It's such a pity we can't get a proper scientific article covering these matters, by Fr. Cekada. I'm afraid this stuff by Bishop Sanborn is just rapidly written thoughts-on-the-run which wouldn't convince anybody. With all due respect to him. I'm sure he agrees with that assessment, too. He's too intelligent and too learned to think that this kind of thing really amounts to anything more than cheering the home team.

This is most unfortunate that the Traditional movement has come down to: "I have the Faith and you do NOT. THEREFORE YOU ARE EXCOMMUNICATED." This reasoning drives off good sincere Traditional 'Catholics who perceives a kind of infighting going on, but cannot be not Roman Catholicism. There is no Charity, only backbiting.

Dear Linda,

Of course I agree. However if it is true that they do not have the faith and are excommunicated, then that should be demonstrated calmly and clearly. This particular document is not theology but rather it is politics. Hopefully Fr. Cekada and Bishop Dolan, who have recently taken to describing the SSPX as "schismatic," will be publishing a proper proof of that very grave charge. I am particularly recalling that it was Fr. Cekada who penned the following incredibly prudent, charitable, and (as it turned out) very effective words, back in 1992:



From: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles ... catname=10

It's a pity that the man who wrote http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles ... catname=14
could write something as stupid as what he has just published. John Fr. Cekada is a great writter but I don't think you will see him writting in favor of the SSPX. He holds the same position on Una Cum Mass's as Frs. Sanborn and Dolan. As priests I respect all of them but some of the things they do and write are so far removed from catholic charity and zeal for the salvation of souls that it makes me shudder.

Dear Frank,

This article WAS written by Fr. Sanborn, whom you say you admire.
Did you notice who the author was?

It is a well-written and charitable article.

Ciao!

With respect, it is a hodge-podge of half-truth, non-sequiturs, and rhetorical tricks. The other one, on "Opinionism," is better, but fundamentally flawed and therefore also a failure in achieving its objective. We need one of those scientific Fr. Cekada articles which calmly work through the various points to be made, logically and carefully. And we need less rhetoric and inflammatory language.

When Bp. Sanborn first wrote his "Opinionism" piece Mr. Daly and he enjoyed an email exchange concerning it. I've been away this week, but I will write today to Bishop Sanborn and ask if he has any objection to that exchange being posted here. It was, I think, very enlightening and could benefit some other souls.