A number of former 'SSPX sympathisers' recently signalled their imminent break-up from the Society, specifically with their denials of the 'new religion'.
Sean, you’re one of the more thoughtful writers in the traditionalist movement, and that’s precisely why this article is so disappointing. You should know better than to present the SSPX consecrations as signs of the Church’s vitality without first demonstrating the one thing that actually matters: apostolic mission. Valid orders alone do not create the Church’s public ministry. By celebrating those consecrations as though they continue Holy Mother Church, you’ve assumed the very point that has to be proved. That’s not an argument—it’s the fundamental error at the heart of the traditionalist movement.
Louis, stop feeding articles to AI and asking it to respond; alternatively, read harder. I didn't use the word vitality, that was Mgr Goldade's comment. The praise was limited to his recognition of the existence of the new religion.
Fair enough, the word vitality was Goldade’s. My criticism isn’t about who coined that word. It’s that your article treats the SSPX consecrations as a positive continuation of the Church without first establishig the one thing that matters, apostolic mission. That is the premise requiring proof.
Then we’re in agreement on the new religion. My question was never about that. It’s about mission. If the hierarchy publicly embraced a new religion, by what public juridical act did apostolic mission continue in those who later ordained and consecrated bishops? That’s still the missing premise.
Sean, this is why I asked the question. You didn’t merely report Goldade’s address. You introduced it as containing “inspiring comments and salutary reminders,” and concluded that we may “appreciate Mgr Goldade” for recognizing the new religion. Those are your evaluations, not mere reportage. My question is simple: what permits you to commend this as a sermon to the faithful without first addressing the public ecclesiastical authority that gives it the character of a sermon of the Church? Isn’t that the very premise your article assumes rather than demonstrates?
I fail miserably to comprehend the rantings against the SSPX. The only thing that makes sense to me is the fact that our Church is being demolished while the Trads argue about nonsense. The only thing we need to absolutely fight for is the salvation of souls. Nothing is more important to God. Nothing. The SSPX does just that. Rome has not saved a soul in centuries!!! Instead, they have lured the ignorant into the pit of their hell. For the love and honor of God, please remember that. 🙏
It was humbling to watch these men about to be lifted to the fullness of the priesthood. The grativas was written on their faces. Heavenly realities, at the very least, got a wide public showing on the Feast of the Precious Blood of Our Lord.
It was an awesome ceremony but the spectre of a finger wagging against a so-called pope as if a pope is the enemy couldn’t be washed away by the rain. The SSPX must declare that poncey layman in the Vatican and his new religion ‘anathema’. P.S. Taylor ‘Lay Tay’ Marshall entered the new religion and, with American military gusto decided to 'send' himself upon the unwary populace and 'teach'. Given that he has likely never assisted at a valid Catholic Mass he needs to realise he has yet to convert to the Catholic Church.
But this is not a new thing that the SSPX calls it a new religion. They have been calling it a new religion.
Its the refusal to arrive at the logical conclusion that is discouraging.
Who is the leader of this new religion?
Who is the defender of the Catholic religion?
SSPX is bending over backward to defend themselves to the "conservative" Novus Ordo parishioners but dismiss the sedevacantist position. Its so frustrating.
Sean, you’re one of the more thoughtful writers in the traditionalist movement, and that’s precisely why this article is so disappointing. You should know better than to present the SSPX consecrations as signs of the Church’s vitality without first demonstrating the one thing that actually matters: apostolic mission. Valid orders alone do not create the Church’s public ministry. By celebrating those consecrations as though they continue Holy Mother Church, you’ve assumed the very point that has to be proved. That’s not an argument—it’s the fundamental error at the heart of the traditionalist movement.
Louis, stop feeding articles to AI and asking it to respond; alternatively, read harder. I didn't use the word vitality, that was Mgr Goldade's comment. The praise was limited to his recognition of the existence of the new religion.
Fair enough, the word vitality was Goldade’s. My criticism isn’t about who coined that word. It’s that your article treats the SSPX consecrations as a positive continuation of the Church without first establishig the one thing that matters, apostolic mission. That is the premise requiring proof.
No it doesn't do that. It expresses pleasure that the man recognised the reality of new religion.
Then we’re in agreement on the new religion. My question was never about that. It’s about mission. If the hierarchy publicly embraced a new religion, by what public juridical act did apostolic mission continue in those who later ordained and consecrated bishops? That’s still the missing premise.
So you're admitting that you came on an article about X, to talk about Y?
Sean, this is why I asked the question. You didn’t merely report Goldade’s address. You introduced it as containing “inspiring comments and salutary reminders,” and concluded that we may “appreciate Mgr Goldade” for recognizing the new religion. Those are your evaluations, not mere reportage. My question is simple: what permits you to commend this as a sermon to the faithful without first addressing the public ecclesiastical authority that gives it the character of a sermon of the Church? Isn’t that the very premise your article assumes rather than demonstrates?
I fail miserably to comprehend the rantings against the SSPX. The only thing that makes sense to me is the fact that our Church is being demolished while the Trads argue about nonsense. The only thing we need to absolutely fight for is the salvation of souls. Nothing is more important to God. Nothing. The SSPX does just that. Rome has not saved a soul in centuries!!! Instead, they have lured the ignorant into the pit of their hell. For the love and honor of God, please remember that. 🙏
"Rome has not saved a soul in centuries." Just, no, absolutely not true, unless you meant to say "[Modernist] Rome has not saved a soul in decades."
God bless Bp. Goldade. Ad multos annos!
It was humbling to watch these men about to be lifted to the fullness of the priesthood. The grativas was written on their faces. Heavenly realities, at the very least, got a wide public showing on the Feast of the Precious Blood of Our Lord.
It was an awesome ceremony but the spectre of a finger wagging against a so-called pope as if a pope is the enemy couldn’t be washed away by the rain. The SSPX must declare that poncey layman in the Vatican and his new religion ‘anathema’. P.S. Taylor ‘Lay Tay’ Marshall entered the new religion and, with American military gusto decided to 'send' himself upon the unwary populace and 'teach'. Given that he has likely never assisted at a valid Catholic Mass he needs to realise he has yet to convert to the Catholic Church.
But this is not a new thing that the SSPX calls it a new religion. They have been calling it a new religion.
Its the refusal to arrive at the logical conclusion that is discouraging.
Who is the leader of this new religion?
Who is the defender of the Catholic religion?
SSPX is bending over backward to defend themselves to the "conservative" Novus Ordo parishioners but dismiss the sedevacantist position. Its so frustrating.