CathInfo.com

Thirdly, is the troubling equivocation so prevalent in this article: On the one hand, you assert we cannot go the way of the Ecclesia Dei communities, but on the other hand, you assert that “the only thing we can hope for is the freedom to discuss Vatican II” (i.e., the same deal given to the Institute of the Good Shepherd, which was later predictably revoked). You appear to have embraced the writing style of the modernists (which is not to accuse you of being a modernist), who love to include phrases which appear to hold the line, only to negate them in the next sentence with a contradictory proposition.

.

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Thirdly, is the troubling equivocation so prevalent in this article: On the one hand, you assert we cannot go the way of the Ecclesia Dei communities, but on the other hand, you assert that “the only thing we can hope for is the freedom to discuss Vatican II” (i.e., the same deal given to the Institute of the Good Shepherd, which was later predictably revoked). You appear to have embraced the writing style of the modernists (which is not to accuse you of being a modernist), who love to include phrases which appear to hold the line, only to negate them in the next sentence with a contradictory proposition.

If Fr. Simoulin has written with "troubling equivocation" and has really adopted "the style of the Modernists, who love to include phrases which appear to hold the line, only to negate them in the next sentence with a contradictory proposition," then why do you feel obliged to qualify your observation with "(which is not to accuse you of being a modernist)?"  

Why does it appear you feel obliged to walk on eggs and tiptoe through heresy?

Have you ever heard of a neo-Modernist, SeanJohnson?  


.

.

You know, if you have a half ounce of concern for anyone, especially a reader who sees this after a week or two, you would provide a link to the new thread, SeanJohnson, so that they could find what you're talking about.  

Alternatively, you wouldn't care if anyone knows what you're talking about.  

Your choice.  




Now, presuming I read the thread to which you refer (it seems to be the same topic), your reply above which says you've started a thread to answer my question, it's glaringly odd to me that after nine posts already, you have not yet answered my question.  

So you started a thread to answer a question that you're not going to answer in the thread that you started for that purpose, and maybe that's why you're not providing any links between threads so that nobody will ever put 2 and 2 together, like I'm doing here, correct?  or not?  

That makes two questions, BTW.


.