At unfortunate bit of theological white knighting at the beginning when they refer to a version of Scott Hanh's interpretation of Genesis in which Adam's sin was failing to protect Eve from the serpent. I haven't listened to the rest yet; after that bit of the blue pill I was discouraged from continuing. Maybe later, when I have more time.
CWR: Narrating the Tradition of Liberalism’s Anti-Tradition by Brian Jones
Mark T. Mitchell’s The Limits of Liberalism argues that the human person can only understand himself in this world by being in relation, with nature, neighbor, enemy, and ultimately the ontological source of all that is, namely, God.
Sin as the root of our moral problem, and so is the capital sin of pride. But using sin as a springboard to promote liberalism in the name of human dignity? There are other moral goods which must be respected, besides human dignity, and Archbishop Gomez damages the credibility of the Latin churches by riding this erroneous hobby horse. Meanwhile, rather than giving a theological lecture for which he is unqualified maybe he should so some real pastoring.
Abbeville: Is Secession the Answer? by Boyd Cathey
Watching NBC’s TODAY program on Tuesday, January 23, 2019, there was anchor Savannah Guthrie demanding to know if Covington, Kentucky, Catholic High School student, Nick Sandman, wished to “apologize” for his “actions” in front of… »
I suppose if you feel bound to show how every utterance of the bishop of Rome is free from heresy and error, then you must put all your effort into it, even though this goes against the tone and context of that passage. An instance of Jesuit mental reservation?
How much of a Latin traditionalist does one need to be in order to be good enough for whomever wrote this statement for the SSPX? And why would the SSPX leadership approve of such a statement? Why don't they come out and say what is missing from the FSSP's grasp of "Tradition"?