I was very disturbed by the tone of Arrogant's first comment. He described all the parishioners he spoke with, and later, the pastor, as "ignorant, self-righteous, and arrogant" (interesting adjective considering his choice of ID). I don't believe that all those parishioners and the priest told him he would go to hell if he attended a NO Mass. As I said in my last reply to Arrogant, it is altogether possible that a misguided, misinformed parishioner or two might say something like this - I'm sure you will agree that fanatical members of all religions are guilty of an excess of zeal.
This incident happened 15 years ago according to Arrogant. He has admitted now that perhaps the priest wasn't an SSPX priest, and could have been a member of a Sedevacantist order. The SSPX is not Sedevacantist,we pray for the Pope frequently and a page on the SSPX website is devoted to him. The SSPX's position has always been that it is not in their province to decide whether or not the Pope is in error, although they (and I) do definitely believe he is. They have consistently maintained that it is up to a succeeding Pope to decide this question.
Arrogant also was exceeding rude and used name-calling instead of engaging in a reasoned discussion. Usually I wouldn't have continued to reply, but I found his story so outrageous that I felt compelled to challenge it. As usually happens when I make the mistake of trying to establish some sort of dialogue in this type of atmosphere, with hindsight I always regret having done it.
"Thank you for your information, I still have not had the opportunity to idependently check the SSPX involvement in the Chapel in question."
That the SSPX was involved with this chapel is already independently established. It is also independently established that this chapel, at the time of Bustard's visit, was heterodox, and controlled by a group that views the Holy Catholic Church as a false church. Thus, whether or not you find yourself disturbed with Bustard's first comment, it is nonetheless supported by independent evidence. Do you understand that?
Considering the evidence which exists independent from AB's witness, it is wrong to conclude that he was dealing with one or two misinformed, misguided parishioners. He was at a chapel which views the Mass of Pope Paul VI as invalid, Protestant, evil, and the "structure which supports the Novus Ordo" (as they put it) a false church, not the real church. That was the official belief of the folks who ran this church 15 years ago.
Thus, you are in error to doubt AB's story at this time. Do you understand your error?
Whether or not the particular priest who said the alleged Mass which AB attended was SSPX, it is clear from the history of this church, as reported by its own members that the church at the time of AB's encounter was involved with SSPX priests, to the great discredit of those priests.
I know that the SSPX is not sedevacantist. However, the leaders of the SSPX are excommunicated, and therefore in practical schism with the Holy Catholic Church. Because of the great patience of our Holy Father, the Holy Catholic Church has not taken actions which would justly formalize that schism. I hope and pray that Pope John Paul's patience will be rewarded, and the straying sheep of SSPX will be brought back fully into the fold of the Catholic Church.
Those who knowingly attend SSPX Masses are objectively gravely sinning (though I won't impute actual mortal sin to anyone, not even those who follow schismatics), and it is my understanding that for the most part, SSPX priests do not offer valid absolution in Confession. Thus, it makes me sad for you that you follow these people. You've placed yourself in a difficult place, and you didn't have to.
As to whether or not AB has been rude, that is a separate question from whether he has told the truth. He has, quite obviously, told the truth. You've closed your eyes to that. How sad.
I think that AB could have said what he had to say to you with a little more kindness. I wish that everyone would speak a little more gently around here, and try to deal more charitably with each other.
I note, in your case, even as you complain about AB's rudeness, you continue to treat him rudely by calling him by a name to which he objects. Is this a case of two wrongs make a right? Or are you even more guilty of lack of charity than he?
sitetest