[Campion]

I'm trying to figure out what your point is in posting a blogpost by a pretend "Pope," reprinting a 35-year-old article rejecting a quasi-schismatic Catholic group, specifically because of the antics of two priests, both of whom left the aforementioned quasi-schismatic group and became completely schismatic, just like "Pope Michael" is.

Contrary to what Gamecock said, most (all?) of the people involved with this aren't Catholics at all.

[IrishBrigade]

I’m trying to figure out what your point is in posting a blogpost by a pretend “Pope,” reprinting a 35-year-old article rejecting a quasi-schismatic Catholic group, specifically because of the antics of two priests, both of whom left the aforementioned quasi-schismatic group and became completely schismatic, just like “Pope Michael” is.

...you can’t discern why flippant Protestants would post derogatory commentary about Catholics...?

[Alex Murphy]

I'm trying to figure out what your point is in posting a blogpost by a pretend "Pope," reprinting a 35-year-old article rejecting a quasi-schismatic Catholic group, specifically because of the antics of two priests, both of whom left the aforementioned quasi-schismatic group and became completely schismatic, just like "Pope Michael" is.

It's called "presenting a different viewpoint". The Religion Forum has played maternity ward for the birth of at least two schismatic Catholic groups in the last 18 months, and I thought a little introspection and historical perspective might be good for all involved.

There's that, and anything "Pope Michael" is always good for a laugh.