Explanation for Deleted Posts

Explanation for Deleted Posts

Blog readers might notice I have deleted two recent posts, and wonder why.

First, the priest to whom I submit original articles for review raised an objection to the article “Archbishop Lefebvre Explains Himself.”

He stated that I had not properly understood and/or represented Bishop Tissier’s (and consequently Avrille’s) explanation/distinction between the conciliar church and Catholic Church, and supplied a concurring post by “Meg” on Cathinfo.

I went back to check BishopTissier’s article, and sure enough, he/they were correct: Bishop Tissier was not arguing that the Catholic and conciliar church were completely separate from each other.

Not sure how I got that into my head, but if “Meg” is reading, a hearty ‘thank you’ for your keen eye, which has saved me needless strife with Avrille (who I was only reluctantly willing to put myself at odds with, on the basis of a mistake).

Consequently, the first part of the article regarding ABL’ s quote stands, but the rest is hereby retracted.

In order to avoid confusion, I have simply deleted the whole thing.

 

Secondly, I have also deleted the Capuchin study, based on the request of a priest with ties to Morgon.

Apparently, the friars object to the use of the internet per se, and have published the study in booklet form, where it is being widely distributed in France.

By all means, distribute it among yourselves.

But I was asked to respect the will of the friars in this regard, even though I disagree with them on this point.  I think that to be opposed to internet distribution is to limit the effectiveness of their apostolate.

That said, I agreed to respect their  will, which again has nothing to do with them wavering with regard to the principles contained within the study.

 

print