CathInfo.com

I thought it was curious that Neely Ann never returned with her husband's report.  The absence of a follow up suggests that her husband had to admit the truth of what was posted on SaveourSSPX.  Confirmation of the report would have been of value.  C'mon, Neely Ann, let us have the promised report.    

I always stated from the beginning, WHEN MY HUSBAND GETS BACK.  My husband is not home and when he returns, I will ask him very specifically about all said.  So save your rash judging and snide remarks.  

It will not matter what he says because you will continue to insist that Miseremini's report is correct, even though it is not.  I previously noted 2 instances where my husband had already contradicted what Miseremini reported on the 'SOS' website and you seem to ignore those.



As for this:

"It would be a very grave matter if a SSPX priest withheld Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament from a faithful on account of public disagreement with the decisions of the Society leadership."

I have not yet been able to verify this, but if Communion was withheld, I am sure it was not for public disagreement but because the priest knows that person to be in state of unrepentent sin.  That is a perfectly acceptable reason for a priest to withhold Communion.

Right here in Orange County, mortal sin was announced to be committed by
any Catholic who returns from receiving Communion and kneels in his pew,
instead of standing in his pew. IOW: if you kneel after receiving Communion and
you don't confess it and repent for having kneeled without "permission," then
you cannot receive Communion tomorrow.

Since the Menzingen-denizens are promoting a NewChurch-friendly atmosphere,
who knows what the latest criteria is for "being in mortal sin?" Don't be surprised
if it has something to do with "obedience," mind you, even though the SSPX has
no jurisdiction. OH -- that's it! May be the "editor" took note of the fact there is
no jurisdiction to command the faithful comply with A, B, or C,  and for that -- he
has committed "mortal sin!" Might not be such a long shot ....


Examples of A, B, or C:
No more criticizing Vat.II
That the lifting of the "excoms" was a "miracle" is an article of the Faith, effectively
Assent of mind and will is required of every word uttered by +Fellay
Religious liberty in Vat.II is very, very limited
Bishop Williamson was rightfully forbidden participation in the Chapter
Prayer together with Protestants is not "indifferentism"
The Menzingen-denizens always have your best interest at heart
Frs. Pheiffer and Chazal are being justly "disciplined"
It's no big deal to hand over the SSPX to NewRome, as +Fellay has stated
It doesn't matter what ABL said, that was then and this is now
Thou Shalt Not Question the intentions of the Rosary Crusades
Thou Shalt Not Post an Internet website without the approval of your pastor
When Fr. Rostand says, "Take it down!" Thou Shalt Comply
Thou Shalt Adhere to the Party Line, in its most up-to-date form
Frs. Cardozo, Fox, Scott, et. al., all justly dealt with and business as usual
Thou Shalt Not Pay Any Attention to the de-facto worldliness of +Fellay's accommodation
Thou Shalt Not Wonder Aloud whether +Fellay has made any "secret agreement" with NewRome
Thou Shalt Not Pay Any Attention to whether your priest preaches one thing and practices another
Thou Shalt Not Pay Any Attention to how +Fellay goes soft on false ecuмenism
Thou Shalt Not Pay Any Attention to the curious ABSENCE of annullment of the "excoms"
Thou Shalt Not Pay Any Attention to the replacement with capitularies with yes-men robots
Thou Shalt Not Pay Any Attention to that man behind the curtain!!!!