“So mote it be”is Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ jargon.

See, these slanders persist because the original culprits have refused to retract them.

1) +Vigano did not use the term "mote".
2) +Vigano did not use any such terms, since he was writing in Italian.
3) Translator rendered an Italian expression "So may it be."
4) This is a typical translation of "Amen" in Italian.
5) We had someone here post a picture of a pre-Vatican II Tridentine Italian Missal that showed the Latin "Amen" as translated to the Italian equivalent of "So may it be."
6) Same poster attested to the fact that his Traditional Catholic Italian priest concludes his sermons with the the Italian "So may it be."
7) You do realize, right?, that Masons rip off expressions from various religious, including Catholic, Jєωιѕн, etc. and just because a Mason has appropriated a term doesn't mean it's inherently Masonic.

Can we put this stupidity to bed and have the original slanderers retract this nonsense?

See, this is why sins of detraction, calumny, and slander are so vicious, because once they're unleashed, it's very difficult to undo the damage done even with retractions.  Once something is out there, it stays out there ... so good luck repairing the damage done to someone's reputation.

See, these slanders persist because the original culprits have refused to retract them.

1) +Vigano did not use the term "mote".
2) +Vigano did not use any such terms, since he was writing in Italian.
3) Translator rendered an Italian expression "So may it be."
4) This is a typical translation of "Amen" in Italian.
5) We had someone here post a picture of a pre-Vatican II Tridentine Italian Missal that showed the Latin "Amen" as translated to the Italian equivalent of "So may it be."
6) Same poster attested to the fact that his Traditional Catholic Italian priest concludes his sermons with the the Italian "So may it be."
7) You do realize, right?, that Masons rip off expressions from various religious, including Catholic, Jєωιѕн, etc. and just because a Mason has appropriated a term doesn't mean it's inherently Masonic.

Can we put this stupidity to bed and have the original slanderers retract this nonsense?

See, this is why sins of detraction, calumny, and slander are so vicious, because once they're unleashed, it's very difficult to undo the damage done even with retractions.  Once something is out there, it stays out there ... so good luck repairing the damage done to someone's reputation.

It is only slander when a person knows that the person criticized is not guilty of any wrongdoing, but promotes the wrongdoing anyway. You know this.
In fact, you are the one slandering those of us who have serious concerns about Vigano, because you know that we mean what we say, and still you persist with the slander, detraction, and calumny accusation. It isn't right that you do this. There are problems with Vigano, and we will keep pointing them out. 

I disagree with you that Strickland is a trad.

.

I think Strickland's crime was more his support of the natural law and his opposition to the jab, not so much matters of supernatural revelation. It shows you what a state the Novus Ordo sect is in that that's all it takes to get a bishop removed.