopal office, so that this office cannot be laid aside at the Bishop's will. This moral stability is sufficient in order to the idea of a state. Consecration adds nothing to his state, but gives him power to do acts which, if he were not consecrated, he could not possibly perform. It is then when a Bishop has been elected and confirmed that he enters on the state of perfection.

That which specifically constitutes the episcopate as a "state of perfection to be exercised" consists in the actions to which the episcopate as it is a state binds a Bishop, and to which it perpetually dedicates him. His functions are of the most perfect kind. They are to enlighten, to purify, and to perfect other men. As the royal state may be called a state of prudence and fortitude, not because it furnishes these virtues, or teaches how they are to be acquired, but because it demands them and supposes possession of them, if the royal office is to be rightly exercised and as the office of a teacher may be called a state of learning-, not because it makes a man learned, but because it supposes and requires in him that already acquired perfection so is the state of a Bishop rightly called a state of perfection, the state of a perfect man.

Since consecration does not place Bishops, still less will ordination place priests in the "state of perfection to be exercised." Neither ordination nor episcopal consecration binds or deputes persons to works of perfection.

Just to clarify, one more time, Hobbles implied Griff thinks that only SVs are in the true Church when he actually includes some indult/moto people in that group.  I mentioned what hobbles claimed, was quite incorrect, stating that among some SVs he goes too far in the other direction.  Perhaps this was my attack.  I am not one of those "some" SVs.

Should read:

Just to clarify, one more time, Hobbles implied Griff thinks that only SVs are in the true Church when Griff actually includes some indult/moto people in that group.  I mentioned what hobbles claimed, was quite incorrect, stating that among some SVs Griff goes too far in the other direction.  Perhaps this was my "attack".  I am not one of those "some" SVs.

Seems to me that none of this commentary is unifying.

Do you think it possible to accept SSPX , SSPV , CMRI , Father Ramolla Et Al despite their differences simply because they Practise and Teach the Catholic Faith , demonstrate Marian Devotion - Dispense the Sacraments , and do the Will of Almighty GOD?

Or are we to let petty disagreements continually drive wedges and further splinter Traditional Catholicism?

Certainly if there are Heretical Differences like with the Feeney followers - this point is moot - however - continual Division should not be the goal.   Certainly , union in Lex Orandi Lex Credendi must at some point have credibility.

I reject divisions.

Perhaps a Marian Movement is in order - that we can unite in Marian Devotion - something we all hold in common and work towards a Spiritual Solution to this Dilemma.  

It seems to me , that so long as human reason is the key element in defining our faith - and not a spiritually unifying aparatus - then our future will simply be more of the same.

Pax