Ok, interesting discussion. Ladislaus, thanks for the response. Let's get down to it, then.
So let's see if we can formulate the distinction between Indult Trad and NO Cath in a simple formula. Regarding the Sacraments, I think it would be (1) NO Cath believes both forms are equal, NO and TLM; (2) Indult Trad believes the TLM is objectively superior. The TLM is the complete and full Mass and obtains 100% of the Graces of the Mass. The NO may be valid, but it obtains and confers lesser graces. Thus, for e.g. if Holy Mass was celebrated with only the Words of Consecration, Mass would be valid, but graces would be less (as +ABL himself related, giving the e.g. of Cardinal Mindszenty, who celebrated Mass like that when in prison under Communist captors). What would follow from this Theology? That Tridentine Masses should be increased everywhere possible, in order that more Grace may be obtained for the world by the integral Mass, and that more sanctification may be obtained for all Catholics who participate, by more TLM's.
There are some doctrinal distinctions too but we will get to that in the course of the discussion. To explain my own view, I identify, as many people know, as an Indult Traditionalist and support all the Traditional groups including FSSP, SSPX, ICK and even D-TLM Priests, as well as Priests who have at least restored Altar Rails, the High Altars, Versus Deum, stopped abuses like Communion in the hand, without kneeling etc. And Priests who teach solid doctrine and do everything to promote the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus and Queenship of Our Mother Mary. I support both Abp. Schneider and Abp. Vigano and believe that is a discussion that must be had, and settled by the authorities in due time. I firmly believe (1) in the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as +ABL did. (2) in the necessity of explicit faith in Christ for salvation. (3) in Mary Immaculate as Mediatrix of all Graces. Many people do not know this, but one of the (bad) choices made at Vatican II was to use merely "Mediatrix" instead of "Mediatrix of All Graces" at Vatican II, even though past Popes used the latter. Both Abp Vigano and Abp Schneider have called Her Mediatrix of All Graces. I believe this is a key doctrine toward restoring Mary's Queenship. I also believe in the Oath against Modernism including the immutability on Tradition.
Nevertheless, even those issues like Mary Mediatrix etc must be raised through the proper channels with the Magisterial Authorities. Likewise, on the Consecration of Russia, like most traditionalists (and perhaps unlike many NO Catholics), I believe the Consecration has not yet been completed; and that, when it does, Russia will return to the Roman Catholic Faith. On the Ecuмenism issue, as you know, I believe separated Christians can be in good faith; and, in Ecuмenism of Return.
In fact, Bishop Sanborn wrote an entire article condemning what he called the "opinionist" sedevacantists.
Ok. So, as I understand it, you're an "opinionist" sedevacantist. A sede-doubtist in other words, who believes neither position is dogmatically certain with the certainty of faith; as you explained, you believe defection is impossible and take the position that R&R contradicts Church indefectibility. You say Pope Paul VI could have been blackmailed, in theory, and this would save indefectibility. You mentioned that distinction between NO Catholics and Indult traditionalists etc that I discussed above. Did I leave anything out?
You and I agree to an extent, I think, on the non-infallible Magisterium. I'm surprised you would then in such a case disagree with Bp. Vigano and even Bp. Schneider. Bp. Schneider arguably is now saying what the Remnant, CFN, One Peter Five, Life Site News etc have argued for some time. I believe we agree Vatican II is non-infallible and defined no new dogma. But perhaps, as you quoted, we may disagree on how radically things have gone "off the rails" as you put it. I believe you once said that if it was only a question of Vatican II you would raise questions through the normal channels and go on with Catholic life as normally as possible. Well, I believe in something close to that. Regarding the Mass, I explained my thoughts earlier; not just a subjective preference but an objective superiority of the TLM. Your thoughts on that?
What else? Oh yeah, DR. On Apostolicity, Msgr. Noort plainly says that both Power of Orders, by Episcopal Consecration, and Power of Jurisdiction, by Church Authorization, is required; and the entire Church cannot cease to be Apostolic is the position I hold; one on which issue John Lane agrees with me, and said so to Fr. Cekada, that his (the latter's) position was wrong; but we can discuss that more in the other thread dedicated to the subject if you wish.
God Bless, All.
Poll
