Black Elk knows what I'm talking about, you may not but you weren't included in that discussion. But you do know what I'm talking about when I say repeatedly. Black Elk likes to proclaim things, then he's proven wrong, but that doesn't stop him from proclaiming something else when he doesn't have the facts.
Once again, like in the case of the "great thumb" you are trying to defend the indefensible. Why are you jumping in here anyway? Didn't you deem that I was too intellectually inferior to have a discussion with? Let him fight his own battles. He's the one that picks fights with me, I never ping him unless it's to respond to a ridiculous accusation that he pings to me. Oh, and have a nice day.
I have seen those documents before, but I have examined them again. I cannot see anything which proves the Decree of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life to be false. Assertions, yes. Proofs, no. "In 1965, Mr. Martin received a dispensation from all privileges and obligations deriving from his vows as a Jesuit and from priestly ordination."
like in the case of the "great thumb" you are trying to defend the indefensible
I asked why the whole prayer was never quoted. You couldn't give a decent answer - in fact, it is the spreading of this "great thumb" nonsense which seems to me indefensible. Perhaps it was because a clearly metaphorical reference to the limitlessness of Divine Authority was being misrepresented as what would be a gross idolatry? Again - why is the "great thumb" part referred to but not the "Almighty God" which begins the prayer?
Didn't you deem that I was too intellectually inferior to have a discussion with?
I'm still waiting for your response on Garrigou-Lagrange.
As to Fr. Fiore, I attended the CATHOLIC (not SSPX schismatic) funeral of Fr. Fiore at St. Mary's Oratory (Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest)in Rockford, Illinois. The Oratory community had generally high regard for Fr. Fiore which he had certainly earned. He was quite generous to the Oratory in his bequests. He was attended in his last illness by the priest who serves as Rector of the oratory. As to the murdered Fr. Kunz, he too was Catholic and not schismatic. Many of his parishioners drive for hours from Wisconsin to Rockford to the Oratory to attend the Catholic Tridentine Mass.
What on earth does that linked article have to do with my defense of Catholicism from your little schismatic club?
As to your ritual and unfounded attacks on my posts, claiming that I am proven wrong, let's re-word your attack and make it more accurate. I disagree with the fantasies of the SSPX schism and its excommunicated leaders as you do not. On ONE occasion, I was corrected by one of you when I posted that Archbishop Lefebvre had liberalized annulment procedures as a judge of the Rota. It turned out that there were two Archbishop Lefebvres and your hero was not the one responsible for liberalizing annulments. I promptly conceded that the correction appeared truthful and accurate and that dead Marcel was apparently innocent of that. Of course, that does not make Marcel one iota less schismatic or excommunicated but I confess a bias toward exercises of papal authority as a Catholic and reject the notion that an excommunicated archbishop and his illicitly consecrated and excommunicated partners in ecclesiastical crime OR their dupes have anything whatsoever to say in rendering teaching authority in the actual Roman Catholic Church.
In any event, any personal failings of mine in argument are not imputed to the Teaching Magisterium of the Church itself any more than are the failings of your excommunicated leaders. Catholicism is Catholicism. Schism is schism. Excommunication is excommunication. If you want to argue that being wrong as to one matter makes me or anyone likely to be wrong in all matters, feel free but it isn't much of an argument. If that is your best shot, it limps.
What any of us Catholics (not schismatics) are doing here in attacking the fantasies (charitable term) of the schism is defense of the Roman Catholic Faith and the Roman Catholic Church. We are entitled to do that so long as the solidly American, solidly Christian and solidly conservative non-Catholic ownership here tolerates the arguments among Catholics on what is supposed, primarily, to be a conservative political website on which political conservatives of whatever other characteristics are able to conspire together towards the victory of conservatism and defeat of its enemies in the public square.
If you are going to try to undermine the good name of the Roman Catholic Church by claiming that the vipers of SSPX are "Catholic" in spite of the formal declaration of Pope John Paul II in Ecclesia Dei to the contrary, if you are going to continue your attacks on JP II even after his death (after all, he excommunicated your heroes in defiance, just who did he THINK he was?), if you are going to scandalize others by insisting that the schism is not a schism and that the excommunicated are not excommunicated and that somehow the teaching authority (there is none) of the excommunicati somehow trumps the teaching authority of the papacy, then you eserve response. You are getting that response. You don't like the response one little bit for suggesting that you too are subject to papal authority to the extent that you claim Catholicism. Tough. Obey or continue to take a hike. The Church will continue to survive nicely without you SSPX adherents. It is guaranteed on the very Highest Authority.
Finally, that you have, perhaps, satisfied your anti-Catholic prejudices that in disagreeing with me or any other actual Catholic, you must be right because you are you, you have proven NOTHING to be wrong, whatever you or any of your colleagues may please your(him/her)self to imagine.