2. The self-serving SSPX schism, however, at least according to the schism, can decide, without so much as personal acquaintance of a given priest in communion with the Holy See or witnessing a given NO Mass what that priest's internal disposition was. Right, chief! Sure!
3. The experience of arguing with any of the schismatic satraps is like arguing with John Francois Kerry. Marcel's ittle legion will stay on message because they have such a narrow agenda to defend. There will never be a meeting of minds or engagement on issues (not that y'all deserve to be engaged on what pass for issues in the schism).
4. I don't miss your point. I find your point without substance, credibility or excuse. I disagree with your point. I regard your point as just so much schismatic propaganda. After all, if you guys can hurl hatred at the pope 24/7/365 in the guise of disagreeing with him, I guess Catholics can certainly disagree with you. Or did Marcel forbid us to disagree with those ensnared in the schism?
5. The last paragraph of your post stands on its own as one of the most farfetched ever posted even here bu the "trads" without a pope.
6. As often as you claim the schism to be Catholicism while it rejects the Novus Ordo Mass (as though the schism had the authority to do anything) as invalid, the point must be made to those new to the argument or forgetful that SSPX does, in fact, in its own publications reject the Novus Ordo Mass as valid and reject the Indult Tridentine Masses as fit for Catholics on the ground that it may lead us into diasagreeing with the all self-worshipping schism on the NO Masses (or because Tridentine Masses said by priests in communion with actual diocesan bishops and with the Holy Father may take some pittance or more from the hungry coffers of SSPX and the non-stop propaganda campaign of SSPX against the Roman Catholic Church???).
7. Of course, the schism spokesfolks here would NEVER, EVER, even think of repeating themselves, now would they???? They don't have to. Their needle is stuck.
No civil or criminal court would deliberately declare someone guilty without permitting the accused a hearing. Nor would they deliberately ignore canons cited by the accused as justification for the violation. They would at least permit the inclusion of objective evidence which might exonerate the accused.
But in the Pope we have someone who is not only the judge and the jury and the whole damn court, but in this particular case he's also the plaintiff as well. He's all three at once--the one who claims he has been wronged, the one who weighs the evidence, and the one who makes the judgment. The SSPX, on the other hand, has only the truth on its side. It is denied even the right to plead its case.
So how has the Pope behaved regaring the Society, given all his godlike powers? Did he lean over backwards to be fair, especially since he was himself personally involved in the conflict? Not on your life. He judged the SSPX guilty without any acknowledgment whatsoever of the canons it had cited in its own defense. In other words, he dismissed their defense out of hand. Not that it mattered--since they were innocent anyhow in the eyes of Heaven. But it certainly looked bad to anyone with a modicum of fair-mindedness--which would not include yourself, of course.