Yes, I hope that they address the issue.  I agree that "doctrine" is very, very important.  But one of the main bodies of Catholic doctrine is the 10 Commandments.  The 7th Commandment forbids adultery.  Under that major category, I think we can include all other forms sɛҳuąƖ crimes.  So +Williamson, with his particular focus on sound doctrine, should address the breach of sound doctrine by the SSPX.

Um...not to be a pedantic jerk, but...

It's the SIXTH Commandment that forbids adultery.

When people start numbering the Commandments wrong, I feel like I'm in Prottie-land. :)

I assume you meant the 6th, since you go on to talk about sɛҳuąƖ crimes.

But I just wanted to point this out, for anyone reading, for the sake of truth/accuracy.

No it doesn't, not in the Catholic religion. Only in protestantism. What religion do you belong to, Hollingsworth?

Here you go again.  Let's pivot away from the topic, and make it an issue of perceived Protestant sympathies exhibited by Hollingsworth.

Can you guys take it to another thread?

Can we take what to another thread???  BTW, where's part 2 of the interview?

Can we take what to another thread???  BTW, where's part 2 of the interview?

Part 2 of the interview was posted by Matthew in Reply #5.

I believe topic that some believe should be taken to another thread is one or both of:

• The difference between the Catholic and Protestant ordering of the Ten Commandments.  I believe that may have something to do with which Greek version of the Old Testament was used as the foundation of one of the versions of the Vulgate, or the Douay-Rheims, or the King James (I'm not looking all that up tonight) ... OR
• Whether or not His Excellency should have been asked about "sex scandals", but as only three of five parts are posted that may be premature speculation.

+Williamson at minute 44, said people like Fr. Schmidberger, Laisney, etc never really understood +Lefebvre. Now I think that's the same thing that people like Fr. Cekada (RIP) and the sedevacantists would accuse +Williamson of not understanding +Lefebvre.

When a seminarian who would later become a majo superior within the Fraternity refuses to attend the 1988 episcopal consecrations, I think its safe to say (minimally) that they have not understood their founder!

When a seminarian who would later become a majo superior within the Fraternity refuses to attend the 1988 episcopal consecrations, I think its safe to say (minimally) that they have not understood their founder!

Well, alas, there's something to be said that their founder didn't understand himself.  That's why you have this tug-o-war.  "WE are the true children/follower of +Lefebvre.  No, WE are."  And both sides can produce +Lefebvre quotes to back up their position.  In the early 1980s, you find material from +Lefebvre where he was pursuing an agreement with Rome where he was extremely sympathetic to Rome.  That's when he ousted The Nine.  Then by 1986, around the time of Assisi, he was saying that he believed he might have to go sedevacantist and that he and Bishop de Castro Mayer had been closet sedevacantists for 20 years but "preferred to wait".

When a seminarian who would later become a majo superior within the Fraternity refuses to attend the 1988 episcopal consecrations, I think its safe to say (minimally) that they have not understood their founder!

I'm sorry, but who is that seminarian?