.
I might expect JPaul was not referring to you when he said "no one." I surmise he was referring to those who are prone to criticize Resistance Catholics, who claim they're the "true" Resistance, while they accuse you and others like you of being the "fake" Resistance.
.
I was certainly not speaking about Matthew as such, but rather Traditional groups in general who whenever they are in conflict with another faction become very agitated over issues such as validity etc. while in the main they never start or contribute to a thread condemning much greater problems of conciliar validity which range from it false rituals, sacraments, priests, Bishops, and in the current sense its pope.
"Oh, but we've done that so many times before" is what you will hear. Well has it gotten any better or less problematic for the legitimacy of the Church's mission or sacraments? No, and as time goes on it becomes worse and worse as more questionable priests are "ordained" and move up to be appointed as "bishops" and possibly ordain yet more doubtful priests until the whole of validity and orthodoxy become dilute.
Frankly, I do not concern myself with the factions calling each other names anymore. The names that they call themselves or others are meaningless. Fake or real? Resistance is a word that would have been relevant directly after the council when it was implementing the revolution but which has now been consolidated and institutionalized. Today it means nothing except skimishing with another faction over how to do a deal with the revolutionaries.
There is no organized clerical effort or movement which is devoted to countering the council and breaking the hold of the infidel over the Church, which would do battle with the apostate pontiffs and the heretical Bishops directly. Resistance is an anemic and weak word to use in these times, but if one must use it, there is no true resistance in the Church. The sedes might be part of the way there but they are still ineffective.
My original point is that recently there are always two to five active threads lambasting some part or activities of the Boston sect. That is somewhat understandable because Fr. Pfeiffer et al have criticized Bishop Williamson, and his Bishops. In some cases that is justified, but regardless, it plays to a hostile audience on CI, and offends the Bishops supporters, but Boston Ky is a relatively small miniscule operation, and I wonder why it is given so much attention with other more pressing matters are at hand?
But issues such as priestly validity and sacramental validity are far bigger than these things and should always be even handed because they do not only apply to a group which might be out of favor but apply to all segments of the Church at the same time and in the same measure, and should be seen and handled in that way. The places where the corruption is the most active and serious need priority attention.
It does seem that the neo-Traditional movement is sometimes chasing its tail while Rome continues to burn.
Thank you N.O. for presuming good will as my intention. You were not mistaken.
Topic: Ex-OLMC seminarian ordained (Read 40722 times)