" 

  
 YOU SAY: 

 1. Full accord between SSPX and the Holy See is lacking. To put it more positively, there is a dispute. When presenting in 1993 the revised Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, and so of relations with other Christian denominations, Cardinal Edward Cassidy said what is obvious, namely that the dispute with SSPX, as with other Catholics of whatever tendency, is an internal matter of the Catholic Church, not a matter of ecumenical relations. He did not say there was no dispute. Surely nobody seriously believes there is no dispute, no lack of full accord. 

 I RESPOND: 

 No one says there is no dispute between the SSPX/other traditional Catholics and some Vatican hierarchs. But ""accord"" is much too vague to use here, as is ""Holy See."" Is Cardinal Mahony ""in full accord"" with ""the Holy See""? What about Bishop Malone of Liverpool  made Bishop by ""John Paul the Great"" in 1989  who wants women (who, by definition, cannot become priests, see JPII's Mulieris Dignitatem and look at what the Church has always taught) to hear Confessions and grant absolution (which, according to Catholic dogma, only priests can do? (see http://www.cathnews.com/news/308/164.php )  

 What about Cardinal O'Brien who used a Mass of thanksgiving as an occasion to question Church teaching and discipline regarding contraception, homosexuality, and clerical celibacy? (see http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=25029) 

 What about Cardinal Kasper, who denies that Jews need Jesus to be saved and who denies the Catholic understanding of apostolic succession? (see http://www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/archive_db.cgi?tablet-00742 ) 

 Then there's Bishop Lucas of Springfield, who held his ordination party in a Masonic Lodge. JPII made him Bishop in 1999, when someone had to replace Bishop Ryan, who was caught with his cassock down around priests and male prostitutes (JPII made him Bishop in 1981).  

 What about Bishops Zipfel and Aquila of North Dakota, both appointed to their Sees by JPII, who refused to endorse a bill to criminalize abortion? 

 Now, what does it mean for a Catholic to be ""in full accord"" with this sort of thing? 

 YOU SAY: 

 2. I wrote of ""the teachings"" of the Second Vatican Council, not ""some of the teachings"". Nor did I write: ""infallible teachings"".  

 I RESPOND: 
 But what teachings  fallible or infallible  ""of the Second Vatican Council"" do ""traditional Catholics"" have to accept lest they put themselves ""outside the Church"" or ""not in full accord"" with ""Rome""? (and wouldn't it be much better for the Church if ""conservative Catholics"" stopped picking on ""trads"" and focused on those who deny Catholic dogma? Why go after ""trads"" when Sr. Chittisters are running around promoting homosexuality, and the typical Catholic you run into has no problem with the ""ordination"" of women? If all the energy spent going after ""trads"" were focused on 1) learning what ""traditional Catholics"" ACTUALLY think, and 2) evangelizing, and 3) fighting Modernism  well, what a better world it would be.) (as to Modernism, see the oath against it here: http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/sacrorum.html ) 

 YOU SAY: 

 I also wrote of ""the subsequent decrees of the Holy See. (""Subsequent"" means ""that FOLLOWED"".) I am still waiting for a clear understandable definition by Anonymous of what he understands by ""traditional Catholic"". 

 I RESPOND: 

 I think I've explained it very clearly. A ""traditional Catholic"" is a Catholic who wants to preserve (or restore where wanting) the traditional Mass, traditional Sacramental rites, and ALL of the teachings of the Church AS they have always been understood by the Church. What are the differences in how mainstream Catholics and traditional Catholics understand those eternal teachings of the Church? See the hideously-named section four of the article as it stands now at 1 October 2005, 1:15 AM EST. It is quite clear. It is laid out. The encyclicals are explicitly named (As a fellow Catholic, I beg you to read them). The issues are described. The section could be beefed up, but there it is. Those are the issues. 

 The term ""traditional Catholic"" doesn't indicate a mere preference for the traditional Mass or else you'd have to count as a ""traditional Catholic"" people like Andrew Sullivan and anyone who just likes Latin or Palestrina or incense and has any aesthetic taste at all.  

 It doesn't mean one must, in fact, attend a traditional Mass or else you'd have to exclude anyone who believes what was just outlined, but who doesn't have access to a traditional Mass (whether this person attends a N.O.  which a ""traditional Catholic"" may or may not consider valid  in the meantime or not).  

 It doe