The previous post of Matthew made it clear that while is trying to seek out to make a personal attack and seek out personal information which is pointless since I wrote to him explaining who I actually am, contrary to what he wrote. It seems that he not only can't get identities correct, but beyond that it seems that he and the resistance can not get the faith correct.

What is his basis for his position and that of the resistance?

I kept asking, and wanting to know the real basis that would justify such a position.

It seems clear that Matthew can see that his position is wrong, hence his silence in not being able to answer- guilty conscience?

It seems, once again, as the various good priests have pointed out to me, the resistance hasn't a leg to stand on. A simple old man like me can work that out, and so it isn't that difficult, surely !

Hmm . . . personal attack.

Anyone willing to deal with the real issue?  

 :confused1:
Maybe he did call in the middle of the night!  Priests are used to being summoned at all hours.  Usually, however, it is because of a Sacramental emergency.  It is also possible Johnnier did not take time zones into account.  Or, he could have miscalculated.  
I've awoken no less than five priests in the middle of the night.  One was on purpose for Last Rites for a friend's mother.  The other four was by invincible ignorance.  The priest I called changed his itinerary, so when the phone rang, he was asleep in a dormitory with three others on a different continent and time zone than his original schedule.  It was very embarrassing, but they forgave me.  BTW, the four are all with the Resistance.  

Johnnier- My stand is this, merely Catholic.
1)  Vatican II is unacceptable as a whole as well as in part.
2)  Rome must convert or no agreement, no dialogue.
3)  The new mass is not legitimate.
4)   Catholics are obliged to speak and act against error when it endangers the Faith, regardless of offending others or incurring unjust punishment.

Hmm . . . personal attack.

Anyone willing to deal with the real issue?  

The real issue?

The real issue is the moral superiority of truth over falsehood.

I am not a trad, and I think the SSPX and the Resistance are both wrong about a number of things.  However, even to my non-trad VC II addled mind, two things seem to be indisputably obvious.  "The  Archbishop", though I think he was wrong about some things, was an honest and perhaps even saintly man.  Bishop Fellay, who is also wrong, is a duplicitous slug who can be observed to be lying any time his lips are moving.  

As wrong people go, I certainly know which one I prefer.  

:confused1:
Maybe he did call in the middle of the night!  Priests are used to being summoned at all hours.  Usually, however, it is because of a Sacramental emergency.  It is also possible Johnnier did not take time zones into account.  Or, he could have miscalculated.  
I've awoken no less than five priests in the middle of the night.  One was on purpose for Last Rites for a friend's mother.  The other four was by invincible ignorance.  The priest I called changed his itinerary, so when the phone rang, he was asleep in a dormitory with three others on a different continent and time zone than his original schedule.  It was very embarrassing, but they forgave me.  BTW, the four are all with the Resistance.  

Johnnier- My stand is this, merely Catholic.
1)  Vatican II is unacceptable as a whole as well as in part.
2)  Rome must convert or no agreement, no dialogue.
3)  The new mass is not legitimate.
4)   Catholics are obliged to speak and act against error when it endangers the Faith, regardless of offending others or incurring unjust punishment.

 :thinking:Would the party who down-thumbed the above please give your reason!  

 :sign-surrender:Ah, well!  The response was another down thumb.  

:confused1:
Maybe he did call in the middle of the night!  Priests are used to being summoned at all hours.  Usually, however, it is because of a Sacramental emergency.  It is also possible Johnnier did not take time zones into account.  Or, he could have miscalculated.  
I've awoken no less than five priests in the middle of the night.  One was on purpose for Last Rites for a friend's mother.  The other four was by invincible ignorance.  The priest I called changed his itinerary, so when the phone rang, he was asleep in a dormitory with three others on a different continent and time zone than his original schedule.  It was very embarrassing, but they forgave me.  BTW, the four are all with the Resistance.  

Johnnier- My stand is this, merely Catholic.
1)  Vatican II is unacceptable as a whole as well as in part.
2)  Rome must convert or no agreement, no dialogue.
3)  The new mass is not legitimate.
4)   Catholics are obliged to speak and act against error when it endangers the Faith, regardless of offending others or incurring unjust punishment.

The Archbishop did not say that Vatican II was unacceptable as a whole, but took issue with those parts that depart from the Magisterium. No one can be Catholic and take issue with those parts that are good and in line with previous Church teaching. Frances, I did not give you the thumbs down, by the way. Other than that point about VII, I completely agree with you. And I appreciate your attempting to defend this poor person, Johnnier. It is unbelievable to me that some on this site are talking to him with such utter disrespect, believing him to be a priest. I would not show contempt to a novus ordo priest, much less a traditional one. And as for Matthew, he is plainly accusing someone he believes is a priest of lying. This is always the danger. God help us to keep our minds clear and our motives pure.

Quote

No one can be Catholic and take issue with those parts that are good and in line with previous Church teaching.

This is entirely untrue. Any good which is in these docuмents is interwoven with error and falsehoods and therefore can be rejected as a whole and not line by line. The majority of Catholics are not qualified to discern where the truth and error reside in every sentence and word and it therefore represents a grave danger to their faith.

All therein that is good is subject to prior teaching or declaration by the Church, which all accept, and thus there is no rational for accepting this tainted and dangerous presentation.

No astute Catholic should accept such poisoned teaching as is present in this false council.

Here is what Archbishop Lefebvre had to say about the subject:

"It has only become more certain that the Council was turned away from its proper end by a group of conspirators and that it is impossible for us to enter into this conspiracy, even if there are many satisfactory texts in the Council. For the good texts only served to win the acceptance of the equivocal [ambiguous] texts, full of mines and traps."(I Accuse the Council, p. 10)