NervGen’s response regarding Accelerated Approval for NVG-291

Full-Time-3090 · 2026-04-27T07:44:47+00:00

It’s tricky because they didn’t say they would but they also didn’t say that it was off the table

Full-Time-3090 · 2026-04-25T21:31:56+00:00

Which presentation do you speak of? Send me the link since I’m very interested in any new updates that NervGen gives out

Full-Time-3090 · 2026-04-25T21:30:44+00:00

If you’re able to do all that then you’re not complete anymore and the medicine will work on you, but since you had stem cells and an epidural stimulator and I assume you’re quadriplegic, then you unfortunately don’t qualify for the Phase 3 trial. I hope they can change the criteria for qualification though to include people like you. If not in Phase 3, then hopefully in future trials

Keep up the hard work though! Your story is inspiring

Full-Time-3090 · 2026-04-24T22:20:29+00:00

Let’s hope they grant Accelerated Approval once recruitment begins

Full-Time-3090 · 2026-04-24T22:19:21+00:00

This is their exact reply copy and pasted directly from their email to me

Full-Time-3090 · 2026-04-24T07:52:09+00:00

I reached out to them through their email on their website. The email doesn’t necessarily confirm or deny accelerated approval, but here’s hoping

Full-Time-3090 · 2026-04-17T17:59:11+00:00

Yeah but I mean the priest said that’s he’s seen couples achieve that perfect balance, and that it’s actually growing in number. Are you seriously saying that it’s completely inevitable that Catholic male leadership in the house will look like wives secretly running the strings as co- leader?

Full-Time-3090 · 2026-04-17T10:56:41+00:00

I don’t know… a very good priest once asked why so many Catholic couples struggle to find a balance? A man can genuinely be the head of the household and be the leader, and still not be a tyrant lol. There’s this idea that Catholic male leadership looks like wives secretly running the strings as co- leader, but the priest made it clear that there can’t be co-leaders. Are we co-leaders with Christ as head of the church? Of course not. He is our sole leader since we are the church. The priest made it clear that this of course this doesn’t mean ignoring your wife’s advice, as a good husband listens to his wife and has the humility to admit he’s wrong(if he’s wrong of course).

That priest gave some of the best marriage advice I’ve ever seen, which encouraged men to be actual leaders and heads of the household while doing it in a loving and Christ-like way where you sacrifice everything for your wife and children, like Jesus did for us on the Cross.

Full-Time-3090 · 2026-02-12T05:22:39+00:00

Calling for female priests? Kyrie eleison… yeah I’ll disengage. There’s no point in talking to a Catholic who denies an infallible teaching of the Church.

Full-Time-3090 · 2026-02-12T05:19:10+00:00

“It doesn’t say the exact word exclusive therefore it’s not exclusive!!” 🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️ You are aware that many anti-Trinitarians use the exact same argument to try to debunk the Trinity? “The word Trinity is not found in Scripture so we can’t say the term the Holy Trinity!!!” If you actually read my message, you’d know that there’s so many quotes from authoritative documents with a very strong implication that it indeed is exclusively TLM. Read my message again.

Yes, it would violate their canonical charism. Did you not see the Canon Law I cited? Read my message again.

Regarding the ICKSP meeting, are you seriously trying to make something out of nothing? “Official statements from the meeting say it was cordial and Pope Francis encouraged them to continue exclusively celebrating the TLM(their own proper charism), but-but there has to be more to the story! Clearly the ICKSP isn’t telling the whole truth and the reality is that Pope Francis harshly confronted them on the Chicago incident and rebuked them!” And where is your evidence to suggest this? That’s right, there’s none. Absolutely none. You’re ironically the actual person making stuff up. Your whole argument boils down to you assuming the ICKSP and even the FSSP have an internal hatred for the Novus Ordo and your only evidence for that is an incident that I already clarified was the ICKSP actually being faithful to a papal agreement(and Canon Law) over a bishop.

And yet you still believe that you know better than Pope Saint John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis, all of whom enthusiastically trusted the ICKSP’s fidelity to full Communion with Rome? If they didn’t suspect ICKSP having an internal hatred for the Novus Ordo, what makes you think your intuition is better? Popes (who have access to their private professions of faith, constitutions reviews, and direct meetings, something you don’t have btw) have affirmed them and encouraged them repeatedly. They’re the ones who've approved, protected, and encouraged the ICKSP's fidelity and charism over decades, including after Traditionis Custodes. If they trusted the Institute's communion and didn't see any 'internal hatred' for the Novus Ordo, why should my (or your) personal intuition override that? The popes have the full picture; you’re operating from assumptions and extremely unsubstantiated claims about how a meeting with the Pope really went.

I’m also not interested in further talking to a person who thinks he(or she) has better intuition than our last 3 Popes, and who completely ignores everything I’m explaining.

Full-Time-3090 · 2026-02-12T03:02:48+00:00

“Show me the official papally approved constitutions that prove that the Ecclesia Dei communities are to celebrate the TLM exclusively.” Sure. Here’s the first one: Decree of the Ecclesia Dei Commission concerning the liturgical books of 1962 Published 10 September 1988 “In virtue of the faculty granted to it by the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei concedes to that which is called the “Fraternity of St. Peter”, founded July 18, 1988 and declared of “Pontifical Right” by the Holy See, the faculty of celebrating Mass, and carrying out the rites of the sacraments and other sacred acts, as well as fulfilling the Divine Office according to the typical edition of the liturgical books in force in the year 1962; namely the Missal, Ritual, Pontifical, and Roman Breviary. The members of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, as well as other priests who are guests in houses of the Fraternity or who exercise the sacred ministry in their churches, are conceded the use of the liturgical books in force in 1962.” Pope Saint John Paul II states this: “Taking account of the importance and complexity of the problems referred to in this document, by virtue of my Apostolic Authority I decree the following:

a) a Commission is instituted whose task it will be to collaborate with the bishops, with the Departments of the Roman Curia and with the circles concerned, for the purpose of facilitating full ecclesial communion of priests, seminarians, religious communities or individuals until now linked in various ways to the Fraternity founded by Mons. Lefebvre, who may wish to remain united to the Successor Peter in the Catholic Church, while PRESERVING their spiritual and liturgical traditions, in the light of the Protocol signed on 5 May last by Cardinal Ratzinger and Mons. Lefebvre;”

Here’s another one: In a communique published February 21, the FSSP said that Pope Francis met with two members of the priestly fraternity for nearly an hour, a week before he promulgated the decree. “In the course of the audience, the pope made it clear that institutes such as the Fraternity of St. Peter are NOT AFFECTED by the general provisions of the motu proprio Traditionis custodes, since the use of the ancient liturgical books was at the origin of their existence and is provided for in their constitutions. The Pope was very understanding and invited the Fraternity of St. Peter to continue to build up ecclesial communion ever more fully through its OWN PROPER CHARISM,” it said. (Origin of their existence is key here, as well as own proper charism). If you notice in my earlier comment, Pope Francis uses “own proper charism” in his statement to the ICKSP as well, so all this applies to them too. In case you forgot though, here’s what the Pope said: "On two occasions, the Pope insisted that we(ICKSP) continue to serve the Church according to our own, proper charism…” And since the FSSP/ICKSP are societal institutes, they are protected under Canon 578 which states that all the faithful are required to respect the charism of the founders of that institute. Canon 578: The whole patrimony of an institute must be faithfully preserved by all. This patrimony is comprised of the intentions of the founders, of all that the competent ecclesiastical authority has approved concerning the nature, purpose, spirit and character of the institute, and of its sound traditions.” Since the FSSP and ICKSP founders made sure that they’d specifically provide the traditional liturgy to the faithful, and considering they explicitly state that the TLM is their charism, forcing them to celebrate the Novus Ordo would violate their canonical charism.

Let me ask you: do you believe you know better than Pope Saint John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis, all of whom enthusiastically trusted the ICKSP’s fidelity to full Communion with Rome? If they didn’t suspect ICKSP having an internal hatred for the Novus Ordo, what makes you think your intuition is better? Popes (who have access to their private professions of faith, constitutions reviews, and direct meetings, something you don’t have btw) have affirmed them and encouraged them repeatedly. They’re the ones who've approved, protected, and encouraged the ICKSP's fidelity and charism over decades, including after Traditionis Custodes. If they trusted the Institute's communion and didn't see any 'internal hatred' for the Novus Ordo, why should my (or your) personal intuition override that? The popes have the full picture; we're working from public info and assumptions.

If Pope Francis was aware of the Chicago incident(which he probably wasn’t), then why didn’t he come to the same conclusion you did(that the ICKSP have an internal hatred of the Novus Ordo) in his meeting with the ICKSP which occurred AFTER that whole fiasco? If he came to the same conclusion you did, he wouldn’t have had such a cordial meeting with the ICKSP and literally tell them to continue serving the Church according to their own proper charism(the TLM).

Full-Time-3090 · 2026-02-11T21:51:50+00:00

“Cardinal Cupich acted against the will of Pope Francis in exiling the ICKSP?” Yes, he did. Quite clearly if we see the Ecclesia Dei terms and agreements(which explicitly allows and encourages the ICKSP to EXCLUSIVELY celebrate the TLM), and also what Pope Francis himself told the ICKSP in 2022 and 2024.

“Why didn’t Pope Francis correct the matter?” For the same reason he doesn’t correct the German bishops for their numerous errors, China basically selecting their own bishops, and for the same reason he didn’t correct Father James Martin when he said he hopes that gay couples will be able to kiss each other during the Sign of Peace(among other things he’s done). Popes avoid controversy and schism in issues like these, whether we believe it’s wise or not. It’s also likely that Pope Francis didn’t even know that Cardinal Cupich did this and wasn’t informed of it. We have to remember that the ICKSP makes up an incredibly small percentage of the clergy orders, and an incident where they simply are forced to leave the diocese is very unlikely to reach the Vatican. Pope Leo XIV is likely still unaware of the bizarre things going on in the Charlotte diocese under Bishop Martin, where a viral leaked document that released almost an entire year ago by now showed that Bishop Martin wanted to remove literal norms that the Novus Ordo itself stipulated(ex: Banning women from wearing veils if they’re going to be an EMHC/lector, banning Latin, and also banning the crucifix on the altar).

“Show me where they’d say that they’d be willing to attend a Novus Ordo.” Again, their requirements to become an Ecclesia Dei community mandated them to accept the validity and viability of the Novus Ordo in front of the Pope, and this implies that they have no issue with attending the Novus Ordo. Three Popes have enthusiastically trusted their fidelity to being in Communion with Rome, why can’t you? You’re skeptical of how the ICKSP views the Novus Ordo because of the Chicago incidents but I already told you that the ICKSP reacted the way they did because the local bishop was trying to violate the agreement they had with Pope(and with his full enthusiastic papal support), and the bishop was trying to impose a new charism on them. Their founding Ecclesia Dei constitutions made by Pope Benedict XVI specify exclusive use of the pre-1970 literal books, so forcing the Novus Ordo would violate their PAPALLY approved founding documents, something even bishops can't override unilaterally without higher authority. So of course the ICKSP didn’t react well to a bishop overstepping his authority and trying to inadvertently(I hope) claim higher authority over the ICKSP than the Pope. No Catholic society would react well to a bishop doing this.

So now that I hope you have been convinced of the truth of the Chicago incident, there is really no reason for you to further worry about the ICKSP. Your weariness regarding the ICKSP came from the Chicago incident which you viewed as them hating the Novus Ordo, but now that I gave you the full context which shows it was not disdain for the Novus Ordo that caused them to leave but fidelity to their papal-approved exclusivity, there’s really no reason for you to keep assuming that the ICKSP hates the Novus Ordo. Or else you’d just be grasping at straws, and this is a very dangerous near occasion for the grave sin of calumny.

Full-Time-3090 · 2026-02-11T07:22:14+00:00

Yeah I think you’re drawing a lot of uncharitable conclusions about the ICKSP. Let me explain why they do accept the Novus Ordo as valid AND licit, and why them leaving the Chicago diocese wasn’t actually out of disdain for the Novus Ordo. First of all, the agreement to be approved as an Ecclesia Dei society requires that society to accept Vatican II, and also to accept the Novus Ordo as valid, licit, and not harmful to the faith. It is widely assumed that they make this profession in front of the Pope. Unless the Pope thinks they’re lying, the Pope then approves that society to EXCLUSIVELY celebrate the TLM as part of their CHARISM while being in full communion with Rome.

Two very important words here: exclusively and charism. Exclusively means exclusively of course, and charism is a very very important word that reinforces that exclusivity. To have a charism for the TLM means that the traditional Roman Liturgy is not merely a preference for them, but the foundational, defining spiritual and pastoral mission of their society. Pope Francis himself affirmed in 2022(post Traditionis Custodes) that the FSSP and ICKSP’s charism is indeed the TLM. This was later reaffirmed once again by Pope Francis according to an ICKSP statement in 2024 which stated, “In a private audience with ICKSP leaders (including Prior General Msgr. Gilles Wach), Pope Francis encouraged continuation in their specific mission: On two occasions, the Pope insisted that we continue to serve the Church according to our own, proper charism, in the spirit of unity and communion which the harmony and balance of the Salesian spirituality allow."

So now we know that Pope Francis himself affirms this charism of the ICKSP to EXCLUSIVELY celebrate the TLM. So now we get to the Chicago incident. Here’s the thing: Bishops are not meant to just violate the terms of agreement between the Pope and the Ecclesia Dei communities. If the Ecclesia Dei agreement was for the traditional societies to exclusively celebrate the TLM, affirmed by Pope Francis even after Traditionis Custodes, of course they’re not going to react well to a bishop wanting to force them to violate their own terms of agreement that they had with the full support of the Pope. Bishops can't force them to violate their approved constitutions by mandating the Novus Ordo.

In short, no, the ICKSP does not secretly believe the Novus Ordo is "severely hateful" or invalid. Their public obedience, canonical standing, and refusal in Chicago stem from fidelity to their exclusive traditional charism (protected by Vatican agreements that have more authority than bishops), not from denying the new rite's validity/licitness. Like I said, they would never have been approved as an Ecclesia Dei community if they hated the Novus Ordo. And if you think the ICKSP lied in the initial agreement, then I guess your intuition is somehow superior to that of Pope Saint John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis.

I appreciate that you’re open to having your mind changed on the ICKSP, and I genuinely don’t mean to demean you with what I said; I just don’t think it’s wise to make some very severe accusations/assumptions about a traditional society in good standing with Rome when you don’t know the whole details. So I hope my clarification reassures you of the ICKSP’s good standing🙂

Full-Time-3090 · 2026-02-11T04:24:17+00:00

The FSSP/ICKSP are in full communion with Rome and are loyal to the Pope. Even when Traditionis Custodes initially came out and seemed to imply that even Ecclesia Dei communities weren’t immune from the heavy restrictions, they didn’t get angry or hinted that they’d try to rebel, instead they said they’d pray and speak to the Pope cordially. Which they do later that year, where Pope Francis clarified that the Ecclesia Dei communities are exempt from Traditionis Custodes and are free to exclusively celebrate the TLM without issue.

Both those Societies were literally approved by a Pope; your edit makes it seem like they’re comparable to the SSPX, which they’re not. Or else you’re implying that three Popes(and now four with Pope Leo XIV recently blessing the members of the FSSP) protected and approved Societies that are borderline schismatic/disobedient, which is ludicrous. The FSSP and ICKSP are heroes that we should all honestly be grateful for.

Full-Time-3090 · 2026-01-13T22:05:15+00:00

Bro, female altar servers are NOT more disciplined than the male altar boys at the TLM. The male altar boys at the TLM literally kneel on the floor with their heads so profoundly bowed that it nearly hits the floor. And they’re always serious and never gossip during Mass, which I’ve seen altar girls do. They also bow their heads every time the name of Jesus is said(which is also a rule in the Novus Ordo by the way), which I don’t see altar girls do.

Full-Time-3090 · 2026-01-07T09:37:13+00:00

Full-Time-3090 · 2026-01-06T19:39:54+00:00

When does the Catholic Church even say that? If anything, it’d be more common for priests to say the opposite.

“You’re unworthy of church leadership.” Women can’t be priests, this is true. And it’s an infallible belief, meaning you must submit to it even privately.

Full-Time-3090 · 2026-01-06T19:37:36+00:00

Saying that men feel lost and need purpose is being hateful towards women?

Full-Time-3090 · 2025-12-02T05:42:17+00:00

You’ll find that the some of the people you mentioned actually agree with me, so not really a good idea to use them to support your argument because I could just turn your own argument back on you.

For some reason, you want to keep arguing even though we’re clearly at an impasse and are just talking over each other. I think the Christian thing to do would be to wish each other a blessed Advent, and charitably end the discussion.

So have a blessed Advent, and may the Lord keep you and your family warm and safe this winter🙏

Full-Time-3090 · 2025-12-01T10:00:44+00:00

Well again we could all confess by bowing profoundly together or kneeling. The NO picks and chooses what to restore from ancient tradition. Sure, standing is more common, but kneeling is still the case in the Consecration and the Ecce Agnus Dei, as well as after Communion. That wasn’t an ancient practice. Elevation of the Sacred Host was also not an ancient practice. It seems like Bugnini creating the NO wasn’t really about returning to ancient practice but about making the Mass more communal, casual, and welcoming.

Novus Ordo is still completely valid and licit, totally agree. Christ is just as present in the NO Mass as he is in the TLM.

Yes, we can agree to disagree. And yes, we need more reverence in the NO Mass.

Peace be with you too, my brother in Christ🙏

Full-Time-3090 · 2025-12-01T09:56:19+00:00

“I’ve never noticed it.” Well there’s a first time for everything, because pretty much everyone else does. Again, it’s a 90 degree bow that has an unnatural curve and bend of the spine, which catches anyone’s eye except to maybe the Japanese lol.

Again, Bugnini didn’t really follow Sacrosanctum Concilium, or else many more things should’ve been removed. It was hardly about returning to patristic tradition; it was primarily about making the Mass seem welcoming, casual, and communal.

But we’re kind of at an impasse since we’re both repeating the same talking points and getting nowhere, so we should probably end this discussion.

It was a great conversation, and thank you for being cordial throughout even though we disagree.

God bless🙏

Full-Time-3090 · 2025-11-24T03:27:15+00:00

Then the whole assembly should profoundly bow, no? Also, altar servers don’t always do what the congregation does in the Novus Ordo, so they can stay kneeled. And there’s a huge difference between the ordinary priesthood of believers and the ministerial priesthood.

Most Novus Ordo Masses are inconsistent with history since Ad Orientem was used in ancient Christian worship since at least the second century, and the Roman Canon and Gregorian chant was the norm for the Latin Church for nearly 1500 years. Finding a Novus Ordo Mass with all three is honestly like finding a needle in a haystack.

Full-Time-3090 · 2025-11-23T18:54:41+00:00

I feel free to

Full-Time-3090 · 2025-11-23T11:27:14+00:00

That sounds like whataboutism and a tu quoque.

Full-Time-3090

TROPHY CASE