Sean excuses people for accepting the Modernists' new mass, while at the same time criticizing +Fellay's neo-sspx for negotiating with the Modernists.  ?  ?  ?

The confusion of modern man knows no bounds.

I think it's been 8 or 9 posts by Sean and he still is dodging my questions.  He spends most of his time hurling adolescent insults at those who disagree with him.  So sad.

Sean, I'll summarize my questions, to make it simple for you:
1.  If the top theologians in rome (Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci, etc) said that the new mass (in it's "perfect form" mind you) was 'anti-Trent in theology' and 'positively doubtful' in validity, what theological reasons exist which supercede the above two MAJOR problems and allow us to go?

2.  The 1st commandment is greater than the 3rd, for we must recognize God's omnipotence before we can rightly worship him.  If the new mass is SYSTEMATICALLY irreverent, blasphemous and anti-catholic (and it is), which atmoshere is highly sinful, then how can one attend it, using the exuse of "fulfilling one's sunday obligation"?  How can one fulfill the 3rd commandment (to honor God on Sundays) while at the same time sinning against the 1st commandment (attending a blasphemous/sacrilegious fake mass)?  How can you honor God by attending a dishonorable mass?

I think it's been 8 or 9 posts by Sean and he still is dodging my questions.  He spends most of his time hurling adolescent insults at those who disagree with him.  So sad.

Sean, I'll summarize my questions, to make it simple for you:
1.  If the top theologians in rome (Cardinals Ottaviani, Bacci, etc) said that the new mass (in it's "perfect form" mind you) was 'anti-Trent in theology' and 'positively doubtful' in validity, what theological reasons exist which supercede the above two MAJOR problems and allow us to go?

2.  The 1st commandment is greater than the 3rd, for we must recognize God's omnipotence before we can rightly worship him.  If the new mass is SYSTEMATICALLY irreverent, blasphemous and anti-catholic (and it is), which atmoshere is highly sinful, then how can one attend it, using the exuse of "fulfilling one's sunday obligation"?  How can one fulfill the 3rd commandment (to honor God on Sundays) while at the same time sinning against the 1st commandment (attending a blasphemous/sacrilegious fake mass)?  How can you honor God by attending a dishonorable mass?

1. Neither Ottaviani nor Bacci wrote the Brief Critical Study.  They only signed it. The study itself was written by Gérard des Lauriers, and the head of the committee overseeing the whole project was...Archbishop Lefebvre.

So essentially, you are citing Archbishop Lefebvre as a refutation of...Archbishop Lefebvre.

2. You may find a complete explanation in The Catechetical Refutation (of which I have retracted nothing, and may add much to a future edition).

In summary, your linear doctrinal tunnel vision causes you MANY distortions (either by oversimplification, corrupt syllogisms, or excessive conclusions).

Because that mindset is like terminal cancer (ie, incurable), I have chosen not to engage you, except in this one instance, which hopefully was not too embarrassing for you, but which was necessary to teach you humility (though I have almost no hope that lesson was learned as it ought to have been).

.
How can someone who claims to be so academically accomplished manage to use quotation marks around three phrases that the so-called quoted writer did not literally use? Are you unaware of what quotation marks signify? Or do you prefer to discredit yourself with sloppy scholarship?

Pax Vobis makes all three of those accusations in his 1st post on p. 2 of this thread:

“+W is very critical of the sspx and their friendliness with new-rome, yet he STILL will not come out against the errors of new-rome with any finality or clarity...his game plan for the future is also hazy.  In this, I agree with Hollingsworth's concerns.

So essentially, you are citing Archbishop Lefebvre as a refutation of...Archbishop Lefebvre.

Ok, so +ABL contradicts himself and is theologically schizophrenic.  

You still haven't explained why there is no contradiction between +ABL's words and "his study", you've just dodged the question yet again.

2. You may find a complete explanation in The Catechetical Refutation (of which I have retracted nothing, and may add much to a future edition).

In summary, your linear doctrinal tunnel vision causes you MANY distortions (either by oversimplification, corrupt syllogisms, or excessive conclusions).

A complete non-answer.  At this point, i'll assume it's a dodge.

Ok, so +ABL contradicts himself and is theologically schizophrenic.  

You still haven't explained why there is no contradiction between +ABL's words and "his study", you've just dodged the question yet again.

A complete non-answer.  At this point, i'll assume it's a dodge.

Yawn....when you are ready to refute the Refutation, I will give it a look.

Since my answers are public and well known, and also since you are hopeless, I am content to “dodge” you until kingdom come (while the rest of the world is perfectly able to review my responses to your sophisms/delusions in the aforementioned Refutation).

What is this Refutation you're talking about?  The intellectual peasant that I am, I assume i've not heard of it because I'm not in the mensa club or something?

If you're so smart, why can't you summarize your refutation into a few simple sentences that we can all understand?

If all of your views are written perfectly on some blog, why are you on this site to begin with?  Any posts you make here are surely a waste of your time.

THESE post surely are.

Dodge #11.

:baby: