CathInfo.com

You repeatedly embarrass yourself with these effeminate meltdowns.  Grow up, would you?

What's eminently Protestant is the R&R assertion that the Catholic Church can become corrupt and fundamentally veer away from the Church's Tradition.  That allegation of corruption is at the very heart of Protestantism, and R&R declares that it's OK to separate from Rome because Rome has become corrupt in both faith and in worship (precisely the allegations made by the Prots).

Archbishop Lefebvre repeatedly asserted the Catholic principle (which you reject) that the Holy Spirit guides the papacy and that what's taking place is not possible, and where he asserted the SVism is in fact a possible explanation.  He merely refrained from coming out publicly with it (his words) out of an abundance of prudence.  But he repeatedly asserted that SVism is possible and that it's not heretical, and at times considered it likely.  Around the time of Assisi he said that he may have to come out as an SV.  Father Ringrose cited all these statements by Lefebvre when he became SV.

I find it incredibly humorous that your buddy Salza, whom you guys all touted as the champion of R&R, turned on your clowns, and took is principles to their logical conclusions (which SVs called out as eroneous from the outset) and declared you to be outside the Church.    Now you guys are "refuting" Salza using the same arguments that SVs had against him in the first place.

See, the difference between SVism and R&R in terms of rendering the "unity of the mystical body ... an impossibility" is that SVs hold that this is an extraordiary situation due to the obvious infiltration and takeover of the Church.  There have been regular Antipopes throughout Church history and disputes over the identity of the real pope.  That is nothing new, and has a ton of precedents.  What's absolutely novel ... and heretical ... is the assertion that even when you have a legitimate pope, it's permissible for Catholics to reject their Magisterium, their Rite of Mass, etc. ... when they think they know better.  Even when a new legitimate pope is elected, there's no way ever to roll that garbage back, and the "new normal" created by R&R is a situation where anyone can at any time second-guess the Magisterium.  Your principles destroy the Church.  An extraordinary takeover situation (in many ways like the Great Western Schism scenario) does not fundamentally destroy the Church.  Canonists have repeatedly asserted (have been quoted here) that one is not in schism for refusing submissioin to a Pope if the refusal is based on doubts about his election or his person.  Corollary to that is of course that if you have no doubts about his person, then you are schismatic to behave the way you behave.

We you in the seminary for about 3 days?  Or were you asleep during all your classes?  You obviously learned nothing about Catholic theology while you were there.
You would have thought tath

The Virgin, from the time of Our Lady of LaSalette stated that the Pope will suffer much.

Pope Gregory XVII was threatened with the annihilation of his family and the decapitation of the Roman Curia via a tactical nuke. 

The Chiesa Viva expose docuмents that.

He was the Pope in hiding. Surely he was ashamed of himself. Still he was the papal favorite for three consecutive conclaves and in each case, ʝʊdɛօ-masonry bumped him out.