Chant, I'm not going to argue with you one bit here.  But I do want to say that my soul has a problem with anyone going to hell.  I liked that part about the NO---practically no one goes to hell.  But that's not what Jesus said, and I sadly accept that as a fact.  Jesus made the rules, or at least, passed them on to us.  And He gave us the sacraments.  Unlike some of the Baptists, I think He meant it when He said we have to be baptized to get into heaven.  If, via chicanery, those sacraments were taken from us, then we don't have them, and no amount of wishful thinking makes an invalid sacrament valid.  

When I was NO I heard mention of you/us schismatics and wondered why in the world you did that.  Some kind of fanatics, I thought.  Now I know that it was I who was woefully ignorant.  I'm not a sede because I want to be, but because I honestly believe that the Church was hi jacked.  If it was just one bad pope, or even two, but we've had five now.  It's like our gov't.  No matter who we put in office the country goes from bad to worse along the very same lines.  To me that says that the real power remains the same.

I don't know why all those people don't see what's going on and smell the rot.  Some of us did, why not all of us?  I stayed as long as I did because I didn't know there were options.  I know they talk about some of the stuff that is going on.  But I also remember when I first heard about the Koran kissing and asked about it, I was very pointedly not answered.  Don't you think those people have the same ability to seek and to find that we had?  Don't you think they bear some responsibility for not doing so?  One thing we know for certain:  God is just.

I'd like to know how they reconcile that with Our Lord's promise to St. Peter that "The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."

Because:

If the Blessed Sacrament were only in a few Sede chapels (and maybe SSPX, Indult as well) then how many innocent Catholics in the Novus Ordo  are adoring a "novus ordo cookie" every day of the year, and deprived of the inestimable grace of God's own Gift of Himself?

Our Lord never put a number on this. He didn't say that the threshold was 10,000 Masses. He didn't say it was 5000.

That Arians took away the Faith did not mean that those who opposed them were necessarily wrong. Those who opposed them were right - by the standard of Catholicism.

That standard was rejected and replaced with another in what is now Roman Protestantism. That same standard was rejected and replaced in what became the Church of England, long before.

The gates of hell have not prevailed against The Church, Militant. But The Church is only a remnant. And we're probably not going to get Notre Dame back from the usurpers. We're probably not getting the Vatican back. And they'll probably sell off or destroy the exteriors of those cathedrals that they haven't vandalized in their interiors, year by year, until people forget there once were all these cathedrals. And what treasures they do guard, they themselves probably can no longer appreciate - because it's all about God, and not about self.

But that's not Catholicism. That's not The Church that Our Lord founded with St. Peter as the first Pope in Rome. I, personally, if you want a personal opinion, would like to see a council convened, a Pope elected, and for him to take up his See in Rome. Obviously it won't be in Vatican City, and it won't be at the site of St. Peter's martrydom in one of the 'circuses' of that day. But Catholics will say - that belongs to us. Those are our relics, our churches, our history.

And people will have to decide. It might even have political consequences in Italian politics. I don't say the Italian authorities will storm the Vatican and physically remove these people as trespassers. It could even cut the other way, with the Vatican supporting legislation against Catholics within Italy. But, again, just personally, I would like to see the next step taken. Catholics still wish to spread the Good News. They wish others to avail themselves of the Holy Sacraments, by valid priests, with valid orders, and the heart to do things as always proscribed and prescribed by The Church from the Apostolic Age, forward. They wish for sound Catholic charities, delivering Catholicism for the soul, and not just food for the belly. They wish for others to be taught by sound Catholic teaching, in Catholic schools, to receive quality medical care in Catholic hospitals, and to learn about The Church, and about trade skills and sciences, in authentic Catholic universities, which is why all these were first founded.

By the way, I also am against the words and deeds of "Roman Protestantism" as you call it. I attend SSPX chapels, remember, not my local parish.

And 'resist you to your face', sort of thing. I understand that. And I've noted that in various messages/posts.

But this is the predicament of the SSPX, trying to have it both ways. This is why I say, not only does a split seem imminent, but it would be all to the good.

Those who prefer to continue making their 'peace' with those who oppose Catholicism can continue to do so. Win the Pope over, while resisting him to his face, etc. But those then forced to reassess their support for that SSPX can move on. Clearly, not everyone in the SSPX supports Fellay, or his opinions. There probably are some who resent the declarations of the SSPX in favor of the revised Canon Law, and whatever else. I'm sure it's very difficult for them.

Again, is one's support for the SSPX, ultimately, a support for the cathedrals and walkways, the arts and tapestries, the books, the locations, etc, that have now all gone over to the Roman Protestant? I'm not saying THAT's not difficult. St. Peter BEGAN The Church in Rome. And how confusing would it be to have the Vatican proclaim itself Roman Catholic, while warning against Catholicism, and warring against Catholicism, and to have at some future date another elected as Pope by a new general council of faithful bishops? That's the oddity, the unique situation that we face in these times which were prophecied.

For those Catholics of the past who mused - would I be able? Would I be ready? How would I support others in such times? Well, we're finding out. Because we're living through them.

But my soul is REPULSED by the thought that even Catholics of good will are "out of luck" because all the Novus Ordo priests aren't priests, the cardinals aren't cardinals, the NOM is just a play, and the Church is over with until St. Michael comes down, and...

It IS repulsive, but such is the gravity of this battle.  The question is answered through objective principles, not what we poor men can stomach.  The principles of sacramental theology make it clear that the NOM is nada, nothing.

Only one problem -- it's been going on for 37 years now! So some people are not given the means for salvation? How many people have only known the post-Vatican II Church? Too bad for them, I guess?

Emotional garbage, Matthew.  Please deal with an actual argument, say on the invalidity of the NOM, then we can have a discussion.

So I think it's a bit radical to throw out the whole Church just because there's a serious Crisis in it.

No one is throwing out the Church, and you know that is not what sedes argue (at least when emotion has not grabbed you by the throat).  We say that the unquestionably counterfeit body is not the Church at all.

Save your quotes about Alexander, et alii, settle down, drop the overly emotional mumbo-jumbo, and we might have a fruitful discussion.  God speed, Matthew.

...drop the overly emotional mumbo-jumbo, and we might have a fruitful discussion...

Where have I said "emotion" is not a good thing, my lady?  If it was not clear, what I am saying is a problem is excessive emotionalism and the impact it has upon an argument that needs to be rooted in objective reality and principles.

Emotion simply has no place in determining, for example, whether or not the NOM is invalid, whether or not such a such a group of people is adoring what is, in fact, mere bread, etc.

Emotion is meant to follow the lead of the intellect, not lead it to this or that conclusion.

Matthew's argumentation in recent posts was mostly based upon the same old emotion-led considerations - not objective principles.  It is the, "That just cannot be true" line - which carries no weight whatever.

Yes, it carries weight, insofar as it does need to be dealt with.  However, I believe you also understand it plays no part in actually reaching any kind of conclusion.  It must be mentally swept aside that a fruitful discussion may take place.

...this is stuff we all have to go through and we meet people where they are at.  A time for all things, and all that.  I think Chant has been very controlled considering...

Matthew has been around for years at this point, though.  To engage in the excessive emotionalism that is more appropriate for a newbie after all this time is worthy of a mild rebuke, as it totally ignores the objective principles involved.  Such principles, not emotion, must guide any discussion of these weighty matters.