tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6570809348314913884.post4063659865111063709..comments2009-10-08T23:10:25.245-04:00Comments on Summorum Pontificum: Summorum Pontificum First Anniversary articles (co...Patrick Archboldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13230114519933936165noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6570809348314913884.post-60275153523446592752008-07-08T09:22:00.000-04:002008-07-08T09:22:00.000-04:00Following up from the controversy over the PCED le...Following up from the controversy over the PCED letter, Brian Mershon, etc., on this 1st anniversary of the motu proprio (for which we still wait for the 'clarification' that would make it enforceable), I'm curious if Mr. Perkins is interested in asking the Council for Legislative Texts regarding the question of validity of confessions and marriages. Since this has now been stated in a non-binding, private letter from PCED (i.e., the Mershon letter) that they are invalid with SSPX, I wonder if this too should not be submitted to a more competent authority in Rome. There is now ongoing damage, I believe, to having this semi official statement 'floating' in the internet, which confuses the faithful and frankly makes us wonder exactly what the PCED is trying to say (take the discussion of schism, for example-Msgr. Perl's description of the Vatican's language is VERY different from Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos'). There is now a complete lack of agreement on even basic points that is doing far more harm than good, especially when one realizes that the SSPX's strongest attraction to people is SAFETY and SECURITY of Sacraments, Faith and morals in the face of horrible abuses and errors. I had THOUGHT that PCED's more recent language was intended to REASSURE the priests and faithful of SSPX of good intentions, including recognition that they are Catholic, even if attending SSPX isn't recommended. Now we don't really know what to think.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6570809348314913884.post-5980640041905719822008-07-07T19:19:00.000-04:002008-07-07T19:19:00.000-04:00Its not my byline, PKTP, its the title of the arti...Its not my byline, PKTP, its the title of the article by Thomas E. Woods Jr. as posted at insidecatholic.com.Brian Kopphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02575906703463685178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6570809348314913884.post-62809191906700764442008-07-07T17:41:00.000-04:002008-07-07T17:41:00.000-04:00Dear Dr. Koop:I humbly request that you change you...Dear Dr. Koop:<BR/><BR/>I humbly request that you change your by-line to "Long Live Pope Benedict XVI". the postnumeral is essential. 'Pope Benedict' is Benedict I and then only before the election of Benedict II. Journalist idiots the world over have used this informal 'Pope Benedict' nonsense. It is rude and intrusive. He only becomes 'Pope Benedict' when mentioned in the Mass or Office. This is a special affective use. Outside the liturgy, he is Benedict XVI, Pope Benedict XVI, the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, His Holiness, the Holy Father, the Supreme Pontiff, the Patriarch of the West, etcetera but NEVER 'Pope Benedict'. <BR/>P.K.T.P.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com