"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
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.
If Arrogant objects to being addressed by his own ID, he should change it, but as I said, it fits him so well. By the way, go back and check all the sweet and kind names by which he addressed me. Good that he has you to defend his rudeness, though.
I will check the information you so graciously provided about the history of that Chapel. I don't think it unreasonable that I want to seek corroboration, and that you find that somehow objectionable is very curious.
Thank you for entering into this discussion and your sanctimonious lecture on my behavior and my beliefs has been given the serious consideration that it deserves. You can guess to what degree I value a stranger's evaluation.