CathInfo.com

Pnw1994, thanks for your advice. If I may make a suggestion in turn, please read all of His Grace Archbishop Lefebvre's letters and correspondence here, if possible: http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/index.htm I have, and that's why I know Cekada is mistaken, in claiming absurdly that Archbishop Lefebvre was this great champion of sede-ism. Now, Cekada, who rebelled against Saintly Archbishop Lefebvre in 1983, and admitted he would have done so again in 1988 for dialoguing with Rome if he had not already done so, has already admitted he used to play this game of "setting one of the Archbishop's statements against the other" back when the Archbishop was still alive. Like Sanborn (see the earlier link), Cekada believes +ABL supposedly contradicted himself, not understanding that solid principles have certain divergent application in widely different circuмstances. I would suggest in turn that, while you probably have read it or similar works before, please reread at least one full page of the work in complete context. 

For e.g. this one, I quote only three excerpts, but please read all of it, then kindly let me know where you disagree, "Those who feel themselves obliged in conscience to assist at the New Mass on Sunday can fulfil their Sunday obligation. But one cannot accuse a person of a grave fault because he prefers not to assist at Mass on Sunday rather than assist at the New Mass." (On 9 May 1980)

Does not the exclusion of the cardinals of over eighty years of ages, and the secret meetings which preceded and prepared the last two Conclaves, render them invalid? Invalid: no, that is saying too much. Doubtful at the time: perhaps. But in any case, the subsequent unanimous acceptance of the election by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy suffices to validate it. That is the teaching of the theologians ... The visibility of the Church is too necessary to Her existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope puts the Church in an inextricable situation. Who will tell us who the future Pope is to be? How, as there are no Cardinals, is he to be chosen? This spirit is a schismatical one ... Consequently, the Society of St. Pius X, its priests, brothers, sisters, and oblates, cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope or affirm that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid" http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/Vol_two/Chapter_40.htm

Btw, the so-called "Resistance to the Resistance" is also attacking His Excellency Bishop Williamson on the exact same thing. Please see https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sean-johnson's-book-101-sspx-changes-cccc-thread-new-release!/75/ 

Bishop Williamson has been quoted as saying, in Eleison Comments #437, "“Facts are stubborn - as long as they are facts. If readers doubt that the eucharistic miracle of 1996 in Buenos Aires is a fact, let them undertake their own research... But if their research of that case leaves them unconvinced, then let them look up the parallel case of Sokólka in Poland, where a whole centre of pilgrimage has arisen around a eucharistic miracle of 2008 ... “So does it not make sense that in punishment of their modern worldliness these sheep would broadly lose the true rite of Mass, while in reward of their desire for Mass they would not lose every valid Mass?” and in 438, "“...while since the 1960’s a mass of Catholic sheep have become too worldly to deserve to keep the true rite of Mass, [yet] they have loved the Mass enough not to lose it altogether.The Novus Ordo Mass may have been allowed by God to make it easier for Catholics to leave the Faith if they wanted to, but not impossible to keep it if they wanted to.” So, His Excellency Bishop Williamson in fact agrees with what the best Society Theologians today, both Bishops and Priests, after a very detailed study of Archbishop Lefebvre's writings, and all the other theological evidence, have concluded. The study on Episcopal Consecration was published by Fr. Pierre Marie, an Avrille Dominican. There may be in occasional cases be doubts of intention etc, or where even the new form may have not been used, or even with matter (for Confirmations e.g.), but in itself the new rites are valid, though they have much less grace, and in a way strangle it. 

Meanwhile, I see Liarslaus is up to his ole LCS (Lies, Calumnies, Slanders) routine. If Liarslaus bothers to read Apologia, he will see that Archbishop Lefebvre again and again and again said he recognized the validity of His Holiness Pope John Paul II's election, unlike Liarslaus who claimed his personal doubts about the Pope's election prevent the Pope from exercising his authority, something no theologian of any time anywhere has ever held. It's like a man claiming the sun loses its power to shine because "he doubts" its power.

On very rare occasions, +ABL wondered; everyone would have done so, at the time. But if +ABL expressed any doubt, it would be analogous to what theologians call a "negative doubt", not a positive one - and certainly +ABL didn't say his doubts depose the Pope. Only Liarslaus has argued sede-doubtist absurdities like that, which he got from the SSPV, and their "doubtful" Thuc line ordinations.

Liarslaus also doesn't have any of his facts straight about the 1975-1978 exorcisms (Pope John Paul II had not even been elected at the time, and Pope Paul VI was still the Pope), which shows how ridiculously he didn't even bother to do due diligence on a claim he heard. The 75-78 exorcisms were published in a book along with other exorcisms having an Imprimatur. More on that perhaps elsewhere. 

MiserereMeiDeus, the case of each Pope is different. In 1965, Fr. Connell said in the AER there certainly was universal acceptance of Pope Paul VI at the time. That's been quoted here in the past, I can dig it up if you want. Therefore, he was certainly Pope. Now, if you want to apply it to the current Pope, the first question we have to ask is, "Where are the Bishops who constitute the Ordinary and Universal Teaching Authority of the Church today". Both Fr. Hunter and Van Noort (contrary to Liarslaus claim) say it is the acceptance of the Bishops of the Church that is the most clear sign of universal acceptance, and it derives from the infallibility of the OUM; and a sufficient indicator of it is that all the Bishops with moral unanimity pray for the Pope by name in the Canon of the Mass. Do you know any Bishop with Ordinary Jurisdiction today, like even 50 out of 5000+ Bishops, who do not recognize Pope Francis as the Pope today?

Pax Vobis and Forlorn, I will explain the math in more detail in a subsequent post. Suffice to say for now you're not sufficiently accounting for more than 10000 Priests expected to retire (out of 15000 currently, as the SSPX article also shows) in the next 5 years. I would do the iteration a little differently than that person did, assuming a retirement rate of 20%. I would assume 2000 retirements for the next 5 years each (so 10,000 total), then 1000 for the next 5, and so on. Total Priests are Currently Existing Priests+Newly Ordained Priests-Any Retiring Priests. So, just because newly ordained priests are 20% traditional, it does not follow that Traditional Priests cannot become 50% of all Priests 20 full years from now. More on that later. God bless, all.

Oh please. There are currently 300 Traditional Priests in France. So, then, in your scenario, it would become 320 to 80 at the end of year I. That's 80% to 20% and you've refuted your own argument that Traditional Priests can never reach even 50%. Didn't I tell you that you were not accounting correctly for already existing Priests? But the other flaw in your argument is you are assuming it's going to remain at 20% forever, which is obviously dubious. The action plan should be for it to progressively increase each other, like 30:70% at least in 2 or 3 years, 40:60% in another 2 or so, and so on; then in 20 years, Traditional Priests will certainly overtake Modern Priests. And it is at that point that the wider Church and millions more Conservative Catholics will clearly perceive without any doubt that the future of the Church lies in Her perennial and integral Tradition. If Tradition triumphs in +ABL's country, even Rome could not refuse to take notice of it, and admit it.

You are being unnecessarily argumentative with me, and hoping to establish I'm poor at math or something. I'm trying only for us to agree to chart out a reasonable path for the victory and triumph of Tradition to come. I have no need to establish my accounting credentials with anybody, but for the record, I graduated from one of the best B-schools in my country with a Finance MBA. I worked at the Bank of New York Mellon as a Quantitative Analyst. I have a fair deal of experience in number-crunching, accounting and financial planning. I wrote and cleared two levels in advanced certifications like CFA and FRM. But like St. Paul said, Furthermore I count all things to be but loss for the excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ my Lord; for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but as dung, that I may gain Christ: (Phil 3:8 ) I count all that as less than dust, and turned my back on it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. Now, my only desire is to grow in the knowledge and love and grace of God every day of my life, and consecrate it for His Glory in His Church. And I say that only to give my testimony Tradition is that pearl of great price, for which giving up the whole world is nothing at all; and it is necessary to secure it, in preparation for the future Triumph of the Church and the Immaculate Heart. 

Now, go on, Pax Vobis, continue arguing with me for argument's sake if you want to. I really am not sure why you want to do that. But God bless.