Who cares what "Pope" Michael thinks.

Quote from: obscurus

Who cares what "Pope" Michael thinks.

I care what he thinks. I find him interesting. I wonder if he ever has doubts about his "papacy."

Thanks for posting this Matto. I think I like him better than Fellay!

Quote from: Francisco

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: obscurus

Who cares what "Pope" Michael thinks.

I care what he thinks. I find him interesting. I wonder if he ever has doubts about his "papacy."

Thanks for posting this Matto. I think I like him better than Fellay!

Sorry! I've just looked at his stuff on the web. I withdraw my comment!

This guy is no dummy. His video provides a laboratory demonstration of self-interpreting Tradition to custom-design one's own post-Vatican II traditionalist position (PV2TP). His action parallels the protestants' self-interpretation of the bible when custom designing their own denominations.

Michael's position is arguable, just like most of the other PV2TP's. Traffic on trad forums largely consists of such argumentation. Typically, each of the more thoughtful trads to develops his own unique PV2TP.

The protestant denomination development process ensures diverse conflicting doctrines, as the PV2TP development process also results in diversity.

It is mistaken to hold out one's own or one's groups' PV2TP as a test of Catholic orthodoxy. Instead, the sole measure should consist of pre-Vatican II orthodoxy, but with the current status of papal office consigned as a paradox for the duration of the crisis.

I think it is schismatic for Catholics to divide from others who share pre-Vatican II orthodoxy, but I do not hold this opinion out as a test of Catholic orthodoxy.

"For the duration of the crisis" is a weak form of interregnum which may in time turns an institution of protest into a de facto church while she searches for de jure status. As Michael says, the SSPX was conceived as an expression of protest in the post-V2 church. It was to stay there until booted out where upon it became that de facto church with bishops and all while unilaterally claiming partial-communion status with the post-V2 church. I think this explanation should satisfy the most dispassionate observer except for drawing a clear distinction between the Church and the post-V2 church which Michael does.

THe "mistakes" of ABL: novus ordo validity, papal recognition and 'unauthorised' episcopal consecration would be considered as so much "half-way garbage", turning the serious work of the traditionalist movement (the Church) into a joke. We can see in hindsight where the Society went wrong and how it is now deparately backtracking to its pre-expulsion days in order to help in 'reforming the Church', with an offshoot solidifying ABL's harder moments in the form of another 'resistance'. These opposite positions should inform their greatly confused congregations that they either are a loyal constituent of the conciliar church (which Menzingen calls the Church) or cannot perform as traditionalists without maintaining a discrete distance from contemorary Rome as she declines and falls again.    

Quote from: Francisco

Quote from: Francisco

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: obscurus

Who cares what "Pope" Michael thinks.

I care what he thinks. I find him interesting. I wonder if he ever has doubts about his "papacy."

Thanks for posting this Matto. I think I like him better than Fellay!

Sorry! I've just looked at his stuff on the web. I withdraw my comment!

This guy is no dummy. His video provides a laboratory demonstration of self-interpreting Tradition to custom-design one's own post-Vatican II traditionalist position (PV2TP). His action parallels the protestants' self-interpretation of the bible when custom designing their own denominations.

Michael's position is arguable, just like most of the other PV2TP's. Traffic on trad forums largely consists of such argumentation. Typically, each of the more thoughtful trads to develops his own unique PV2TP.

The protestant denomination development process ensures diverse conflicting doctrines, as the PV2TP development process also results in diversity.

It is mistaken to hold out one's own or one's groups' PV2TP as a test of Catholic orthodoxy. Instead, the sole measure should consist of pre-Vatican II orthodoxy, but with the current status of papal office consigned as a paradox for the duration of the crisis.

I think it is schismatic for Catholics to divide from others who share pre-Vatican II orthodoxy, but I do not hold this opinion out as a test of Catholic orthodoxy.

This post is so good, it deserves to be the OP of a thread.

Rock on, Dove.

Quote from: Columba

Quote from: Wessex

These opposite positions should inform their greatly confused congregations that they either are a loyal constituent of the conciliar church (which Menzingen calls the Church) or cannot perform as traditionalists without maintaining a discrete distance from contemorary Rome as she declines and falls again.

ABL wanted to keep some connection with Rome while avoiding a surrender to Modernist control. Certainly many formerly trad societies have been captured by the Modernists, as if drawn in by some mysterious deathstar tractor beam. According to such an analogy, maintaining discrete distance from the newRoman deathstar is necessary to remain properly traditionalist.

Does the traditionalist movement claim to legitimately carry the Apostolic inheritance? If so, then Rome and the Vatican would appear irreplaceable as the seat of the authority included in that inheritance. Therefore, maintaining the claim to Apostolic inheritance requires a serious preparation for the eventual reconquest of Rome.

Archbishop Lefebvre was dancing on a tightrope with an end to the modernist piper's tune nowhere in sight. It was a frightful and fruitless effort as the carnal melody still resounds louder than ever in Rome, having never ceased the siren of Gehenna.

Traditionalists don't really know what heritage they claim if any. There is black and there is white. That is orthodoxy according to what the Church has always said, and according to what She has always taught, believed and practiced.  And there is heterodoxy which exists in rebellion to the former in direct parallel of its dark author.
But most traditionalists in general are happy living in an in between no man's land believing that Catholics can exist with a bit of grey over here and a bit over there as long as they can stand in the white circle on Sunday.

Have you gentleman noticed how many trads - clergy included - simply refuse to look at themselves, at the trad movement, at their trad heros, such as ABL, with any kind of objectivity or healthy critical examination? Have you noticed how immobile, inflexible, and somnambulistic they are? Have you noticed that cliche, party line, 'position,' and default settings have forcefully asserted themselves in that craven realty that self-nominates "traditional Catholic," apparently entirely replacing prayer, meditation, objective consideration, deep study, and consequent militant Catholic action?

What comes out of the mouth comes forth from the heart.

Whenever anything refuses to prune itself, God will come in and do the pruning.

Have you gentleman noticed how many trads - clergy included - simply refuse to look at themselves, at the trad movement, at their trad heros, such as ABL, with any kind of objectivity or healthy critical examination? Have you noticed how immobile, inflexible, and somnambulistic they are?

Yes, but there are a lot of good things about them too.  They have children and they don't like fαɢɢօts or fαɢɢօtry and they are almost never aborting their children.

Being a bunch of stubborn stick in the muds seems reasonable under the circuмstances.

I wouldn't complain if I was in a fox hole with a solider who swore a lot because the enemy is trying to kill us both.

But I agree more introspection would be a good thing, in an ideal world.