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!!!!

Apostate rome was displeased by the sell-out plot being exposed by the three, a handful of good Priests and the efforts of some valiant laity.  Too few souls would have ended up in roman clutches.

B16 sent him back to purge the resistance and repackage the deal.  In the end rome will "honour" the 6 conditions, but like all Indian Treaties it won't be worth the paper it is written on.

Of course, "In the end rome will "honour" the 6 condition...."   since the "6 conditions" are in reality, compromises of the Faith.  And these compromises will be further compromised, and further compromised, ad infinitum, until we will no longer recognize it as anything remotely Traditional, because end justifies the means.  And the end Rome desires is the utter destruction of the True Catholic Faith as it was once practiced and believed throughout antiquity.      

Quote:
"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."  

Well that's a certainty without any proffered evidence.  You know something about the state of this person's soul?

Quote continued:
"That is a perfectly acceptable reason for a priest to withhold Communion."

That raises an interesting question.  If a person is in a state of mortal sin, the priest knows it, but the rest of the congregation does not, is the priest obliged to withhold Communion, and thereby publish the state of the soul, or to give Holy Communion so as not to "out" the sinner?   Sorry, but I'm not willing to automatically accept your opinion on the matter.    

Quote from: magdalena

NeelyAnn,
Does your husband know how to read and write?  I'm not big on hearsay.
 :confused1:

Funny, because that entire article is based on hearsay and my guess is you liked it very much and you are ready to swallow every bit of what it says, true or not, simply because it is what you want to hear.

My husband was there and called me after the conference to tell me what was said and how it went.  He also made a point to speak with Fr. Rostand in person, on his own.

As I stated, when he returns, I will go over the entire post, from the 'sos...' website, with him.

NeelyAnn, keep in mind (did you read this part?):

This web site is not for those who do not want to read it -- stay off is my recommendation... There's nobody on the world wide web that is being forced to access this page. To hit "enter" is totally voluntary.  

Has he returned yet?

Returned from what? NeelyAnn's entire message is based on hearsay, for she wasn't
there, and she's relying on someone else's report.

Funny, because that entire article is based on hearsay and my guess is you liked it very much and you are ready to swallow every bit of what it says, true or not, simply because it is what you want to hear.

She's going to believe whatever she hears, "true or not," simply because she wants
to believe it. You see, she explains it herself, right there.

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: Magna opera Domini

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.    

Warning: off topic ahead!!

It's only been a day. Give him a break. How would you like to catch buses and trains
without using the schedules? Then there's those guys that like to play games with
you. I knew some in Malibu, when an out-of-towner asked for directions on PCH,
they would tell them "Go out to the highway here and turn right, then go about 3
miles, and turn right on Highway 23, Decker Canyon Road. That'll take you right to
Thousand Oaks!"  

Locals know what I'm talking about. They would watch the people tootle on up the
highway and then laugh their heads off for hours. Fun, huh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKIzkVySs6w

(Video shows going the easy way, south -- starting at PCH and going north is a lot
more challenging, uphill and sharp turns.) Canyon down below on the left (on the
right in this video) is strewn with rusted hulks of crashed cars -- they didn't make it!
This could be a theme park ride but too many would get carsick!

Minute 4:50 -- crossing the double yellow line to pass a vehicle, $1200 and possible
jail time, if you're caught. It's actually cheaper to hire a lawyer!

The same kind of thing can happen in a taxi.  I was in Rome with two friends and a taxi driver drove us all around town before he dropped us off two blocks from where we got on the taxi.  Slight exaggeration.  He was laughing all the way too; and it cost us a pretty penny!

 

Neil,
I think you were very kind to NeelyAnn.  She should have thanked you.  

Well, I'll thank YOU, magdalena!



When and if she does return, she's got a lot of explaining to do.

For example, here is a post where NeelyAnn makes two glaring mistakes, and
she has not returned here to apologize for her errors:

Quote from: Magna opera Domini

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.

The first error is that Miseremini did not report ANYTHING on the sossaveoursspx
website. She only reported it here on CI, by way of linking to the 'sos' site that
she FOUND on the Internet. It's not her site.

As for this:

Quote

"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 [sic] sin.  That is a perfectly acceptable reason for a priest to withhold Communion.

Second mistake: no, that is not "a perfectly acceptable reason for a priest to
withhold Communion"; already explained above. NeelyAnn is "sure it was not for
public disagreement," etc., but this subjective confidence is nothing more than
delusion, based on fantasy. NeelyAnn should own up to her own "public
disagreement" and ask for mercy from the Forum! But she won't because she's
too proud. Another "sin." Maybe NeelyAnn should be "refused Communion!"
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Has he returned yet?

Maybe he got stuck on a long-tour taxi ride (since he can't read the street signs):

I was in Rome with two friends and a taxi driver drove us all around town before he dropped us off two blocks from where we got on the taxi.