I'm finally getting around to listening to last year's Angelus Press Conference.

A couple of odd happenings so far in my opinion.

First Christopher Check spoke there.

He is the Director of Development at unCatholic Answers, I found out.

http://www.catholic.com/profiles/christopher-check

He gave a talk on St. Catherine of Sienna that was very good for the most part.

However, he stated that St. Catherine had many detractors in her day speaking against her and saying all sorts of vile and untrue things about her. He then made an analogy to Mother Teresa having her Christopher Hitchens just as St. Catherine had her detractors.

Now, no doubt Christopher Hitchens was a vile human being and did make many untrue claims about Mother Teresa. Nevertheless, Mother Teresa said the following in her book, "Everything Starts From Prayer, Mother Teresa’s Meditations on Spiritual Life for People of all Faiths."

 “I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic.”

and

“Some call Him Ishwar, some call Him Allah, some simply God, but we have to acknowledge that it is He who made us for greater things: to love and be loved. What matters is that we love.  We cannot love without prayer, and so whatever religion we are, we must pray together.”

There is also a picture of her, apparently praying with Buddhists:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A067rcMadreTeresaBudha.htm

Should a speaker at an SSPX conference be comparing St. Catherine of Sienna to Mother Teresa?

Also I believe he referred to St. Catherine as a "Doctor of the Church," thus giving credence to Paul VI's novelty of naming women as Doctors of the Church as a concession to worldly feminism.

Then later, a new speaker, Joshua Hayes, spoke on infallibility and Vatican I. First, I must say it was infuriating listening to Mr. Hayes as the man simply can not pronounce the word "papacy." He kept repeatedly saying "PAP..acy" It was annoying. Has nobody told him in all the years of his life that he is pronouncing that word wrong? How can a man be asked to speak to a Traditional Catholic Conference who continually says "PAP..acy??" But I digress...

Anyway, he gave a decent talk on Vatican I, but in speaking about the fact that excommunications were not infallible he made the statement that even so, they should be "accepted." And that we have an obligation to "accept them." SO, did the Society "accept" the excommunications on ABL and Bishop de Castro Meyer and the 4 bishops? Is not the Society condemned by their own speaker?

Anyway, I'm not done listening to the conference, but wanted to get your thoughts on these things. I had just listened to the 2011 conference on the Kingship of Christ and did not notice such red flags.

Thanks.

An excommunication, a formal one, is essentially administrative. So in essence it is true that infallibility would not apply to judgments of excommunication.

Moreover, they have shown themselves to be indifferent to the dogma of EENS, for if indeed the excommunications of ABL and Bp. Castro de Mayer are real, they died outside of the church and are in hell.

You are not exactly right here. An excommunication just means one is unable to receive the sacraments. It does not mean that the person would be damned if they die. For example, Saint Joan of Arc died excommunicated, but she is in heaven.