Matthew announced it would no longer be permissible for sede-somethings to declare Archbishop Lefeebvre's R&R position heretical on this (allegedly) R&R forum.

Making that allegation was to result in a ban.

Then a slight retracing of steps: "Well, it will depend on that person's posting history."

OK, let's test the new rule:

Yesterday, while the sedes were all rallying each other NOT to answer a very simple question ("Do you consider the R&R position to be against the faith?"), and miraculously abstaining from even entering into the conversation, so as not to unduly tempt themselves into giving the answer they are dying to give, the sedes behind the scenes were all trying to formulate a strategy to these new CI conditions:

"How can we still be crusading sedes at war with R&R on CI?  Above all, we must not lose CI, so be very careful (as Jaynek continuously warned them all)!"

Ladislaus was the first (and only one) to run a test flight:

"I consider some propositions held by certain R&R to be against the faith."

Reaction from Matthew?  Nothing.

Not even 12 hours into the new rule, it is already being bypassed and ignored.

Whether Matthew does not want to be seen as being influenced by Sean Johnson, or whether the shrinking numbers represented by a mass-sede defection are sinking in, I cannot say (though those all-important numbers would easily be replaced by the R&R defections which have been bleeding from this forum for years).

Perhaps it was Ladislaus' fictitious (and to date, unheard of novel qualification): "But just as there are 100 flavors of sedevacantism, so too there are 100 flavors of R&R."

Asked to give an example of even one of those other alleged "flavors," a strange silence prevails.

Nobody has ever heard of "variants" of R&R as exist in the ever-deteriorating and fragmenting sede orb.

At present, the sedes are all formulating how to fabricate precisely such "variants" of R&R.

But it will all be a fictitious attempt to preserve their opposition to R&R on CI:

There is only 1 version of R&R, and it was Archbishop Lefebvre's version: The only version that has ever animated the SSPX and Resistance: We recognize the pope, but reject his errors.

There is no other version of R&R, which proves Ladislaus was merely "buzzing the tower" to see if he (and sedes generally) could continue their war on R&R from this new, fictitious perspective: 

Oh, we love ABL's R&R, just not (whose ??) R&R.

So, I am looking for either a retraction from Ladislaus, or a ban of him from Matthew.

Failure to obtain one or the other is precisely what the sedes await: If the rule is toothless, well...

Glad to see Sean Johnson once again, wielding his razor-sharp sword  :farmer:

If the OP contributed 1/10 of the unbiased truth of what Ladislaus contributes to the teaching of the faith, He would improve himself immensely.

Hi Tradhican-
Do you consider the R&R position to be contrary to the faith?

Perhaps it was Ladislaus' fictitious (and to date, unheard of novel qualification): "But just as there are 100 flavors of sedevacantism, so too there are 100 flavors of R&R."

Asked to give an example of even one of those other alleged "flavors," a strange silence prevails.

Sorry, Johnson, but I don't sit at my computer 24/7 like you seem to.  I had a meeting from 10 PM to 12 midnight last night and then went to bed without feeling the need to check in on the latest from you.

R&R ranges from dogmatic R&R all the way to benefit-of-the-doubt R&R, where you personally suspect or even strongly lean towards vacancy but give a benefit of the doubt due to their juridical status, and anywhere in between.  You feel the need to assume that everyone out there conforms to your dogmatic R&R.  In fact, the reason you started coming after me was when I exposed your lie that Archbishop Lefebvre was dogmatic R&R by simply quoting him.  Then you ran away from that thread, started another one ... and eventually claimed to be dropping off of CI because Matthew did not listen to your demand to have me banned.  You get refuted so you start demanding a ban.  Then you start posting in the Anonymous forum because you don't want to lose face by backing down from your intention to stay off of CI.

I will refrain from giving examples of certain propositions held by some R&R that I consider to be contrary to the faith because Matthew has asked me to refrain from doing so.  And I'm not doing this just to avoid being banned.  I have a (very busy) life outside of CI and wouldn't lose a minute of sleep if Matthew were to ban me.  It's his forum and he can do with it what he likes.

At present, the sedes are all formulating how to fabricate precisely such "variants" of R&R.

Nonsense.  I've been aware of these for years ... just having spoken to many different R&R priests and bishops over the years.  You're just an idiot if you think that there's a single monolithic R&R "position" out there.  Just one small example.  Some R&R believe that we can just completely ignore the V2 Magisterium, while others think that we need to sift through it and heed those things that are consistent with Tradition.  And another.  Some R&R think that various changes that are within the legal power of a Pope and not directly contradictory of Tradition must be respected and heeded, while others think they can't be rejected wholesale ... so, for instance, with regard to the one-hour Communion fast (vs. three) or abstaining of meat on Fridays or the abrogation of various Holy Days of obligation.  There are widely varying opinions regarding what we can "Resist" in the "Resist" part of "Recognize & Resist".

Archbishop Lefebvre was demonstrably on the opposite end of the R&R spectrum from where you sit, SeanJohnson.  He routinely made comments sympathetic to the possibility that the See might be vacant, and at times came very close to embracing sedevacantism, but preferring to "wait" out of an abundance of caution regarding the pragmatic consequences of publicly adopting such a position.

I will refrain from giving examples of certain propositions held by some R&R that I consider to be contrary to the faith because Matthew has asked me to refrain from doing so.  And I'm not doing this just to avoid being banned.  I have a (very busy) life outside of CI and wouldn't lose a minute of sleep if Matthew were to ban me.  It's his forum and he can do with it what he likes.

M-hmm.

Broadening the scope of R&R so as to find “evidence” of variety?

Wrong.  You've tried to appropriate R&R and fashion it into your own image and likeness.  There's a tremendous amount of variety in R&R out there.  Talk to someone outside your own limited circle and you might find that out.