In honor of the intrepid Charlotte NC Bill who has dared to CROSS THE LINE
(bless his heart!) by posting a Peanut Gallery comment in the FIRST OF ITS
KIND DEBATE THREAD FOR TWO PERSONS (when CNCBill is not one of them),

Here is a place where everyone can have a go at it without disrupting the
thread, and it's not even in the same forum, so the competition might never
find it.  (...you can thank me later, Matthew...)

As of this early Saturday afternoon, the post was here.  
And it looked like this:

Quote from: Caminus

Upon what grounds is one justified in leaving their chapel when in actual fact everything is the same as it was before?  If these reasons justify separation from other Catholics, do you assert that it is a moral imperative?  If not, why?  Or is it rather a matter of preference?  We'll get to other issues in a moment.

That should be a good start.  Or shall we affirm/deny a single proposition?  

That's almost like someone holding you underwater and saying, "well, you're still kicking...I haven't drowned you yet...you've actually got nothing to complain about.." As a matter of fact your Excellency the SSPX faithful have A LOT to complain about...

I like your analogy, CNCBill, because I have first AND second hand experience
in this very thing.  I know three people who would perhaps not have survived
had they not defended themselves in such a situation.  

This does not include those I knew in Water Polo who had similar run-ins, but
under the basic premise that it's a GAME and there are rules against such
kind of thing, PLUS a lot of supervision, so it's less likely to happen.

But I would go back a bit in this one.  

For, it seems to me that the problem is in the pretense Caminus implies, nay
positively asserts:  "...when in actual fact everything is the same as it was
before?"  I don't mind leaving the question mark!  

In actual fact, speaking of facts, "everything" is most certainly NOT "the same
as it was before" unless you're talking about what happened "before" when
Father Chuck turned the altar around in 1969 and broke character at Mass
announcing to everyone, "Good morning, folks!  Now we've got a New Mass!"  

For while things might be SIMILAR at your local SSPX chapel today as they
were a few months ago, chances are things are not IDENTICAL.  But more
than that, when the priest at the pulpit no longer has anything solid to say
against the ERRORS of Vatican II or the unclean spirit thereof, when not too
long ago he had PLENTY, no one in their right mind can conclude that
"everything is the same."  

When the very same reasons we had during the lifetime of the venerable
Archbishop for not attending the local Novordien hootenanymass are suddenly
shunned as "disobedient" or "inordinate" or "an almost sinful separation" or
"a serious shift of orientation," amongst other curious terms, one must
wonder what unclean spirit moveth amongst the superiors??

Here is the crux of the issue, it seems to me.  And we ought not be
deluded into losing sight of the true target, the goal, the objective that is
under ASSAULT today, just as it was in 1960 when the Third Secret should
have been released, but it wasn't.  That was now 53 years ago and I can
remember it like it was yesterday.  It has been going on ever since then
and it will keep on going on forevermore, IF WE LET IT go on.