Still, "the idea of reordination is controversial!" Well, as they say, ROFLMAO!
Wait, are you sure that Droleskey agrees? How about John Vennari? Do you really think that you guys ought to be talking about these arcane secrets of Marcellianism in public where people can smell the nut fudge?
Also, here are two guys in a foxhole at the end. One says to the other: You know, I always knew that the rest of the human race was really nuts and totally unreliable, that they were backstabbers and not to be trusted. Now there are just thee and me left and to tell you the truth, I am not really sure about thee!
See #184. Meant to ping you.
When they want to be. Same with the bishop. There was apparently almost an uprising when it was rumored a midwest bishop would be appointed who was even Adoreman conservative. The priests and bishops of 'reform' don't obey the papacy so much as a Pope who promotes 'reform', who sees it their way.
If His Holiness is wrong or right, again, is almost irrelevant when it comes to this 'communion'. It has enabled 'reform'. And that is on him. But their standard is one which is decidedly unCatholic. This 'reform' is from the top or the middle, the bishops. It began with the Rhine group as described by Amerio. If you'd care to discuss specifics of just - what Catholics believe - you might recognise your true opinion.
The only mystery is why you haven't been banned for the poison which spews from your keyboard.