Meg is obsessed with SVism, but Salza condemns all Traditional Catholics (outside of Motu groups like FSSP, ICK, etc.) as schismatics, heretics, and outside the Church, in need of conversion. And he's merely taking his false first principles to their logical conclusions, that SVs tried to point out were incorrect out of the gate, but R&R jumped on the bandwagon to defend these same principles that later Salza would turn against them as well.
Yes, he may indeed condemn all trads outside of the indult bunch, but don't you condemn all trads who do not follow your reasoning - reasoning which says that we are heretics and schismatics if we do not hold Pope Francis as suspect of manifest heresy? I've lost track of the number of times you've called me a heretic and schismatic, but I must say that on other subjects, I agree with you. You tend to be quite reasonable with other subjects.
I don't recall that the salza crowd has ever personally called me a heretic or schismatic, but then that crowd doesn't last very long here before they are banned. It's okay for the sedes to call us heretics and schismatics, but it's not okay for the indult folks to do the same. Doesn't seem fair somehow.
Now you will of course attempt to distract away from the subject I'm putting forth - that's always the tactic of sedevacantists.
Topic: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism? (Read 56458 times)