Cat Smith
This is a good thing, as these leaders of the would be traditional groups need to be reminded of the capitulation to the novus ordo and vatican 2, that they signed in writing in order to be considered in "full communion" with conciliar Rome. When you make a deal with the devil, you will eventually get burned. This is the deal that Abp. Lefebvre refused, and now it is becoming clear for all to …More
This is a good thing, as these leaders of the would be traditional groups need to be reminded of the capitulation to the novus ordo and vatican 2, that they signed in writing in order to be considered in "full communion" with conciliar Rome. When you make a deal with the devil, you will eventually get burned. This is the deal that Abp. Lefebvre refused, and now it is becoming clear for all to see why.
pgmgn
So sorry, but I cannot take the word of anyone at the present time that says that these groups aren't being 'called' to the Vatican.

The FSSP is the same group that led the flock to believe they would never concelebrate.
Ultraviolet
...which explains why Archbishop Roland Minnerath expelled the FSSP
from the Basilica of Fontaine-lès-Dijon when they refused to do what you're claiming they do. :p
pgmgn
...precisely SO, Ultraviolet. And your point?

I never trusted what the FSSP was saying because they believed Rome that promised them a bishop that everyone knew would never come. LoL
Ultraviolet
If you need that point explained to you, it's 1.) undoubtedly beyond your understanding and 2.) not worth my time trying to do 1.).

Lastly,you don't know what the FSSP "believed" because you can't read minds any more than you can read a comment and perceive the point made. Heaven forbid the FSSP gave the Vatican the benefit of the doubt, no matter what misgivings they may or may not have …More
If you need that point explained to you, it's 1.) undoubtedly beyond your understanding and 2.) not worth my time trying to do 1.).

Lastly,you don't know what the FSSP "believed" because you can't read minds any more than you can read a comment and perceive the point made. Heaven forbid the FSSP gave the Vatican the benefit of the doubt, no matter what misgivings they may or may not have had. That's a kind of Christian charity neither of us possess. ;-)
pgmgn
LoL. You are really agitated now.

Doesn't take a mind reader to know that. And, fyi, your 'explanations' don't wash as they're filled with fluff and other unmentionables. But that's something with which you're 'intimately' aware, considering your mouth must be filled with residual tastes that are far from palatable. :P
Ultraviolet
Don't flatter yourself, chum. ;-) ...or presume to conflate contempt with agitation. If brevity is any metric, you didn't say anything even worth getting "agitated", much less a lengthy rebuttal. Nice to see you fancy you tried, though. At least we understand each other. ;-)

All, the same, "lol" no. You should look into getting a refund on that online psychology degree..

" And, fyi, your '…More
Don't flatter yourself, chum. ;-) ...or presume to conflate contempt with agitation. If brevity is any metric, you didn't say anything even worth getting "agitated", much less a lengthy rebuttal. Nice to see you fancy you tried, though. At least we understand each other. ;-)

All, the same, "lol" no. You should look into getting a refund on that online psychology degree..

" And, fyi, your 'explanations' don't wash as they're filled with fluff and other unmentionables."

If so... why you were stupid enough to ask for one in the first place? :D

Since you forced a bad metaphor, at the moment my mouth tastes of Chaucer's Mead, baklava, and smugness at how easily I'm pushing you around today.

Go wash out your own, pgmgn. Even from here it stinks of a rancid grudge and slather from a dog with the bad habit of eating his own excrement.
pgmgn
Why did I ask? Entertainment.

Your dubious attentions are flattery enough, but supply nothing of substance. Time to own your agitated state. Blame shifting because you're incapable of 'owning' anyone on this thread isn't flying.

Enjoy the delusions of Chaucer!
Ultraviolet
In that case, you accomplished your goal. Your display of stupidity did provide me entertainment. ;-)

Repeating a baseless claim like "agitated" doesn't make it true. Advancing a new one like "blame shifting" presupposes blame even exists.

I'm not to blame for you being stupid or that you're compelled to keep demonstrating that to the fullest possible extent. Likewise, I'm not blaming you …More
In that case, you accomplished your goal. Your display of stupidity did provide me entertainment. ;-)

Repeating a baseless claim like "agitated" doesn't make it true. Advancing a new one like "blame shifting" presupposes blame even exists.

I'm not to blame for you being stupid or that you're compelled to keep demonstrating that to the fullest possible extent. Likewise, I'm not blaming you for being stupid, merely pointing out that you are.

..and I wouldn't want to own you even if the state was going to pay for your upkeep. ;-)
pgmgn
I stated that I didn't trust FSSP leadership. Why? Because current leadership refused do as their founders did. Concelebrate. (Not that I believe the FSSP should, but I take issue with the lies and falsehoods communicated to the flock about what they will and/or won't and/or ever did.)

For some bizarre reason, you took issue with my comment. <shrug> That's what you often do.

And now you seek …More
I stated that I didn't trust FSSP leadership. Why? Because current leadership refused do as their founders did. Concelebrate. (Not that I believe the FSSP should, but I take issue with the lies and falsehoods communicated to the flock about what they will and/or won't and/or ever did.)

For some bizarre reason, you took issue with my comment. <shrug> That's what you often do.

And now you seek to shift the discussion to you somehow owning me. LoL. That's hilarious considering you dialogue like a freeloader. Likely why you made reference to the state :^)
Ultraviolet
"For some bizarre reason, you took issue with my comment...."

The "bizarre reason" being current FSSP practice trumps your distrust over what they might do in the future. I'm not surprised you can't cope with a factual counter-example.

"And now you seek to shift the discussion to you somehow owning me. LoL.

The LoL is all on you, . Using "own" in that slang-sense, was something YOU introduced.…More
"For some bizarre reason, you took issue with my comment...."

The "bizarre reason" being current FSSP practice trumps your distrust over what they might do in the future. I'm not surprised you can't cope with a factual counter-example.

"And now you seek to shift the discussion to you somehow owning me. LoL.

The LoL is all on you, . Using "own" in that slang-sense, was something YOU introduced... "you're incapable of 'owning' anyone on this thread isn't flying." I used "own" as a possessive pronoun, "go wash out your own" (mouth).

You can't tell the difference between a pronoun and a verb. :D

Attaboy, dummy. No, I'm not "owning" you. You're "owning" yourself It's an "own-goal" as the Brits call it. As you said, "LoL."

Btw... There's no reason for me to "shift the discussion" away from yet another display of your stupidity... and deprive myself of a reliable source of entertainment? Never. :)
pgmgn
Um, the FSSP practice is what fuels my distrust. Same thing for the Vatican. Why? Because I have 5 senses and the critical thinking skills given me by the Good God. The same gifts you seem to disdain.

Whatever.

Our Lord tells us to read the signs of the times and to beware of false shepherds. Yet here you are, cheer leading for DUMB. You're the one promoting stupid, and wholly blind obedience …More
Um, the FSSP practice is what fuels my distrust. Same thing for the Vatican. Why? Because I have 5 senses and the critical thinking skills given me by the Good God. The same gifts you seem to disdain.

Whatever.

Our Lord tells us to read the signs of the times and to beware of false shepherds. Yet here you are, cheer leading for DUMB. You're the one promoting stupid, and wholly blind obedience that requires a twisted sister non-logic.

Time to own your yoga poses, Ultra. Even with your eyes closed, your muscles, what's left of them, have to be screaming.
Ultraviolet
"Because I have 5 senses and the critical thinking skills given me by the Good God. The same gifts you seem to disdain."

...which explains why you can't defend your postion with anything better than a hasty retreat into pharisaical faux-piety and equally bogus pseudo-Catholic mysticism.

Reason argues in favor of judging a group by what they do now (i.e. refuse to concelebrate) rather than More
"Because I have 5 senses and the critical thinking skills given me by the Good God. The same gifts you seem to disdain."

...which explains why you can't defend your postion with anything better than a hasty retreat into pharisaical faux-piety and equally bogus pseudo-Catholic mysticism.

Reason argues in favor of judging a group by what they do now (i.e. refuse to concelebrate) rather than what you believe they may do in the future (i.e. the opposite). That's observation and critical thinking skills; you're not using what The Good God has given you.

Lutherans resort to your tactics when their critical thinking skills come up empty and sputter to a stop as well... they start reading "the signs of the times and finger-wagging at "false shepherds". For the both of you, its Scriptural virtue-signalling to justify whatever pet-idiocy you can't support through any other means.

For the Lutherans, the "signs of the times" keep giving them dates for "The Rapture" that never happens. For them, Catholics are "false shepherds".

You reaing "the signs of the times" leads you to attack a group of priests based on your own "distrust" rather than factual evidence to the contrary. You're as error-riddled and nonsensical as they are with the added disgrace that as a Catholic you should know better.

I cheer-lead for The Church and for a traditionalist Fraternity that hasn't compromised their principles yet remains in full communion with The Church. What a self-indictment it is that you define that as "DUMB" and "promoting stupid".

Since that's the best you can do for your criticism, you forfeit the right critize anyone for "non-logic". And speaking of which... LOL "yoga"... It's time for you to "own" your Ad Hominem, chum. ;-)
pgmgn
Okay. So by your logic of judgement based on "what they do now" you should leave off the Lutheran bashing because Francis loves Luther's doctrine.

Since the best you can do is argue against straw, maybe it's time for you to head to the field and collect some. You can't handle real people or a discussion grounded in reality or history.

Have a good trip!
Ultraviolet
By my logic of judgement based on "what they do now", I should judge Lutherans on what they do now. Not what Pope Francis does now.

You really stink at this. :P

I'm not arguing against straw, just another SSPX fan-boy with a mouth full of venom but very blunt fangs. You fail on the facts (witness all your counter-examples). You fail on logic (see above), You fail on everything that …More
By my logic of judgement based on "what they do now", I should judge Lutherans on what they do now. Not what Pope Francis does now.

You really stink at this. :P

I'm not arguing against straw, just another SSPX fan-boy with a mouth full of venom but very blunt fangs. You fail on the facts (witness all your counter-examples). You fail on logic (see above), You fail on everything that matters in proving a point.

"You can't handle real people or a discussion grounded in reality or history."

Perfect example of my last statement.

A discussion "grounded in reality or history" focuses on the fact FSSP celebrate the Latin Mass exclusively (reality) because their Fraternity's charism is based on celebrating the Latin Mass exclusively (history)

Your asinine "distrust" isn't grounded in reality, or history. It's grounded in your SSPX-fuelled resentment because the FSSP are geunine traditionalists in full communion with The Church...

They're nto a bunch of schismatics pretending they're still part of The Church because they're too gutless to stand on their own feet.

The FSSP hamstrings the SSPX's false dilemma between either accepting traditionalism on their terms as schismatics or following "Bergoglio's" Novus Ordo.

So I'm handling you just fine. Pic related. .;-)
pgmgn
You're arguing against yourself.

Straw man, empty sack, sack of whatever.

The FSSP used to concelebrate. I always knew that despite the recent Dijon incident and the resulting kerfuffle. Despite protestation of those attending the FSSP, or even newer priests, that insisted otherwise.

That you need to toot your tin horn for whatever reason doesn't detract from my original post.

Dragging the …More
You're arguing against yourself.

Straw man, empty sack, sack of whatever.

The FSSP used to concelebrate. I always knew that despite the recent Dijon incident and the resulting kerfuffle. Despite protestation of those attending the FSSP, or even newer priests, that insisted otherwise.

That you need to toot your tin horn for whatever reason doesn't detract from my original post.

Dragging the SSPX into it, is another indicator that you've got a real problem. Maybe take a powder and tell yourself it'll be okay. Even if you're tempted to attend an SSPX mass which, btw, is okay with Rome. <shrug>
Ultraviolet
"You're arguing against yourself."

No, just a pathetic SSPX fanboy..

Your're the one famous for rhetorical questions so it's fair to say you're the one discussing this with yourself.

"Straw man, empty sack, sack of whatever."

Three of your fave tactics, especially the last. Thanks for listing them.

"The FSSP used to concelebrate. I always knew that despite the recent Dijon incident and the …More
"You're arguing against yourself."

No, just a pathetic SSPX fanboy..

Your're the one famous for rhetorical questions so it's fair to say you're the one discussing this with yourself.

"Straw man, empty sack, sack of whatever."

Three of your fave tactics, especially the last. Thanks for listing them.

"The FSSP used to concelebrate. I always knew that despite the recent Dijon incident and the resulting kerfuffle."

Despite? The FSSP was expelled because they wouldn't concelebrate. This is how the SSPX re-writes history.

"Despite protestation of those attending the FSSP, or even newer priests, that insisted otherwise."

Because what you "know" takes precedence over reality, I -do- keep forgetting that's how the delusional view the world. Paraphrasing you, by my logic of judgement based on "what they do now", I should judge the FSSP on what they do now. Not what you claim to "know" they did in the past, and amply supported with zero evidence backing what you "know". .

"That you need to toot your tin horn for whatever reason doesn't detract from my original post."

"Whatever reason" being you were falsely maligning a bona-fide Catholic priestly fraternity. .I'll toot my tin horn. Like Lefebvre, you're deaf to reason as you are to reality.

Which explains the tooting you're doing thanks to some SSPX Butthurt Beans.

"Dragging the SSPX into it, is another indicator that you've got a real problem."

Indeed... with falsehoods and the liars who tell them against a legitimate traditionalist group in full communion with the Catholic Church.

You keep forgetting your trash-talk doesn't mean squat without the facts and reason backing it, and those just ain't in your corner here.
pgmgn
"No, just a pathetic SSPX fanboy."

It's telling, Ultra, that you presume anyone who can reason is somehow a "fanboy" of the SSPX. I'm no fan. Reason? People and institutions comprised of them are inherently flawed.

It doesn't pay to fangirl/fanboy anyone or any organization. That may be why you're so blind and cutting to anyone who refuses to close their eyes and/or fawn on your chosen idol.

More
"No, just a pathetic SSPX fanboy."

It's telling, Ultra, that you presume anyone who can reason is somehow a "fanboy" of the SSPX. I'm no fan. Reason? People and institutions comprised of them are inherently flawed.

It doesn't pay to fangirl/fanboy anyone or any organization. That may be why you're so blind and cutting to anyone who refuses to close their eyes and/or fawn on your chosen idol.

<shrug>
Ultraviolet
It's telling that you flatter yourself by claiming you CAN reason. Look at your position. It's based on "distrust" and what you "know", instead of reason.

Reason argues in favor of judging a group by what they do now (i.e. refuse to concelebrate) not what you believe they may some time in the future.

Fact is, you can't reason. It's why I keep pointing out one fallacy after another, the …More
It's telling that you flatter yourself by claiming you CAN reason. Look at your position. It's based on "distrust" and what you "know", instead of reason.

Reason argues in favor of judging a group by what they do now (i.e. refuse to concelebrate) not what you believe they may some time in the future.

Fact is, you can't reason. It's why I keep pointing out one fallacy after another, the ones you sneer at.

Also undercuts the "you're so blind" argument. If nothing else, you're blind to your own errors in reasoning and, lucky you, I'm only too happy to point 'em out.

You're an SSPX fan boy so you slag the legitimate traditionalist alternative: the FSSP. Sports fan-boys do the same thing. If their team has a lousy line up, they criticize the other team non-stop for any reason they can find..

NY Yankees vs. Boston Red Socks.
Schismatic Society of Pius X vs Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter.
Different "teams", different "sports" and fan-boy tactics stay the same.

Let me tell you something, in all seriousness. You're actually more vicious than I am, at least here, and that is no small accomplishment. You have a genuine flair for it.

I make no complaint and give credit where credit is due. But that means you don't get to criticize me for being "cutting", you hypocrite.

Motes and beams, slugger. ;-)
pgmgn
Fact is, you were triggered because I said I wouldn't take the word of FSSP/ICK leadership. Why should I? They've shown themselves to be unclear about what they believe.

There is no "legitimate" alternative to the fullness of the truth. Seems to me you're slagging on anyone with the capacity to say yes or no. So hung up on smells & bells that you'd do whatever it took to satisfy your craving so …More
Fact is, you were triggered because I said I wouldn't take the word of FSSP/ICK leadership. Why should I? They've shown themselves to be unclear about what they believe.

There is no "legitimate" alternative to the fullness of the truth. Seems to me you're slagging on anyone with the capacity to say yes or no. So hung up on smells & bells that you'd do whatever it took to satisfy your craving so long as it's not taken away from you.

But there is light on the other side, Ultra, a world beyond the cave where you are forced to squint because you've grown too accustomed to gray spaces.
Ultraviolet
Fact is, you should skip the pop-psychology gimmick. Correcting a falsehood isn't "triggered" and this is the first time you've mentioned the ICK. Kinda tough for me to be "triggered" by something you haven't mentioned until now. This is how you SSPX fan-boys lie through those rotting stumps you call teeth.

"There is no "legitimate" alternative to the fullness of the truth."

The fullness of …More
Fact is, you should skip the pop-psychology gimmick. Correcting a falsehood isn't "triggered" and this is the first time you've mentioned the ICK. Kinda tough for me to be "triggered" by something you haven't mentioned until now. This is how you SSPX fan-boys lie through those rotting stumps you call teeth.

"There is no "legitimate" alternative to the fullness of the truth."

The fullness of the truth doesn't come from the SSPX. :D Only The Church and those organizations part of The Church can provide that. The FSSP is the legitimate alternative to the schismatic fascade the SSPX presents.

"Seems to me you're slagging on anyone with the capacity to say yes or no."

It does seem that way to you, because you're an SSPX fan-boy and an idiot. You aren't saying "yes" or "no". You're going out of your way crticize a a group of traditionalist priests on the basis of nothing, except your own asinine "doubts" and whatever irrational, utterly unsupported nonsense you claim to personally "know".

You sprained your wrist patting yourself on the back about your God-given ability to reason, but you show no evidence of it. Reason suggests, the best way of supporting your claim is with evidence. That's a resaoned approach and you keep quietly avoiding doing so.

Reason advises showing WHY you "distrust" and WHAT you "know". You might "know" a lot of things but how to reason sure ain't one of 'em.

"So hung up on smells & bells that you'd do whatever it took to satisfy your craving so long as it's not taken away from you."

I see GTV has another bogus mind-reader. :P

Another fine example of what you "know" and it's as factually wrong as what you "know" about the FSSP. Fact is, I acknowledge that both forms of the Mass are valid (much to the ire of some folks here) because this is what The Church teaches. In a word, you're wrong, again, as usual. What else is new?

It's so nice to see you managed to save that ratty copy of "Cliff Notes: Plato's Republic" from high-school. :P You'll have to do a whole lot better than a contrived and badly worded allegorical riff.

Hate to say it, but you really struck out here on GTV Career Day.
You failed the screen test for TV Talk Show Psychology Expert.
You failed the mind-reading test for the Psychic Network.

...and the closest you'll ever get to staff in a Philosophy department is wheeling in your janitor's cart and cleaning the chalk-board when the professor is done.
pgmgn
... says the triggered man. That's assuming you're a man.

Have a wonderful week!
Angelo Santelli
I cannot understand why these priests think they even need to liten to Bergoglio.
Ultraviolet
...because he's the Pope and they aren't in schism the way you apparently are according via Canon Law 751. Since you asked. :P
pgmgn
Says Ultraviolet who parses canon law like he's at a suspect sushi buffet :P
Ultraviolet
I avoid that problem by making my own sushi, @pgmgn ;-) Normally you bottom-feeders get cut up for Hirame Sashimi but it's easy to avoid the stinkers sold at the wharf. The discolored gills are a bad sign but you already have a Steve D who can't stop buzzing around you. Some vendors try to use vinegar to drive off the Steve Ds, but in the end, you still stink. :D
Angelo Santelli
You, ultraviolet, have nowhere near the amount of knowledge I have on the papacy.You do not even know if I in fact might not be a Priest professor at a major catholic university. Take your filth elsewhere.
Ultraviolet
" Take your filth elsewhere." --said the supposed-catholic who's previously suggested murdering The Pope (among others) . For a "a Priest professor at a major catholic university." your own professors didn't teach you very much about logic. Even taking your nonsense at face value (which I don't) what you claim you are still doesn't make you correct, even if it were true. Pic related.
pgmgn
You make your own sushi? Interesting. But then you make your own magisterium, too, so is it any wonder?

I typically avoid the issue of ill prepared raw fish by passing. Your culinary delights would be even more suspect despite your profession of skills. (Your nose seems to be incapable of detecting foul odors and that, in itself, makes your kitchen a no-go zone. Much like the salon you attempt …More
You make your own sushi? Interesting. But then you make your own magisterium, too, so is it any wonder?

I typically avoid the issue of ill prepared raw fish by passing. Your culinary delights would be even more suspect despite your profession of skills. (Your nose seems to be incapable of detecting foul odors and that, in itself, makes your kitchen a no-go zone. Much like the salon you attempt to rule here.

Pic is something you should review as to your own obvious issues.
Ultraviolet
Making Magisterium? No, that's what the Lefebvrists do. They're the one's who always unscrew a fresh jar of home-made "Magisterium" when The Church contradicts their fail. . ...proving once again that canning should begin with material that isn't tainted by schism or bottled by people who don't know what they're doing.

The Trappist Monks produce a lovely range of preserves. Here on GTV "Da Magis…More
Making Magisterium? No, that's what the Lefebvrists do. They're the one's who always unscrew a fresh jar of home-made "Magisterium" when The Church contradicts their fail. . ...proving once again that canning should begin with material that isn't tainted by schism or bottled by people who don't know what they're doing.

The Trappist Monks produce a lovely range of preserves. Here on GTV "Da Magisterium" is sold door-to-door by the SSPX Scouts and Benedict Buddies. In a word, it's a fallacious appeal to tradition.

I never rely on arguments based on a vague reference to "Magesterium".. "tradition". If you weren't so eager for a fight and paid even a little more attention you would have noticed that by now.

That's a charitable assumption on my part since I can't prove you're being deliberately dishonest and just spewing another baseless accusation, even when that's entirely in character for you.

"I typically avoid the issue of ill prepared raw fish by passing."

No, you don't. :D Seriously. You eat whatever they serve at the sushi-ya and you're none the wiser. :P

Since you're just floundering (pun intentional), the least I can do is give you an education.

Preparation doesn't change the quality of the seafood itself. An amateur can botch preparing a fish caught literally minutes earlier.

By contrast, and this is your mistake, borderline-spoiled fish can still be prepared perfectly, covered with lots of SSPX Magisterium to hide the taste, and fed to pretentious uneducated morons like you who gladly pay big bucks to eat it.

That thick dark kabayaki sauce is the "Magesterium" on every prep cart, especially when the restaurant manager gives the order to start clearing out the older stock whenever possible..

"Your nose seems to be incapable of detecting foul odors..."

It's keen enough to notice you the moment I logged on. ;-)

As for sneering at my kitchen... Bringing up that in an extended sushi metaphor? Oh, you piker.

You pretentious, provincial, incompetent. :P

This is what happens when you start building metaphors around a subject you know nothing about.

You should see what goes on "back-stage" at an upscale sushi-ya. That spotless performance the itamae gives for all you diners isn't anything like the real pre-prep done in back by the shokunin (commis chefs). Their work-stations aren't quite so nice-looking or as clean as his lovingly polished cutting-board.

You should be so lucky if your meal's ingredients were prepped in a kitchen half as clean as mine, bucko. You don't "avoid the issue" at all. You shovel down whatever they serve up because you don't know any better.

Think about that, the next time your big tip gets flattered with a supercilious little bow and a fist-bump.

Btw... GTV ain't a "salon" so go get your highlights and perm done somewhere else, Alice. Yes, I understand the French reference. I understand it well enough to recognize you're still being a pretentious incompetent..

Your vindictive argument-pimping around here automatically disqualifies such usage.

My pic doesn't apply to me because I'm not referencing an authority.

Fact is, your problem isn't even based on logic. No "Your Fallacy Is" for you this time. You don't rate anything better than a Star Was meme. :P
pgmgn
Wow. You were really stopped up.

You may want to take a cue from Princess Leia....else star systems will slip through your fingers like the wasted brain cells you could otherwise use.

Good luck with that.
Ultraviolet
"You may want to take a cue from Princess Leia..."

I think not. Princess Leia's rhetoric was as hollow as yours, though much better worded. You failed badly at trying to make her quote work.

Fact is, she stood by with no greater response than a dignified, frustrated little "no..." while she watched the man she insulted destroy her homeworld.

Like you, she was all talk with nothing behind it.…More
"You may want to take a cue from Princess Leia..."

I think not. Princess Leia's rhetoric was as hollow as yours, though much better worded. You failed badly at trying to make her quote work.

Fact is, she stood by with no greater response than a dignified, frustrated little "no..." while she watched the man she insulted destroy her homeworld.

Like you, she was all talk with nothing behind it. . Go watch Ep. IV again, dummy.
Advocata
jimcat
"until they have received a canonical visitation."

Them's chilling words.
giveusthisday
Remember Our Lady, remember Catholic victories against powerful odds, remember Our Lady promised that prayer and penance will help to stay her Son's Hand, Who is very much offended by our sins. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us. Our Lady of Good Success, pray for us. Our Lady of Guadelupe, pray for us.
Live Mike
I suspect any resistance by superiors will be met with swift and severe ecclesiastical disciplinary measures. So, if they take a stand they may find themselves replaced by those who are more amenable and docile. Any troublemakers who don't submit to the Vatican's wishes can expect dismissal. In the case of a coalition or united front, then the complete suppression of the institutes by the Holy …More
I suspect any resistance by superiors will be met with swift and severe ecclesiastical disciplinary measures. So, if they take a stand they may find themselves replaced by those who are more amenable and docile. Any troublemakers who don't submit to the Vatican's wishes can expect dismissal. In the case of a coalition or united front, then the complete suppression of the institutes by the Holy See may befall them.
John A Cassani
You are probably right, but not taking a stand would lead to their ruination. It would be a betrayal of their members, and of their donors. I would imagine that the FSSP is the legal owner of their seminary in Nebraska, under civil law. They own few if any of the churches they serve, but they have always seen their main mission as the formation of priests. If they let the wolves in Rome destroy …More
You are probably right, but not taking a stand would lead to their ruination. It would be a betrayal of their members, and of their donors. I would imagine that the FSSP is the legal owner of their seminary in Nebraska, under civil law. They own few if any of the churches they serve, but they have always seen their main mission as the formation of priests. If they let the wolves in Rome destroy this, then they would have no reason to continue to exist. They consider themselves to be true to the spirit of Marcel Lefebvre’s mission. It may become necessary to leave communion with modern Rome once again, in order to maintain communion with “Eternal Rome.” This would be far from ideal, but, clearly, an emergency situation exists at this point. Otherwise, they would not be meeting.
Seer3 shares this
78
Indult Institutes to Discuss ‘Traditionis Custodes’ Amid Talk of Visitations
etheldreda symms
Archbishop Lefevre revisited!!!!!!!!Many years ago.
Vincent Capuano
Very simple if officially restricted go off book. If our ancestors trained priests under persecution so can we.
Ultraviolet
Correction @etheldreda symms None of these organizations have broken Canon Law and defied the Pope by appointing their own bishops without approval. :) Also, these Superiors are in full communion with the Catholic Church. Abp. Lefebvre was excommunicated, as were those who formally adhere to his movement's schism. That was confirmed by St. Pope John Paul II in his letter "Ecclesia Dei".

We'…More
Correction @etheldreda symms None of these organizations have broken Canon Law and defied the Pope by appointing their own bishops without approval. :) Also, these Superiors are in full communion with the Catholic Church. Abp. Lefebvre was excommunicated, as were those who formally adhere to his movement's schism. That was confirmed by St. Pope John Paul II in his letter "Ecclesia Dei".

We'll have to wait and see what sort of waltz the FSSP and the ICTK do with their dancing partners in the Vatican.
pgmgn
We'll have to wait for you to put your money where your mouth is... or make that your flying fingers as you dance across the keyboard.

Francis says, "Who am I to judge," and yet you, a supposed devotee of ultimate papal obedience are here judging. How is that possible?

If indeed you wish to set an example of total and complete submission to the utterances of the Holy Father, then I bid you do …More
We'll have to wait for you to put your money where your mouth is... or make that your flying fingers as you dance across the keyboard.

Francis says, "Who am I to judge," and yet you, a supposed devotee of ultimate papal obedience are here judging. How is that possible?

If indeed you wish to set an example of total and complete submission to the utterances of the Holy Father, then I bid you do so for the sake of souls. In truth. The hubris you demonstrate here in light of Francis's quintessential humility is shocking. Shocking, I say!!!!
Ultraviolet
I'm not making any predictions on what these organizations will do. Failed gambling analogy is failed. :D

"Francis says, "Who am I to judge," and yet you, a supposed devotee of ultimate papal obedience are here judging. How is that possible?"

1.) You're wrong on both points.
2.) You're trying to pick a fight while being 1.)

Hey, I can understand you wanting a re-match this bad. But when …More
I'm not making any predictions on what these organizations will do. Failed gambling analogy is failed. :D

"Francis says, "Who am I to judge," and yet you, a supposed devotee of ultimate papal obedience are here judging. How is that possible?"

1.) You're wrong on both points.
2.) You're trying to pick a fight while being 1.)

Hey, I can understand you wanting a re-match this bad. But when you get knocked out you need to heal up for a while first.

Don't climb back in the ring when you're still punch-drunk from yesterday's loss.

Here's where you're wrong... I'm not a "supposed devotee of ultimate papal obedience" at all.

Can. 751 requires submission to the Pope. Obedience isn't mentioned. Nor are any criteria supplied for defining "submission". Obedience doesn't appear anywhere in Can. 1382 which is the one Abp. Lefebvre broke and got him excommunicated.

Also, I'm not "judging", I'm citing a judgement made by others. Easy mistake for you to make when you're still-seeing double. :D

"If indeed you wish to set an example of total and complete submission to the utterances of the Holy Father..."

I don't because total and complete submission to the utterances of the Holy Father isn't a Canonical requirement.

Go put an ice-pack on the back of your neck and go ask Coach to check your stitches.

My hubris is well-earned, as you've demonstrated.

You're not even a decent sparring partner today, just a speed-bag. :P
pgmgn
You're citing word salad :^)
Ultraviolet
..and THIS from the guy bragging about his God-given ability to reason! :P Vaguely labelling a reply "word salad" fails as a coherent rebuttal. It's an "ad hominem" against the comment but doesn't address the points made. You've come up empty every time now and your derpy sarcasm isn't clever enough to make up for that