Lisi Sterndorfer

When the Mass Changed: Memories of an Altar Server in the Sixties

The following guest post began as an email from a reader, who also happens to be a permanent deacon in a major American archdiocese. Having lived …
Ultraviolet
"You're very sick, and in need of a psychiatrist. That's all I can say Ultraviolet." You've already indicted yourself on both points, @Ave Crux. :D Lest we forget... pic related.
Ave Crux
"EXHIBIT A" ON HOW EVIL ULTRAVIOLET IS. WHEN THEY'RE LOSING THEY DECIDE TO RESORT TO NUCLEAR OPTIONS TO SMASH THEIR OPPONENTS WITH MALICE -- EQUATING AVOWED PHYSICAL INJURY WITH THEIR OWN NEED OF PSYCHIATRY. YOU HAVE PROVEN ME RIGHT YET AGAIN....!!! THANK YOU!
Ave Crux
Poor Ultraviolet.... BTW -- I have been receiving monthly IV treatments for my illness. I'm doing great now....! Thanks for asking...!
Ultraviolet
I didn't ask. :P Speaking of "sicko"... even here, even now, You're still making yet another bogus claim this time about something I didn't ask.You should ask your doctor to up your dosage. That isn't a question, either.;-)
Ave Crux
Yeah, they don't "up" dosages for illness caused by an allergic reaction to an antibiotic, which is what I have. They just try to heal the damage. That's very different than your personality disorder. I hope you get help with it, seriously.

BTW -- I guess you don't get sarcasm....? Thanks for asking....!
Ultraviolet
Yeah, I -do- get sarcasm. You just fail at it just like you fail at backing your fantasy-claims with direct quotes. word-for-word, Frankly, I don't care what caused your brain damage, only that it's turned you into a habitual liar. I'm being charitable here and blaming your illness.
Ultraviolet
Since you're not mentally healthy, skip the amateur psychiatry. Defending the truth against your SSPX propaganda isn't a personality disorder, either. But that's how you agenda-peddlars work. You claim I'm crazy/ possessed, etc. Steve D claims I'm a Jew... You people always try to discredit the critic when you can't discredit the facts.
Ave Crux
Oh, who said I wasn't mentally healthy now? I've been receiving wonderful, holistic treatment for an allergy reaction to an antibiotic some years ago. Brain fog gone....! Too bad! Poor Ultraviolet.
Ultraviolet
"who said I wasn't mentally healthy now?" Who said you ARE? :D Just yesterday you accused me of "equating avowed physical injury with...etc." So you tried a pity-ploy for your brain-damage last night and tonight imply you don't have it anymore the next day. "wonderful, holistic treatment for". Holistic? :P Yeah, nothing's changed except some crack-pot's gotten richer.
Ave Crux
Last night.....? Poor Ultraviolet is now resorting to lying....

UV posts a screen shot from the beginning of this year, and then is so deceitful as to tell Gloria TV readers I posted news of a past illness just last night to gain "pity"....easily 8 months after the fact!

Wow, UV's desperation and malice knows no bounds. Bludgeoning a fellow Catholic over having been ill....trying to disgrace…
More
Last night.....? Poor Ultraviolet is now resorting to lying....

UV posts a screen shot from the beginning of this year, and then is so deceitful as to tell Gloria TV readers I posted news of a past illness just last night to gain "pity"....easily 8 months after the fact!

Wow, UV's desperation and malice knows no bounds. Bludgeoning a fellow Catholic over having been ill....trying to disgrace a fellow Catholic who suffered serious illness earlier this year with a vile smear attempt about their illness....really!

UV's behavior really reflects the corporal and spiritual works of mercy doesn't it? Malevolent use of another's illness as a weapon against them.

This is how low UV will descend in order to try to vanquish those who don't agree with them.

Tsk, tsk.....using an outright lie to Gloria TV readers.....

This is why I pray for UV and hope they will get help with their personality disorder, not to mention their spiritual illness.

Poor Ultraviolet is off the rails doing the very thing they falsely accuse everyone else of doing: Lying and deception....a sign of real desperation....
Ultraviolet
I was referring to your comment from last night. Screen capped. You raised your "avowed physical illness" (your exact words) last night while playing on the heart-strings of GTV readers, just like you're doing now. You have no problem lashing out with false claims against my mental health even when you've admitted your own is faulty.
Ave Crux
NO, UTRAVIOLET, YOU RAISED "MY AVOWED ILLNESS" RIGHT UP AT THE TOP BY POSTING SOMETHING FROM EARLIER THIS YEAR IN AN ATTEMPT TO HUMILIATE ME......SOME CATHOLIC YOU ARE.

Well, it didn't work. You only humiliated yourself by doing so.

YOU JUST PROVE MORE AND MORE EACH DAY THAT YOU NEED HELP.


I will continue to pray for you.....
Ultraviolet
I quoted your pity-ploy word for word from last night. You are raising the date of the previous screen shot to support a bogus claim, i.e. I claimed you " posted news of a past illness just last night to gain "pity". When I quote you from last night and I describe it as something you tried last night, then I told the truth about what happened last night.
Ave Crux
NO, UTRAVIOLET, TO BE CLEAR YET AGAIN.....

YOU --NOT ME -- RAISED "MY AVOWED ILLNESS" RIGHT UP AT THE TOP BY POSTING SOMETHING FROM EARLIER THIS YEAR IN AN ATTEMPT TO HUMILIATE ME......

YOU'RE A VERY VICIOUS PERSON WHO STOPS AT NOTHING IN TRYING TO HURT OTHERS....

AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I AM REFERRING TO....

Well, it didn't work. You only humiliated yourself by doing …
More
NO, UTRAVIOLET, TO BE CLEAR YET AGAIN.....

YOU --NOT ME -- RAISED "MY AVOWED ILLNESS" RIGHT UP AT THE TOP BY POSTING SOMETHING FROM EARLIER THIS YEAR IN AN ATTEMPT TO HUMILIATE ME......

YOU'RE A VERY VICIOUS PERSON WHO STOPS AT NOTHING IN TRYING TO HURT OTHERS....

AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I AM REFERRING TO....

Well, it didn't work. You only humiliated yourself by doing so.

YOU JUST PROVE MORE AND MORE EACH DAY THAT YOU NEED HELP.


I will continue to pray for you.....
Ultraviolet
Also you deliberately mis-edited my original statement. I said "you tried a pity-ploy for your brain-damage last night" I DIDN'T say you "posted news of a past illness just last night to gain "pity" Screen cap. My quote "you tried a pity ploy" and that doesn't -equate to- your quote "posted news of" as you claimed. You have told another falsehood. Apologize.
Ave Crux
Ultraviolet twisting and turning again like a snake trying to evade being called out for their customary cruelty...

NO, UTRAVIOLET, TO BE CLEAR YET AGAIN.....

YOU --NOT ME -- RAISED "MY AVOWED ILLNESS" RIGHT UP AT THE TOP BY POSTING SOMETHING FROM EARLIER THIS YEAR IN AN ATTEMPT TO HUMILIATE ME......

YOU'RE A VERY VICIOUS PERSON WHO STOPS AT NOTHING IN TRYING TO HURT OTHERS…
More
Ultraviolet twisting and turning again like a snake trying to evade being called out for their customary cruelty...

NO, UTRAVIOLET, TO BE CLEAR YET AGAIN.....

YOU --NOT ME -- RAISED "MY AVOWED ILLNESS" RIGHT UP AT THE TOP BY POSTING SOMETHING FROM EARLIER THIS YEAR IN AN ATTEMPT TO HUMILIATE ME......

YOU'RE A VERY VICIOUS PERSON WHO STOPS AT NOTHING IN TRYING TO HURT OTHERS....

AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I AM REFERRING TO....

Well, it didn't work. You only humiliated yourself by doing so.

YOU JUST PROVE MORE AND MORE EACH DAY THAT YOU NEED HELP.

I will continue to pray for you.....
Ultraviolet
"You --not me -- raised "my avowed illness" right up at the top." -which explains why I never used that term the way you're falsely "quoting me". I can screen cap myself just as easily. :D
Ave Crux
Ultraviolet still trying to evade being called out for their customary cruelty...

NO, UTRAVIOLET, TO BE CLEAR YET AGAIN.....

YOU --NOT ME -- RAISED "MY AVOWED ILLNESS" RIGHT UP AT THE TOP BY POSTING SOMETHING FROM EARLIER THIS YEAR IN AN ATTEMPT TO HUMILIATE ME......

YOU'RE A VERY VICIOUS PERSON WHO STOPS AT NOTHING IN TRYING TO HURT OTHERS....

AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I…
More
Ultraviolet still trying to evade being called out for their customary cruelty...

NO, UTRAVIOLET, TO BE CLEAR YET AGAIN.....

YOU --NOT ME -- RAISED "MY AVOWED ILLNESS" RIGHT UP AT THE TOP BY POSTING SOMETHING FROM EARLIER THIS YEAR IN AN ATTEMPT TO HUMILIATE ME......

YOU'RE A VERY VICIOUS PERSON WHO STOPS AT NOTHING IN TRYING TO HURT OTHERS....

AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I AM REFERRING TO....

Well, it didn't work. You only humiliated yourself by doing so.

YOU JUST PROVE MORE AND MORE EACH DAY THAT YOU NEED HELP.

I will continue to pray for you.....
Ultraviolet
SSPX Spam goes into full copy-pasta melt down.
Ultraviolet
"You --not me -- raised "my avowed illness" right up at the top." Do you see the words "avowed illness" right up at the top? (your words) No? Then you have falsely quoted me. Typical Ave Crux bogus quotes.
One more comment from Ultraviolet
Ultraviolet
"...in an attempt to humiliate me..." Wrong. It was to discredit you as a source of mental health advice. That's what you get for saying "You're very sick, and in need of a psychiatrist." People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, Ave Crux. ;-) "You're a very vicious person who stops at nothing to hurt others..." Motes and beams, love. You dish it out but you sure can't take it. :D
Ave Crux
Ultraviolet again -- sinfully, and to their own ongoing shame -- accuses me of making up quotes. Readers can see below the article I referenced several times, wherein the Journal provides all the detail that I shared with readers. CASE CLOSED.
Ultraviolet
"accuses me of making up quotes " No, we're past that now. That's already been shown and you keep showing it. Readers can see below you'll do everything except quote Pope Francis word for word from "the report" where he gave the "express permission" you claimed.That's a false quote.
Ultraviolet
Let's not forget your "quote" from Canon Law 1043. I think you're trying to "bury" that, Propaganda-Bot. You said-> "CANON 1043: "The canons distinguish between the reception of orders and the exercise of orders." Can. 1043 on the Vatican website is entirely different.
One more comment from Ultraviolet
Ultraviolet
Maybe you can give me a referral, eh? ;-) After all you're the one who is (your words) "VERY ILL AND DISABLED WITH BRAIN DAMAGE". Your diagnosis is worthless. (your words) "IT'S NOT DIFFICULT FOR ME TO MAKE AN ERROR LIKE THAT WITH BRAIN FOG". ---and please DO explain why your quote from Can. 1043 is different from the Vatican site, if it isn't made up.
Ave Crux
Duh......did you ever hear of the renumbering that occurs between editions when new Canons are added and updated?

The pertinent Canons on impediments for Ordination and Priestly ministry provide exactly the same guidelines in the new edition as in the earlier edition.

But we already covered this difference in numbering days ago. Is your mind slipping?

You'll use any deception at all to cover …
More
Duh......did you ever hear of the renumbering that occurs between editions when new Canons are added and updated?

The pertinent Canons on impediments for Ordination and Priestly ministry provide exactly the same guidelines in the new edition as in the earlier edition.

But we already covered this difference in numbering days ago. Is your mind slipping?

You'll use any deception at all to cover the fact you're wrong.
Ultraviolet
"Duh......did you ever hear of the renumbering that occurs between edition..." No evidence shown this applies here. Did you ever think to check The Vatican's Canon Law before you "quoted" it? "Duh"... I'm not suprised an SSPX schismatic wouldn't think of doing that. You're not part of The Church so why should you quote it? Fact is YOUR "quote" isn't current Canon Law.
Ultraviolet
"You'll use any deception at all to cover the fact you're wrong." LOL... No, sweetie. It is YOUR quote from Canon 1043 that's wrong and no excuse you give is going to change that. "..provide exactly the same guidelines in the new edition as in the earlier edition." Oh boy. this is another variation of of your "equates tTo" deflection. Canon Law doesn't say what you claimed it does.
Ave Crux
You'll have to take that up with EWTN -- that's the [earlier] version EWTN's Priest Apologist quoted when I searched on the topic, and EWTN is an excellent, trustworthy Catholic source.

I compared EWTN's editions to the Vatican's Canons regarding the same impediments, and both versions provide identical guidelines on impediments to Ordination and Priestly Ministry ..... Too bad!

But does it …
More
You'll have to take that up with EWTN -- that's the [earlier] version EWTN's Priest Apologist quoted when I searched on the topic, and EWTN is an excellent, trustworthy Catholic source.

I compared EWTN's editions to the Vatican's Canons regarding the same impediments, and both versions provide identical guidelines on impediments to Ordination and Priestly Ministry ..... Too bad!

But does it hurt your head to compare the two also? Poor Ultraviolet....!
Ultraviolet
"You'll have to take that up with EWTN ..." No. I have to take it up with you. . It's your comment, your quote, and if there's an error in either, then it's your fault. Don't blame EWTN for your lack of scholarship. "...and both versions provide identical guidelines" Cool story, Ave Crux. YOUR interpretation of "identical" is as bogus as your quote from Canon 1043. There's an idea Quote…More
"You'll have to take that up with EWTN ..." No. I have to take it up with you. . It's your comment, your quote, and if there's an error in either, then it's your fault. Don't blame EWTN for your lack of scholarship. "...and both versions provide identical guidelines" Cool story, Ave Crux. YOUR interpretation of "identical" is as bogus as your quote from Canon 1043. There's an idea Quote them both word for word. (link both sources too) ;-)
Ave Crux
Poor Ultraviolet....so completely un-self-aware.... I hope you get help.....
Ultraviolet
I'll settle for the quotes you won't deliver because you made them up.. ;-) Up next, Ave Crux fabricates Canon Law. You said: "CANON 1043: "The canons distinguish between the reception of orders and the exercise of orders." Can. 1043 on the Vatican website is entirely different.
Ave Crux
Duh......did you ever hear of the renumbering that occurs between editions when new Canons are added and updated?

The pertinent Canons on impediments for Ordination and Priestly ministry provide exactly the same guidelines in the new edition as in the earlier edition.

But we already covered this difference in numbering days ago. Is your mind slipping?

You'll use any deception at all to cover …
More
Duh......did you ever hear of the renumbering that occurs between editions when new Canons are added and updated?

The pertinent Canons on impediments for Ordination and Priestly ministry provide exactly the same guidelines in the new edition as in the earlier edition.

But we already covered this difference in numbering days ago. Is your mind slipping?

You'll use any deception at all to cover the fact you're wrong.
Ultraviolet
"SSPX is not in schism." -Quote Pope Francis saying that as head of The Church, just the way you did. Until then, Pope John Paul II said the SSPX was in schism. So did Cardinal Ratzinger: "we may well hope that the schism of Mgr. Lefebvre will not last long." As Pope Benedict XVI he never rescinded that, either.
Ultraviolet
Pope Francis' Apostolic Letter where he grants the SSPX priests also says they need "God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church". Catholics are already in full communion. Schismatics need God's help because they don't have it now.
Ave Crux
YOU WANT AN APOLOGY???????!!!!!! YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY OUT OF YOUR MIND. YOU ARE THE MOST ABUSIVE, INSULTING, CONNIVING AND MACHIAVELLIAN COMMENTER ON GTV, AND **YOU** WANT AN APOLOGY????!!!!!

I CAN HEAR COLLECTIVE LAUGHTER FROM ALL MY FELLOW READERS.....
Ultraviolet
I deserve an apology because you lied about what I said. That has nothing to do with my personality. ;-) Don't assume your "fellow readers" care nothing for the truth the way you do. Most of them are Catholics, not schismatics.
Ave Crux
HAHAHAHA....!!!!!! WHAT A JOKE....!!!!!!! YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS.....YOU'VE REALLY OUTDONE YOURSELF, ULTRAVIOLET. ONLY EMBARRASSING YOURSELF EVEN MORE MONUMENTALLY THAN YOU ALREADY HAVE COUNTLESS TIMES.
Ultraviolet
I am entirely serious. I haven't embarrassed myself. I've discredited you as an outright liar, one point after another, one grammatical contortion after another until all that is left is this... your hysterical false-laughter in ALL CAPS, Loads O' Bold, RANTING RED.
Ultraviolet
Given your double-talk, definition games, "equates to" quotes I didn't make, the GTV report you "didn't" refer to when you linked it, the nonsensical insults you've heaped on me nonstop, you've undoubtedly surpassed me as abusive, insulting, conniving, etc. Congratulations :)
Ave Crux
My case is clear for GTV readers....SSPX is not in schism. I'm not playing any more of your games.
Ultraviolet
No, you've been playing your own game all along fabricating quotes other people never said. Quote Pope Francis' "express permission" to Bishop Huonder. word for word. Quote me claiming schisms aren't reversible and are permanent word for word. Quote us word for word, Ave Crux. GTV readers are waiting...
Ave Crux
Dear GTV Readers: please disregard Ultraviolet's characteristically malevolent, deceitful sleight of hand.

The documentation of Pope Francis's approval of Bishop Huonder residing with SSPX -- duly noted in the interview with Le Salon Beige -- has been provided by me on several occasions in this thread. I restate it here for everyone's convenience:


"Le Salon Beige reveals, and Rorate's sources …More
Dear GTV Readers: please disregard Ultraviolet's characteristically malevolent, deceitful sleight of hand.

The documentation of Pope Francis's approval of Bishop Huonder residing with SSPX -- duly noted in the interview with Le Salon Beige -- has been provided by me on several occasions in this thread. I restate it here for everyone's convenience:


"Le Salon Beige reveals, and Rorate's sources confirm, that the [SSPX] school in which Bp. Vitus Huonder will live when he retires is the Institut Sancta Maria, a boarding school for boys in Wangs, in the St-Gallen canton.

"Le Salon Beige confirms that, of course, the pope is well informed of Bishop Huonder's choice, and tacitly approves of it."


The source for this citation can be found here.
Ultraviolet
Dear GTV Readers: Please remember Ave Crux originally told you Pope Francis gave."express permission" not "tacit approval" Then Ave Crux clarified what their sentence "meant"(screen cap). Le Salon Beige doesn't quote Pope Francis, either.
Ave Crux
Dear GTV Readers:

Ultraviolet again deceitfully and desperately leads readers down the path of useless word games trying to smear their fellow Catholics with imaginary crimes of lying and deception; crimes which they themselves practice relentlessly....

Pitiful.....

Ultraviolet likes to waste your time with obfuscation and subterfuge -- anything to bludgeon someone that disagrees with them. …
More
Dear GTV Readers:

Ultraviolet again deceitfully and desperately leads readers down the path of useless word games trying to smear their fellow Catholics with imaginary crimes of lying and deception; crimes which they themselves practice relentlessly....

Pitiful.....

Ultraviolet likes to waste your time with obfuscation and subterfuge -- anything to bludgeon someone that disagrees with them.

CASE IN POINT ON THEIR LATEST ATTEMPT AT DECEIT ABOVE:

Check out Thesaurus.com, and you will see that "Permission" is a synonym for "Approval" and vice versa.

And Check out Merriam Webster Dictionary that says "Tacit" means "Expressed without words..."

This is exactly what I truthfully said and intended.

But Ultraviolet will do anything to deceive you and accuse everyone of lying to you at the very moment THEY'RE lying to you:
Ultraviolet
"He's most likely a Jew". No surprises why a Jew-hater considers that an insult. Jesus wept.. :P Of course, you've been trying to make this "jew" lie stick, for some time now, haven't you?
Ultraviolet
Hey, @Steve D why did you delete your comment, bro?
2 more comments from Ultraviolet
Ultraviolet
"deceitfully and desperately leads readers down the path of useless word games..." -said Ave Crux trying to conflate "tacit approval" with "express permission" through the uses of synonyms. I repeat. Letting someone do a thing and saying nothing is "tacit approval". But "express permission" requires a statement and you can't quote Pope Francis giving "express permission".
Ultraviolet
"And Check out Merriam Webster Dictionary that says "Tacit" means "Expressed without words..." ---and check out Collins Dictionary that says an express permission "Is one that is clearly and deliberately stated". Pic related. Something that is stated can be quoted and quoted word for word.. So Quote Pope Francis stating his "express permission" @Ave Crux
Ultraviolet
so you can accuse me of lying with ideas you made up." These are ideas YOU made up. Screen-capped. "EQUATES TO YOUR INISTING..." There we go! "EQUATES TO...".is your false equivalency. The canonical status of the SSPX's schism has not been changed. That doesn't mean it's permanent or nothing CAN change. Your "equates to" is flat out false. Apologize. ;-)
Ultraviolet
Here's why your "EQAUATES TO" isn't a quote and isn't true. . If Pope Francis formally decreed tomorrow the SSPX wasn't in schism, as a Catholic who submits to him, I would immediately concur they are not. But that isn't what you claimed that I claimed. :D
Ave Crux
There you go.....doing exactly what I said you would: twisting, turning in agony because you're wrong.

I suggest you go back to the quote from Le Salon Beige which says:

"Le Salon Beige confirms that, of course, the pope is well informed of Bishop Huonder's choice, and tacitly approves of it."

BASED ON MERRIAM WEBSTER'S DEFINITION, TACIT MEANS "EXPRESSED WITHOUT WORDS"

IT'S TOO …More
There you go.....doing exactly what I said you would: twisting, turning in agony because you're wrong.

I suggest you go back to the quote from Le Salon Beige which says:

"Le Salon Beige confirms that, of course, the pope is well informed of Bishop Huonder's choice, and tacitly approves of it."

BASED ON MERRIAM WEBSTER'S DEFINITION, TACIT MEANS "EXPRESSED WITHOUT WORDS"

IT'S TOO BAD IF YOU DON'T LIKE MERRIAM WEBSTER'S DEFINITION.....AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO IMPOSE ON ME YOUR DEFINITION OF THAT WORD JUST BECAUSE YOUR HUMONGOUS, OUTSIZED NARCISSISTIC EGO THINKS EVERYONE HAS TO OBEY YOUR THOUGHTS AND OPINION....

But of course you are so evil that you prefer -- and even delight -- in accusing me of lying, rather than simply admitting I did not.

Good night! ...and good riddance.
Ultraviolet
"tacitly approves" (i.e without words) is not "express permission" which is what YOU claimed, even with your "clarification" what the sentence meant. If I l say nothing an let you do something, that is "tacit approval". .if I SAY you may do something, that is "express permission" So quote Pope Francis SAYING Bishop Huonder may live with the SSPX.
Ultraviolet
"AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO IMPOSE ON ME YOUR DEFINITION OF THAT WORD" I'm not imposing my definition of "tacit," But I will cite Collins Dictionary definition of "express permission" which is what YOU claimed Pope Francis gave. It is Collins Dctionary that is going to "impose" some reality on your constant backpedaling. :D
Ave Crux
So now I can't use the meaning of a word as defined in the widely respected, authoritative Merriam-Webster Dictionary which has been in use for 200 years, because you used Collins Dictionary...????????

That is PRECISELY IMPOSING ON ME YOUR CHOICE OF HOW TO DEFINE THAT WORD. SORRY, I'M NOT KOWTOWING TO YOUR DEFINITIONS BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE MERRIAM WEBSTER. TOUGH.

You'…
More
So now I can't use the meaning of a word as defined in the widely respected, authoritative Merriam-Webster Dictionary which has been in use for 200 years, because you used Collins Dictionary...????????

That is PRECISELY IMPOSING ON ME YOUR CHOICE OF HOW TO DEFINE THAT WORD. SORRY, I'M NOT KOWTOWING TO YOUR DEFINITIONS BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE MERRIAM WEBSTER. TOUGH.

You're very sick, Ultraviolet, very sick indeed.
Ave Crux
YOUR ONLY BASIS FOR CLAIMING SSPX IS IN SCHISM TODAY IS TO KEEP REFERRING BACK TO 1988.....

ABSURD! NOTHING CHANGED IN 35 YEARS?

1) SSPX HAS FACULTIES THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE WORLD DIRECTLY FROM THE POPE

2) POPE FRANCIS ACKNOWLEDGES THE FAITHFUL GO TO THEIR CHAPELS AND WANTS TO PROVIDE FOR THEM

3) SSPX CONTINUES REGULAR DISCUSSIONS WITH ROME ON DOCT…
More
YOUR ONLY BASIS FOR CLAIMING SSPX IS IN SCHISM TODAY IS TO KEEP REFERRING BACK TO 1988.....

ABSURD! NOTHING CHANGED IN 35 YEARS?

1) SSPX HAS FACULTIES THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE WORLD DIRECTLY FROM THE POPE

2) POPE FRANCIS ACKNOWLEDGES THE FAITHFUL GO TO THEIR CHAPELS AND WANTS TO PROVIDE FOR THEM

3) SSPX CONTINUES REGULAR DISCUSSIONS WITH ROME ON DOCTRINE

4) SSPX HAPPILY AND GRATEFULLY RECEIVED APOSTOLIC VISITATIONS FROM THE HOLY SEE

5) SSPX ISSUES PUBLIC STATEMENTS OF GRATITUDE TO THE HOLY FATHER.

And yet you say you're not claiming schism is irreversible, as though nothing can change, so you just continue to rely on 1988 for your position, WHEN A GREAT DEAL HAS CHANGED THAT PROVES SSPX IS NOT IN SCHISM.

Poor Ultraviolet....stuck in the past and in error....
Ultraviolet
YOUR ONLY BASIS FOR CLAIMING SSPX IS IN SCHISM TODAY IS TO KEEP REFERRING BACK TO 1988..... Martin Luther was excommunicated in 1521. Has that Church ruling stopped being valid? Yes or no? The Lutherans have changed to. But they're still heretics.
Ultraviolet
The points you keep bringing up are changes but they haven't changed the status of the SSPX. Even Pope Francis granting faculties to the SSPX also required his dispensation from the impediment of schism, because they remain IN schism. Touche! Too easy. ;-)
Ultraviolet
"SCHISMS AREN'T REVERSIBLE OR PERMANENT just because Ultraviolet claims they are." Quote me where I claimed they are. Screen-cap the quote. Supply evidence for your "case," Ave Crux. You won't because you can't because you just lied to all those dear "GTV readers" you keep sucking up to. It isn't the first bogus "claim" you've manufactured for me, either. Just in case "GTV readers" are …More
"SCHISMS AREN'T REVERSIBLE OR PERMANENT just because Ultraviolet claims they are." Quote me where I claimed they are. Screen-cap the quote. Supply evidence for your "case," Ave Crux. You won't because you can't because you just lied to all those dear "GTV readers" you keep sucking up to. It isn't the first bogus "claim" you've manufactured for me, either. Just in case "GTV readers" are curious.
Ave Crux
Sigh...there you go again with your SINS of accusing others of lying when they don't lie. I hope you bring these sins to your Confessor each week.

I'm not going down your rabbit hole just so you can use your devious, malevolent, Machiavellian mind to twist and turn my words, and make them something else so you can accuse me of lying with ideas you made up.

I'll give one clue so everyone …More
Sigh...there you go again with your SINS of accusing others of lying when they don't lie. I hope you bring these sins to your Confessor each week.

I'm not going down your rabbit hole just so you can use your devious, malevolent, Machiavellian mind to twist and turn my words, and make them something else so you can accuse me of lying with ideas you made up.

I'll give one clue so everyone else will clearly see that for days you have been accusing someone of lying who never lied.... That's as far as I'll go, Sherlock.

And as far as your position.....while I provided ample evidence showing that whatever you want to say about Archbishop Lefebvre -- in 1988 under John Paul II, 35 years ago -- does not apply to the relations between Rome and SSPX today EQUATES TO YOUR INSISTING SSPX's ALLEGED "SCHISM" IS PERMANENT, THAT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN THEIR STANDING WITH ROME -- JUST BECAUSE MANIACAL ULTRAVIOLET SAYS SO.

IN FACT -- YOUR ONLY BASIS FOR CLAIMING SSPX IS IN SCHISM TODAY IS TO KEEP REFERRING BACK TO 1988.....ABSURD! NOTHING CHANGED? And yet you say you're not claiming schism is not irreversible, as though nothing has changed, WHEN A GREAT DEAL HAS CHANGED.

It's clear from the facts SSPX is not in schism in light of their ongoing, enduring and good-willed relations with Rome; and that Rome -- not SSPX -- is stalling because of doctrinal questions....NOT because SSPX is in a position or attitude of schism.


I hope you like it down there in your rabbit hole -- mad as a mad hatter....! Poor Ultraviolet.....

Goodbye, poor thing...!
Ultraviolet
"accusing others of lying when they don't lie." Quote Pope Francis word for word giving "express permission" to Bishop Huonder to live with the SSPX. Quote the GTV article or even your "actual reference".
Ultraviolet
Your case is Loads O' Bold and Ranty Red, and contradicted by The Church. Worse, you flat-out lied. fabricating quotes for me and for Pope Francis. GTV readers are still waiting for those quotes, Ave Crux. :D
Ave Crux
Poor, poor maniacal Ultraviolet....

My case is clear, it's sound, it's Catholic. I have provided GTV readers with sound reasoning proving they can feel free in conscience to have recourse to the SSPX ministry at will. Nothing further needs to be said.
Ultraviolet
"Nothing further needs to be said." But that won't stop you from endlessly repeating the same nonsense no matter how many times your "case" and your lies get debunked. Why haven't you quoted me word for word yet, Ave Crux? Where's that screen-cap? GTV readers are waiting for you to prove your "case". ;-)
Ultraviolet
"SCHISMS AREN'T REVERSIBLE OR PERMANENT just because Ultraviolet claims they are." That is an outright lie. I said no such thing. Quote me word for word where I ever made such a claim. Screen cap it, too. You can't and you won't because you just made that up.
Ultraviolet
....just like you can't and won't quote Pope Francis' "express permission" to Bishop Huonder. Quote Pope Francis, word for word, Ave Crux. Quote me word for word, and screen-cap my comment too. You won't because you can't because you lied.
Ultraviolet
"Are you unaware that was nearly 35 years and 3 Popes ago" The Crucifixion was over 2000 years ago. Your point? :P "The situation with SSPX and Rome and THIS Pope is no longer the same. Then quote Pope Francis saying that. Quote Pope Francis saying the SSPX is no longer in schism. Quote Pope Francis giving his "express permission" to Bishop Huonder. You can't because your interpretation is …More
"Are you unaware that was nearly 35 years and 3 Popes ago" The Crucifixion was over 2000 years ago. Your point? :P "The situation with SSPX and Rome and THIS Pope is no longer the same. Then quote Pope Francis saying that. Quote Pope Francis saying the SSPX is no longer in schism. Quote Pope Francis giving his "express permission" to Bishop Huonder. You can't because your interpretation is invalid.

"IF schism ever existed ..." SSPX Canonists' interpretation and YOUR interpretation fails before an explicit statement by Pope John Paul II. The Church has the final word, not you and your schismatics

"Your position is baseless and anachronistic in the 21st century."

...and THIS from an SSPX "traditionalist". LOLOL. Oh, the double-standards and hypocrisy... whoo boy. :D

"Schisms as defined in the Catholic Encyclopedia..."

First, The Catholic Encyclopedia's definition isn't Canon Law 751. Second, The Churhc has already ruled the SSPX is in schism. Quote a Pope explicitly saying otherwise. Not your interpretation, Propaganda-Bot... a direct quote from an official document of The Church, signed by The Pope.

"To say that SSPX is in a state of schism is absolutely laughable at this point in time." Do you have a quote from former Pope Benedict XVI or Pope Francis contradicting Pope John Paul II's ruling? You don't? Then the ruling still applies. The joke is on you.

"ongoing, good-willed, filial discussions on the doctrinal concerns SSPX has about Vatican II documents,"

The Church has been having fillial discussions with the Orthodox, too. They're still schismatics.

"Notice it's DOCTRINAL in nature..." I see an unsupported unattributed claim that reads sort-of like cut and paste from... somewhere. Schism as defined by Canon Law 751 says differently than what YOU claim.

"NOT a question of refusing to recognize legitimate and lawful Papal or ecclesial authority"

Recognizing Papal authority and submitting to Papal authority are not the same. you deceitful schismatic. :D The SSPX doesn't do that.

"expressions of gratitude to the Holy Father and their press releases to that effect."

I linked a press-release from some Muslims, expressing gratitude to the Holy Father. By your reasoning, they're no longer pagans because they said "thank you". :P
Ave Crux
"I'll take Pope John Paul II formally condeming the SSPX..."

DUH..... Are you unaware that was nearly 35 years and 3 Popes ago, and that the situation with SSPX and Rome and THIS Pope is no longer the same as 3-1/2 decades and 3 Popes ago?

IF schism ever existed -- and Canonists with a lot more education and smarts than you have don't even agree on that -- SCHISMS DON'T CONSIST OF A SINGLE…
More
"I'll take Pope John Paul II formally condeming the SSPX..."

DUH..... Are you unaware that was nearly 35 years and 3 Popes ago, and that the situation with SSPX and Rome and THIS Pope is no longer the same as 3-1/2 decades and 3 Popes ago?

IF schism ever existed -- and Canonists with a lot more education and smarts than you have don't even agree on that -- SCHISMS DON'T CONSIST OF A SINGLE ACT, AND SCHISMS AREN'T IRREVERSIBLE OR PERMANENT just because Ultraviolet claims they are.

Your position is baseless and anachronistic in the 21st century.


Schisms as defined in the Catholic Encyclopedia: "Schism (from the Greek schisma, rent, division) is, in the language of theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity, i.e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act.

To say that SSPX is in a state of schism is absolutely laughable at this point in time.

Not only have they not severed themselves from the Church "as far as in [them] lies", but SSPX has never once failed during that 35 years to engage with Rome, the CDF and Ecclesia Dei in ongoing, good-willed, filial discussions on the doctrinal concerns SSPX has about Vatican II documents, which is the only question that remains in the status of SSPX....

Notice it's DOCTRINAL in nature -- NOT a question of refusing to recognize legitimate and lawful Papal or ecclesial authority, or a refusal to embrace the one, true Church established by Christ -- which SSPX has publicly acknowledged and recognized both by their actions, expressions of gratitude to the Holy Father and their press releases to that effect.

It is ROME who is blocking the final resolution -- not SSPX -- because SSPX finds doctrinal problems in some Vatican II documents. It is NOT SSPX refusing to accept the Church's authority -- but documents they consider contain error.

THAT'S NOT SCHISM.


Nothing taking place with SSPX today can even remotely be called schism.
Ultraviolet
"Schismatics don't issue public statements of gratitude to the Pope...". Sure they do. It's good PR because thanking Pope Francis and obeying Pope Francis are two different things. "Yours is stuck back in the 1980's and in your own head." --that's Abp. Lefebvre discovering an imaginary "crisis" in The Church and a "necessity" to break Canon Law where none existed. :D
Ultraviolet
Professor Younis Tawfiq:"this gesture shows that there is an enlightened Islam which is also grateful to Pope Francis. Islam . Grateful for what he has done in many circumstances" -Muslims issue public statements of gratitude to Pope Francis also. They're still pagans and the SSPX are still schismatics.
Ultraviolet
I'll take Pope John Paul II formally condeming the SSPX over you, @Ave Crux. Why don't you quote Pope francis saying the SSPX is not in schism? Why don't you quote Pope Francis granting "express" permission to Bishop Huonder? You can't because he hasn't done either.. "your amateurish, armchair apologetics any day." --said the Propaganda Bot who got caught in two logical fallacies. :D
Ultraviolet
I'm still waiting for Pope Francis "express permission" (your words) underscored by your clarifcation "This is what that sentence meant" (also your words) Remember? I do. ;-) So quote Pope Francis.
Ave Crux
Poor Ultraviolet,...I'll take Pope Francis's granting of faculties, his directives to all the Bishops of the entire world to do the same, and the wise, vigilant and educated testimony of exemplary courageous prelates like Archbishop Vigano and Bishop Schneider over your amateurish, armchair apologetics any day.

Besides....prelates of the Church are informed by God according to their vocation …
More
Poor Ultraviolet,...I'll take Pope Francis's granting of faculties, his directives to all the Bishops of the entire world to do the same, and the wise, vigilant and educated testimony of exemplary courageous prelates like Archbishop Vigano and Bishop Schneider over your amateurish, armchair apologetics any day.

Besides....prelates of the Church are informed by God according to their vocation and "Grace of State" in order to guide the Faithful in times such as these. -- grace which Ultraviolet certainly doesn't have.


Oh, and not to forget to mention -- the public -- non-schismatic -- witness of SSPX to the primacy of the Pope and their gratitude to him for his actions on behalf of their ministry.

Schismatics don't issue public statements of gratitude to the Pope for his "fatherly gesture" and "pastoral solicitude".


My reference is other than myself....based on facts in the 21st century. Yours is stuck back in the 1980's and in your own head.

Your ego is absolutely enormous and self-referential. Besides...you're wrong.
Ultraviolet
Speaking of "granting faculties", in that same Apostolic Letter, Pope Francis also granted priests "the faculty to absolve those who have committed the sin of procured abortion." Francis was generous to SSPX schismatics just as he was to women who murder their unborn children. Yeah, the SSPX is in great company. :D