Extreme talk is what fosters problems.

I see nothing wrong with disallowing the faithful to video a ceremony, but really, in this day and age, they should designate one person to do so. It helps to take care of weak Catholics later when they feel they need proof of validity.

They are certainly extreme in accusing of being "masonic", but at the same time saying "full-ape insane" and "cult" just adds to the problem likewise.

The lack of logic and proof of this reasoning is self-evident and ridiculous, and reveals the malice and perversion of its author.

...slander the four bishops present on May 11. They were also labeled as "modernist" and "liberal" [min. 34] by the same priest.

...Fr Hewko accused Bp Zendejas of being a "wolf" and an "eel".

Fr Hewko then became paranoid...

The KY Fathers are self-destroying themselves by their erratic behavior...

There are...very harsh and offensive words, uttered by Fr Hewko, who is supposed to play the "damage control" role among the KY Fathers and to have a more measured tone in his words. This is evidently not anymore the case.

These calumnious accusations should help open the eyes of their followers on the fact the KY Fathers have lost all credibility by conducting themselves in a manner unworthy of priests.

Just look at all the points I highlighted, above.

I'd say "full-ape insane" is a measured and accurate assessment of the situation.

All this infighting takes a lot of credibility away from the Resistance - they can't tolerate Rome, SSPX, or even themselves.

Just look at all the points I highlighted, above.

I'd say "full-ape insane" is a measured and accurate assessment of the situation.

I say it is neither measured, nor accurate.

The language in Fr. Ortiz' letter is never mentioned. Fr. Ortiz is never considered to be embellishing words, speaking falsely, or just of his own opinion.  Fr. Ortiz is no better for freaking out in his letter than Fr. Hewko freaking out, airing their dirty laundry.  Malice indeed, by both parties, against other priests...and publicly!  This girly behavior has gone on far too long. Look, no one is saying there isn't important differences in approach, scandal, bad behavior, malice, even faith.  But what the laity should demand is that these knuckleheads pipe down and take it to the back room.  I don't want to hear the politics of their relationships EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY SPEAK.  Once or twice a year, we would like to know where priests stand. NEVER at the expense of another priest or bishop.  I wash my dirty laundry in the laundry room and rinse the dirt into the ground. These priests oughta do the same, get it together and quit this infighting.  Christ asked that we all become one. Why aren't they working for unity at least by way of discretion.  No one is saying *compromise faith*.  If you'll know they are Christians by their love, I'm not sure these are Christians by this hate.
    

:applause:

With all due respect Happenby and Seraphina, publicly calling out priests who are sinning in PUBLIC MATTERS is not infighting.

Let's put it this way: it is not about attacking Fr. Hewko or Fr. Pfeiffer, it is about showing charity to Bp. Zendejas and Bp. Williamson, whose reputations and good name are under UNJUST ATTACK.

Likewise, my motive for joining the Resistance wasn't so much to "oppose" Bp. Fellay and his cronies. It was more to defend the good priests being ejected for being faithful to the old SSPX of Abp. Lefebvre. Good priests who stand up and hold to true Catholic principles deserve our support. The other priests -- whether they are weak, bowing to human respect, corrupted by bad teachings, or even malicious -- they might come around later, that is true. We can hope for them and keep them in our prayers. But the priests and bishops who are TODAY standing up and leaving behind everything for the sake of the truth, they have a greater and higher priority claim on our support!

But that requires opposing the group doing the evil (e.g., the SSPX). It's not about love of conflict; it's about loyalty to God and His truth. The conflict is just a consequence.

Remember Our Lord was involved in plenty of controversies Himself. Would you dare to accuse Our Lord of being involved in "infighting" or controversies, as if that were automatically a bad thing? Our Lord was a galvanizing and controversial figure; everyone either loved Him or hated Him. Hmm... kind of reminds one of the situation with Bishop Williamson... I guess it's a case of "like Master like disciple."

We are not airing "dirty laundry". That is ridiculous. That implies it's a private matter to be kept out of the public eye. But Fr. Hewko's sermons are a public matter. He is publicly besmirching the good name and reputation of many good priests and bishops, for the sole reason that they won't submit to the "papacy" headquartered in Boston, KY. Every other "reason" they produce is baseless, ridiculous, and doesn't hold an ounce of water. The proof is in the case of priests like Fr. Voigt -- who was accepted as long as he submitted to Fr. Pfeiffer, but vilified the moment he left the cult. Fr. Voigt didn't change! It's only his submission to Fr. Pfeiffer that changed. If anyone can't see this, they are blind.

Attacking such nonsense, and calling out these priests for their wickedness and malice, is a meritorious act of charity, which shows love both for God and the souls He created. It shows a love of our neighbor, which is shown by defending the public good.

In other words, it is more perfect and more meritorious to step into the ring, "get your hands dirty" and try to defend the innocent, than to stay aloof from it all on the pretext of being "chawitable" (intentionally misspelled to be lispy and effiminate).

Such would be a misunderstanding of what true charity is.