Quote What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.
Quote What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.
there is a real possibility that the TLM will become the Dominant Liturgy as soon as 2050.
I told you. XavierSem is NOT a Traditional Catholic. Traditional Catholics are not content for the True Faith and the True Mass to be given a place in the Novus Ordo pantheon. Until Christ the King reigns and the Novus Ordo abomination is rid from the face of the earth, the crisis continues.I realize you have doubt about this, and that's fair, but *if* Francis is in fact the Roman Pontiff we should want communion with him. I don't think that necessitates accepting the Novus Ordo as good or licit, but it does seem to mean being willing to accept a personal prelature or something like that. YOu don't get to break communion with the legitimate hierarchy because *they* aren't doing what they're supposed to do.
I realize you have doubt about this, and that's fair, but *if* Francis is in fact the Roman Pontiff we should want communion with him. I don't think that necessitates accepting the Novus Ordo as good or licit, but it does seem to mean being willing to accept a personal prelature or something like that. YOu don't get to break communion with the legitimate hierarchy because *they* aren't doing what they're supposed to do.
If they're actually antipopes I realize that's a different story.
Xavier says there’s a “possibility” of good happening...in 2050? 30 yrs from now?!Yes, it's realistic, and it'll take a lot of effort and prayer to get there. It won't happen overnight without miraculous intervention, and it's not unreasonable to say so. But what's your plan, btw? Disrupt the SSPX in its efforts to get there, and attack the FSSP, ICK etc as non-traditional? Ridiculous. After 50 years of doing that, how many united Priests do you sede vacantists/privationists have and how far to convincing all Priests to offer the TLM have you come? There are some 415000 Priests in the mainstream Church. Can you show me 500 sede Priests? And you say you have a plan? The SSPV even questions the sede Thuc line. Great prospects there.
XavierSem is NOT aYes, you're a sedevacantist sectarian, and I am not. We know that, and I've given you incontrovertible reasons elsewhere that 61 year SVism leads to total heresy. I can easily prove the true traditional Catholic position on the TLM's superiority to the NOM from (1) Archbishop Lefebvre (2) Bishop Fellay, (3) Fr. Gleize and even (4) Bishop Williamson. And even from (4) The first principles of Traditional Catholic Theology on Validity and Integrity. Take the examples of Baptism, and Exorcism. Holy Baptism is valid and confers grace even if nothing else is said but "I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", yet it is not normally allowable to baptize merely like that. The reason being, that is not an integral Baptism, and so many graces would be lost. Similarly, the true opinion on the New Mass is that it is vastly inferior to the TLM, because it is not an integral Mass, but a truncated one. This can more easily be seen by the example Archbishop Lefebvre gave of Cardinal Mindszentsy offering Holy Mass in Prison with little more than the Words of Consecration. That was, +ABL says, both a valid Sacrament and Sacrifices; but the graces would be less. I'm not obliged to explain anymore to someone as boorish and polemical as yourself, but read this and you will see the true opinion: "Archbishop Lefebvre also said: “I never denied that these Masses said faithfully according to the Novus Ordo were valid; nor did I ever say that they were heretical or blasphemous.”2 Careful, therefore! Let us be firm, but let us not be simplistic." http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=3501 (http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=3501) The true opinion is that an NOM would have like 1/100th of the TLM's graces. Archbishop Lefebvre also said, "Make every effort to have the Mass of St. Pius V, but if it is impossible to find one within forty kilometers and if there is a pious priest who says the New Mass in as traditional a way as possible, it is good for you to assist at it to fulfill your Sunday obligation." https://sspx.org/en/what-archbishop-lefebvre-said-about-new-mass (https://sspx.org/en/what-archbishop-lefebvre-said-about-new-mass)Traditional Catholic[Sedevacantist Sectarian]
Yes, you're a sedevacantist sectarian, and I am not.
We know that, and I've given you incontrovertible reasons elsewhere that 61 year SVism leads to total heresy. I can easily prove the true traditional Catholic position on the TLM's superiority to the NOM from (1) Archbishop Lefebvre (2) Bishop Fellay, (3) Fr. Gleize and even (4) Bishop Williamson.
No, you've been completely debunked over and over again regarding your so-called "incontrovertible reasons". As for attempting to claim the support of +Lefebvre et al. regarding the "superiority" of the TLM over the NOM, give us a break; you have a lot of audacity. You are slandering them by pretending they support your position. +Lefebvre et al. held that the NOM was positively defective, a "bastard rite", and should not be attended by Catholics. You water this down into the TLM is "superior" to the NOM, and that the NOM gives "less grace" due to being truncated. If you do not hold that the NOM is positively harmful and defective, then you are not a Traditional Catholic.Xavier is an SSPX seminarian?
If someone like you, with this thinking, has been accepted into the neo-SSPX seminary, then the demise of the SSPX is already at hand. I am less disturbed by your thinking (people who think like you are a dime a dozen, although they're usually females) than by the fact that the SSPX has no problems with it.
I told you. XavierSem is NOT a Traditional Catholic. Traditional Catholics are not content for the True Faith and the True Mass to be given a place in the Novus Ordo pantheon. Until Christ the King reigns and the Novus Ordo abomination is rid from the face of the earth, the crisis continues.I've noticed that attitude among many younger people. I believe it is because they have no idea what being a Catholic was like before the insanity of VII took hold and the NOM was shoved down our throats.
Xavier is an SSPX seminarian?
XavierSem is NOT a Traditional Catholic.All I had to see was the title of his thread, calling B-16 "His Holiness". I cringe just to hear it. There is NOTHING holy about any VatII pope, specially Ratzinger the VatII periti in a suit.
All I had to see was the title of his thread, calling B-16 "His Holiness". I cringe just to hear it. There is NOTHING holy about any VatII pope, specially Ratzinger the VatII periti in a suit.It doesn't take much for someone to consider themselves "traditional" these days so bad everything is. A preference for the old Mass usually does it.
But what's your plan, btw? Disrupt the SSPX in its efforts to get there, and attack the FSSP, ICK etc as non-traditional? Ridiculous.My job is to spread the Faith and attack error. The larger picture of "saving the church" (which lie the new-sspx laity have pridefully swallowed) is not my job, but only God's. As part of spreading the Faith, I wish to point out your logical error that the sspx needs to join new-rome in order to convert it. The fact is, that the sspx has accomplished more to convert rome (and spread the latin mass) as an independent group than they accomplishing now, or could in the future. There would be no "ecclesia dei" in the 1980s, and no "motu" in 2007 without an independent sspx.
After 50 years of doing that, how many united Priests do you sede vacantists/privationists have and how far to convincing all Priests to offer the TLM have you come? There are some 415000 Priests in the mainstream Church. Can you show me 500 sede Priests? And you say you have a plan? The SSPV even questions the sede Thuc line. Great prospects there.Quality over quantity. God has shown all throughout history that He would rather work miracles through a few, small individuals (who had good intentions) vs larger groups who were too lukewarm or had self-interest dilute their original purpose. +ABL's sspx was pure intentioned; +Fellay's is not. +ABL's sspx and most of the sedevacantists have both the Faith and the mass. +Fellay's ssxp (and the indult groups) have only the mass, but their Faith is still imperfect because of V2.
I've mentioned one plan before: in France, Archbishop Lefebvre's own country, 20% of new Ordinations are Traditional - i.e. SSPX, FSSP, ICK etc - there's a very good prospect that in just 20 years, based on retirement rates and new Ordination rates, by 2038, Traditional Priests will be more than mainstream Priests i.e. more than 50 % of all Priests. I'm not going to docuмent it again for those who want to continue to be blind to reality. It is only in that way that we can plan the triumph of Tradition.Your definition of "traditional" is superficial and only based on the liturgy.
It is the petition we make in my (and most) SSPX chapels after the hymn to Saint Pius X (Sancte Pie Decime, Gloriose Patrone, Ora Pro Nobis), "O Lord grant us Priests. O Lord grant us many Priests. O Lord grant us many holy Priests. O Lord grant us many religious vocations. O Lord grant us Catholic Families". We need abundant vocations from Catholic Families, in particular many Priests laboring for souls. Like at least 10,000 solely from Traditional Fraternities in the next 30 years. Sede-ism has not produced that in more than 50.It's not a competition, is it? Is your main concern the glory of God, or a growth of statistics and human accomplishment? If you want to disagree with SVism, fine, but in all charity you shouldn't criticize their sacrifices or their goals - just their philosophy on the pope - which is a small % of what they are working towards.
But that will require (1) SSPX, FSSP and ICK firmly united and working together (2) saying no to non-Catholic silliness like SV, EV etc. If one believes there's nothing that can be done to bring Tradition back to Rome, then one will not even attempt efforts toward Restoration.It is not Tradition's job to bring new-rome back to the Faith; this can only be accomplished by God. It is only Tradition's job to PRAY for new-rome's conversion. Tradition's main job is to save souls and preserve THE FAITH. Preserving THE FAITH is accomplished THROUGH the latin mass, but the mass is only PART OF the Faith. There is much more to being Catholic than simply attending a latin mass.
I've mentioned one plan before: in France, Archbishop Lefebvre's own country, 20% of new Ordinations are Traditional - i.e. SSPX, FSSP, ICK etc - there's a very good prospect that in just 20 years, based on retirement rates and new Ordination rates, by 2038, Traditional Priests will be more than mainstream Priests i.e. more than 50 % of all Priests. I'm not going to docuмent it again for those who want to continue to be blind to reality. It is only in that way that we can plan the triumph of Tradition.???
If these men are/were undoubtedly legitimate popes, the SSPX should have made haste to re-enter full Communion with them LONG ago, along the lines of an FSSP.I think the issue would be things like whether the novus ordo (and perhaps attendance at it) is lawful and how error ridden Vatican ii is.
I think the issue would be things like whether the novus ordo (and perhaps attendance at it) is lawful and how error ridden Vatican ii is.
If Vatican II is error ridden and/or the New Mass harmful, then they are not legitimate popes.
Quote from: Ladislaus No, I'm not. I've explained this a dozen times. I am what I have called a sede-doubtist.Yes, I know what you call yourself, shifting between "sede-doubtism" and "sedeprivationism". Both are sede-isms. Just like an Agnostic who says he merely "doubts" God's existence is an Atheist, a Modernist who says he merely "doubts" the Resurrection is not a Christian, a Protestant who says he "doubts" the Immaculate Conception is not a Catholic, so also someone who doubts the dogmatic Fact that a Universally Accepted Pope is truly Pope is a sede-vacantist. See "Dogmatic Fact: The One Doctrine that proves that Francis is Pope" https://onepeterfive.com/dogmatic-fact-francis-pope/ (https://onepeterfive.com/dogmatic-fact-francis-pope/) This was discussed on CI years ago.
Canon Lawyers teach that someone is not schismatic if he refuses submission due to doubts about the Pope's legitimacy, so I am not schismatic.What ridiculous stupidity on your part. So if an Old Catholic refuses submission to Pope Pius IX because "he doubted" his legitimacy, he is thereby, according to your manifestly idiotic subjectivist denials of objective reality", he is therefore not schismatic for "doubting the legitimacy" of Pope Pius IX, the First Vatican Council, Papal Infalliblity and the Immaculate Conception? Heretical. I told you, this doesn't apply to universally accepted popes, but only when there are 2 or more claimants. And also it only speaks about personal culpability, it doesn't mean that you aren't in objective schism due to subjective "doubts" - otherwise, the Old Catholic isn't either.
that there's no theological reason to prefer SSPX over, say, FSSP. That makes you a schismatic for being out of full communion with the Church without adequate justification.That makes you a schismatic ...
Quote from: Forlorn 20% of ordinations are traditional, that'd mean even if the entire crop of priests today retired, only 20% of priests would be trad.I said, 20% of new ordinations: here's the report from 1P5 https://onepeterfive.com/traditional-priests-account-for-20-of-2018-ordinations-in-france/ (https://onepeterfive.com/traditional-priests-account-for-20-of-2018-ordinations-in-france/) So, for e.g. if there are currently 1000 Traditional Priests and 10,000 mainstream Priests (just an example), but 100 new Ordinations in 2018, 20 percent or 20 of those Ordinations were Traditional. Then, there would be 1020 Traditional Priests. Since many of those mainstream Priests are nearing retirement age, the Total number of Priests (at 11000 in this e.g., and currently 10:1 soon falls down to being 50% Traditional. "The interesting result is that by the year 2038, traditional priests will outnumber priests celebrating the new mass." https://centurioweblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/traditional-priests-in-france-until-2050.html?m=1 (https://centurioweblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/traditional-priests-in-france-until-2050.html?m=1)
My job is to spread the Faith and attack error I'm critical of the indult communities because their goals are contradictory - preserve tradition yet accept modernism. But I still recognize that they are trying to do good.That's good that you recognize that. Before I come to the Indult, what is your criticism of the SSPX, precisely? Surely, you know the Superior General took the Oath against Modernism upon being elected. https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10moath.htm (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10moath.htm)
What ridiculous stupidity on your part.
So if an Old Catholic refuses submission to Pope Pius IX because "he doubted" his legitimacy, he is thereby, according to your manifestly idiotic subjectivist denials of objective reality", he is therefore not schismatic for "doubting the legitimacy" of Pope Pius IX, the First Vatican Council, Papal Infalliblity and the Immaculate Conception? Heretical.
I told you, this doesn't apply to universally accepted popes, but only when there are 2 or more claimants. And also it only speaks about personal culpability, it doesn't mean that you aren't in objective schism due to subjective "doubts" - otherwise, the Old Catholic isn't either.
Yes, I know what you call yourself, shifting between "sede-doubtism" and "sedeprivationism". Both are sede-isms. Just like an Agnostic who says he merely "doubts" God's existence is an Atheist, a Modernist who says he merely "doubts" the Resurrection is not a Christian, a Protestant who says he "doubts" the Immaculate Conception is not a Catholic, so also someone who doubts the dogmatic Fact that a Universally Accepted Pope is truly Pope is a sede-vacantist. See "Dogmatic Fact: The One Doctrine that proves that Francis is Pope" https://onepeterfive.com/dogmatic-fact-francis-pope/ (https://onepeterfive.com/dogmatic-fact-francis-pope/) This was discussed on CI years ago.
There is widespread doubt among "conservative" novus ordo-ites that +Francis isn't pope. Whether it's because he's a heretic or because +Benedict didn't properly resign. I would agree that JPII and Benedict were "universally accepted" (by novus ordo-ites) but they were not so by Trads. You're not the Grand Interpreter of canon law so your opinion is meaningless.
So, Xavier, you spammed in an article once that the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants is dogmatic fact.To be fair, only materially, and you think he was a material heretic on EENS so how is that different?
That would make your hero Archbishop Lefebvre a heretic.
To be fair, only materially, and you think he was a material heretic on EENS so how is that different?
That was, +ABL says, both a valid Sacrament and Sacrifices; but the graces would be less. I'm not obliged to explain anymore to someone as boorish and polemical as yourself, but read this and you will see the true opinion: "Archbishop Lefebvre also said: “I never denied that these Masses said faithfully according to the Novus Ordo were valid; nor did I ever say that they were heretical or blasphemous.”2 Careful, therefore! Let us be firm, but let us not be simplistic." http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=3501 (http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=3501) The true opinion is that an NOM would have like 1/100th of the TLM's graces. Archbishop Lefebvre also said, "Make every effort to have the Mass of St. Pius V, but if it is impossible to find one within forty kilometers and if there is a pious priest who says the New Mass in as traditional a way as possible, it is good for you to assist at it to fulfill your Sunday obligation." https://sspx.org/en/what-archbishop-lefebvre-said-about-new-mass (https://sspx.org/en/what-archbishop-lefebvre-said-about-new-mass)You're being disingenuous. How? Consider the following:
... so also someone who doubts the dogmatic Fact that a Universally Accepted Pope is truly Pope is a sede-vacantist."Universal" -- I don't think that word means what you think it means.
I said, 20% of new ordinations: here's the report from 1P5 https://onepeterfive.com/traditional-priests-account-for-20-of-2018-ordinations-in-france/ (https://onepeterfive.com/traditional-priests-account-for-20-of-2018-ordinations-in-france/) So, for e.g. if there are currently 1000 Traditional Priests and 10,000 mainstream Priests (just an example), but 100 new Ordinations in 2018, 20 percent or 20 of those Ordinations were Traditional. Then, there would be 1020 Traditional Priests. Since many of those mainstream Priests are nearing retirement age, the Total number of Priests (at 11000 in this e.g., and currently 10:1 soon falls down to being 50% Traditional. "The interesting result is that by the year 2038, traditional priests will outnumber priests celebrating the new mass." https://centurioweblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/traditional-priests-in-france-until-2050.html?m=1 (https://centurioweblog.blogspot.com/2014/07/traditional-priests-in-france-until-2050.html?m=1)I don't know what sort of crazy maths he was doing, but it's just not possible. Unless every conciliar priest suddenly retired at once(even the newly ordained each year) while no trad priests retired at all, it is impossible that trads could outnumber conciliars with 1/5th of the ordinations.
You're being disingenuous. How? Consider the following:
"The Church which affirms such errors is both schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is therefore not Catholic." - +Lefebvre, 1976 reflections on suspension.
"To whatever extent pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church." - +Lefebvre, 1976 reflections on suspension.
"To whatever extent the pope departed from . . . tradition he would become schismatic, he would breach with the Church. Theologians such as Saint Bellarmine, Cajetan, Cardinal Journet and many others have studied this possibility. So it is not something inconceivable." - +Lefebvre, Le Figaro, August 4, 1976.
"If it happened that the pope was no longer the servant of the truth, he would no longer be pope." - +Lefebvre, Lille, August 29, 1976.
"I would not say that the pope is not the pope. But neither would I say that you cannot say the pope is not the pope." - +Lefebvre, Long Island, 1979.
"It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not the pope. For twenty years Monsignor de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait..." - +Lefebvre, March 30 1986.
"You know, for some time, many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying, 'there is no more pope.' But I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident..."
The above quotes, as well as a wealth of others I have not included here, indicate that sedevacantism was at least within the realm of theological possibilities for the Archbishop. You have to remember that the Archbishop had a long career and dealt for years with the Conciliar authorities. Most of the quotes from the Archbishop which seem to indicate his support for attendance at the New Mass are from the years immediately following its implementation, before he had seen firsthand its monstrous effects. The Archbishop also signed several of the Vatican 2 docuмents. Does this mean that the Archbishop approved of the council?
One of the Society's foremost theologians, Bishop +Tissier, has expressed a belief on numerous occasions that the new rite of episcopal consecration is doubtfully valid, as have a large number of competent priests and sacramental theologians, both within the Society and outside.
If you're really trying to tow the line of the Archbishop you should try to approach the subject with more nuance and consider the context from which those quotes came.
I don't know what sort of crazy maths he was doing, but it's just not possible. Unless every conciliar priest suddenly retired at once(even the newly ordained each year) while no trad priests retired at all, it is impossible that trads could outnumber conciliars with 1/5th of the ordinations.
I don't know what sort of crazy maths he was doing, but it's just not possible.You're absolutely correct, his math makes no sense. And neither do most of his posts.
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?He specifically said he was discounting all current priests to be fair to you, since the gap would be even more ridiculously large if he hadn't. You said 10,000 out of 15,000 are expected to retire in the next 5 years? Let's remove all of them now then, and pretend that no Trad priests ever retire.