CathInfo.com

Hi Sean,

What would you suggest as an alternative to such events as the Catholic Identity Conference, that would bring the different Trad Groups together, and yet admit that their are serious differences and even debate them and yet find some common ground or common problem to unit against? Can such an event be possible, or would it end up in either a "food fight" or "hug fest"?

Hello Mr. G-

It’s not clear to me how organizing a conference upon the lines you suggest would be any different than the tradcuмenical Angelus Press and CIC conferences, in principle.

That is to say, all those sects participating in those conferences would surely declare that there are many issues which divide them (well, they might not declare it to each other, but they would declare it to critics like you and I; between each other they would only discuss issues of mutual agreement, and therein lies just one of the problems).

Once you take that approach, you have dropped the sword (ie., You have agreed not to condemn error, and encouraged and conveyed a certain degree of indifference) and the same would be true in the Resistance:

Shall Fr. Hewko (who -against both the Council of Trent and Archbishop Lefebvre- believes in valid but sterile sacraments, or that Almighty God is powerless to make a Novus Ordo Eucharistic miracle without simultaneously endorsing the Novus Ordo, as though such a miracle could not be used by Him to combat lack of faith in the Real Presence that Rite promotes) sit down next to Bishop Williamson, to discuss their mutual opposition to modernist Rome or the SSPX sellout?  

If they did, the message which would be sent to the faithful is that the dogmatic decrees of Trent are not compulsory, and the result would be scandal deleterious to faith, and prejudicial to salvation of those who would subsequently adopt such a position.

The Resistance would be hypocrites to convene any such pluralist convocation.

I noted X said he was happy that all Resistance factions had supported the CCCC thread, but he also said their unity in that specific instance was accidental (ie., It was not his purpose to bring that about, but if, nevertheless, they all agree with its contents, so much the better, particularly since there was never a question of stifling differences to achieve that unanimous approval, which was once again accidental and not at all to his purpose).

That is to say, all those sects participating in those conferences would surely declare that there are many issues which divide them (well, they might not declare it to each other, but they would declare it to critics like you and I; between each other they would only discuss issues of mutual agreement, and therein lies just one of the problems).

Once you take that approach, you have dropped the sword (ie., You have agreed not to condemn error, and encouraged and conveyed a certain degree of indifference) and the same would be true in the Resistance:

So what we need is a few rounds of actual debates. No lovely dovey, "let's find things in common to promote false unity", but a rough and tumble "let's hash out our differences and spell out the principles behind them". 

But is that appropriate for Catholic priests? 

Wait, wait... this won't be complete until TrashCultNut is a featured speaker. True SSPX= Society of St. Planet X!  

Planet X you say?..... :D :D :D :D