Post by Admin on Oct 2, 2018 16:25:00 GMT
Oct 2, 2018 15:53:13 GMT @ecclesiamilitans said:
Okay, here is what Machabees alleged that I wrote (not by directly quoting me) in my website post:
"The SSPX-mc priests accept the errors of Bishop Williamson to confer service from him and/or other bishops".
Most people reading this would understand this to mean that the Kentucky Fathers positively and deliberately accept the errors of Bishop Williamson so that Bishop Williamson would administer the sacraments for them. Therefore, it would be a deliberate compromise on the Kentucky Fathers' part.
I made clear to Machabees that this was my understanding of his statement (which I originally attributed as his quoting me) when I wrote the following (thecatacombs.org/post/2960/thread):
"This is false. I did not write what he put in quotation marks. What I wrote is that the Kentucky Fathers wrote a letter in May 2018 asking Bishop Williamson to come administer the sacraments despite that fact that His Excellency teaches errors. I did not write that they accepts his errors in order to obtain the sacraments from him."
Notice that I used the term "despite".
After asking him to prove where in my website post I wrote what he alleged I wrote (thecatacombs.org/post/2974/thread), he went back and edited a previous post to answer my request for proof (what he should have done is made a newer post). Here is Machabees' proof (http://thecatacombs.org/post/2973/thread):
Ecclesia Militan's QUOTE:
...Furthermore, the Kentucky Fathers’ willingness to have Bishop Williamson come administer the sacraments is a variant of tradecumenism, which was also condemned by them (see here). Therefore, the question needs to be asked whether or not Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko are also part of the fake Resistance.
Now this quote of mine on my website post when taken in conjunction with other statements on the same website post does not mean that the Kentucky Fathers' positively and deliberately accept the errors of Bishop Williamson so that Bishop Williamson would administer the sacraments for them. Here is the ending of my website post:
"In my communications with Fr. Rafael, O.S.B., regarding this matter, he stated that Fr. Pfeiffer should not set aside doctrine for the sake of the sacraments and should be willing to lose each and every seminarian rather than compromise with the fake Resistance or questionably valid bishops."
Note that I stated "set aside doctrine", that is, not requiring Bishop Williamson's retraction of his errors. Therefore, understanding this, the quote above by Machabees of me and its relation to tradecumenism is that tradecumenism is an EFFECT of the Kentucky Fathers' actions. I do not accuse the Kentucky Fathers' of positively and deliberately ACCEPTING tradecumenism or any other of Bishop Williamson's errors.
Instead of accepting my objection (which should have clarified any misunderstanding on his part), Machabees doubled down on his original statement, which caused me to ask him to prove his statement.
You have amply made your point. But it's rather an exercise in futility to keep repeating yourself when the main person your arguments are directed to, cannot reply to you. I think we can move on.