@philospher Respectfully, according to Fr. Michel Simoulin in 2017, who gave a talk, which was transcribed, "Or when I was a young subdeacon, I went with Archbishop Lefebvre to his sister in law's funeral. The Archbishop hesitated, then chose to assist at the new Mass before blessing the casket."

Correct. But please understand what is being stated there.

That priest, who left the SSPX due to his sedevacantist position, does not state, nor did he imply, that Archbishop Lefebvre offered that funeral Mass for his sister-in-law. He didn't. The Mass was offered by a different priest.

Fr. Simoulin was complaining that the archbishop attended the Mass (that's the meaning of "assisting" at Mass), and the archbishop blessed the casket. That's what Fr. Simoulin meant by "participating actively."

You'll notice that he never said that the archbishop actually offered that Mass. Again, he didn't. Being present for a Mass and offering a Mass are two totally separate concepts. You can be present for a Mass, but if you are not a priest, you cannot offer one.

Some early seminarians who became SVs were adamant that no one should ever attend a new Mass under any circumstances, and that is why they later left the SSPX.

While it is true that, for a short while, Archbishop Lefebvre allowed seminarians to attend the new Mass when there was no alternative, he never offered the new Mass himself. This fact has been reiterated many times over the years by the archbishop himself while he was alive and is also found in his biography written by Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais.

I believe what the archbishop stated and what is contained in the biography of his life: He never offered the Novus Ordo Missae. No one has ever come up with evidence to contradict that, and Father Simoulin's statement does not do so.

@philosopher

Alexander is correct. Archbishop Lefebvre never offered the Novus Ordo Missae.

When the changes in the Roman Mass started, the archbishop adopted them up to the revisions of 1967.

However, he was convinced by some seminarians, among whom was Fr. Cekada, if I recall correctly, to return to the earlier missal of 1962.

Although the Missa Normativa had debuted in Rome by 1967, it was not the missal used by the SSPX.

When the New Mass was promulgated, Archbishop Lefebvre was using the 1962 missal. He never adopted the missal that Pope Paul VI issued in 1969/70.

Blasphemy.

Historic St. Paul Catholic Church | LGBTQ+ Ministry & Fortunate Families | Lexington, KY (cdlex.org)

The history of the Catholic Church is replete with instances where Catholics, both lay and clerical, resisted reigning popes. Nowhere does Vatican I indicate that a pope can never be resisted under any circumstances.

The prime example is found in Sacred Scripture, where Saint Paul resisted Saint Peter "to the face." Galatians 2:11.

Pope Stephen VI (VII) declared Pope Formosus to be an antipope, and Pope Sergius III ordered all bishops and priests ordained by Pope Formosus to be re-ordained. Some of them told the pope to get lost and refused to obey him, most notably a cleric that wrote by the name "Auxilius."

When Pope John XXII was preaching heresy regarding the afterlife, many resisted him. They were right; the pope was wrong. He admitted his error on his deathbed.

The idea that a true pope can never be resisted is false, as our sacred Catholic history proves without any doubt.

The fallacy of the contention here is found in the sentence: "Immediately after this, his wife Elizabeth conceived."

There is nothing in Sacred Scripture that states such a thing.

The only thing the Bible says about the matter is found in Luke 1: 24: "And after those days, Elizabeth his wife conceived, and hid herself five months..."

No one on this side of eternity, absent some kind of private revelation, knows with any certainty whether Saint John was conceived immediately after Saint Zachary returned home, 6 months after, or 3 years after. All we know is that it was "after those days" and nothing more.

I saw the edited post.

Disregarding any other examples, as I stated prior, my only reason for posting was to point out the anomaly in the initial statement posted at the beginning, before the edit: "They only do this in western countries."

In commenting on the video, why would you say that the activity seen in the video happens only in western countries, when the video directly refutes what you're saying? It makes no sense.

It would be like looking at a video of the pope eating a hamburger and then declaring that he only eats fish sandwiches.

"If your point is that Muslims cause problems in their own countries..."

I was merely pointing out the error of stating that "they only do this in Western countries" while commenting on a video that shows "this" taking place in India.

India is not a "western" country. Thus, it is untrue to state that "they only do this in Western countries." That was my only point in posting.

Random photos of Muslims performing public prayers on public transportation or blocking public transportation in Muslim countries may be found below. There are more.

Morocco:

Picture of Moroccans Praying on Tramway Track Stirs Controversy

United Arab Emirates:

Muslim drivers may face a fine of Dh1,000 for praying on side of UAE roads

Bangladesh:

Group Prayer on the Street

"...many people in Gaza are Catholic. "

There is only one Catholic parish in Gaza. Online sources state that there are about 1,000 Christians in Gaza. Most of them are Orthodox. The number of Catholics is somewhat over 100 according to various sources.

"Bishop Strickland was the only bishop left who was appointed by Pope Benedict VI."

That would make Bishop Strickland fairly old. Pope Benedict VI died in August 974. Lol.

In any event, Bishop Taylor was appointed by Benedict XVI and is still the Ordinary of Little Rock.

United Church of Christ, Dallas, Texas

Cathedral of Hope

"1: I read somewhere that the usual rule regarding Popes dying in the middle of a Council is that it should be viewed as a sign that God does not wish for the Council to go on."

The Council of Trent lasted off and on for nearly 20 years, through the pontificates of 5 separate popes. The idea that God did not wish that council to go on would be preposterous at best.

The order of sisters that taught me in my youth now numbers a mere 104. I don't know what the average age of the community is, but it's way up there. In the photos on their website, all one sees is wheelchairs, walkers, canes, and grey hair. They get no new vocations.

I believe it's safe to assume that in 15 to 20 years time the order will be extinct. They used to be called the Sisters of the Holy Humility of Mary. When the changes came, they dropped the word "holy" from the name of their order. They are now just the Sisters of the Humility of Mary. If that isn't a huge clue as to their trajectory, I don't know what would be.

Gosh, there are a lot of Russian saints. Saint Anthony of the Caves, Saint Theodosius of the Caves, Saint Stephen of Perm, Saint Sergius of Radonezh, Saint Vladimir, Saint Olga, Saints Boris and Gleb, martyrs Saint Theodore the Varangian and his son John, Saint Seraphim of Sarov. I don't think the seven hieromartyrs of Cherson were actually Russian, but they died in Russia. They are saints that are venerated by those of us who are Byzantine Catholic. They are also recognized as saints by the Orthodox.

May God bless her. However, according to online news blurbs, she is a Mormon. If that is true, she is not a Christian. Mormons do not believe in the Holy Trinity; therefore, the Catholic Church does not classify them as Christians.

A Mormon's concept of who Christ is, is radically different from the reality. Mormons do not believe in the divinity of Christ, and they believe Satan and Christ are spiritual brothers that were created by God the Father, who Himself was at one time a mere man and progressed to godhood.

Traditionally, Baptists in the past did not celebrate Christmas and went to church on Christmas only if it happened to occur on a Sunday. As the name implies, "Christ's Mass" is Catholic in origin, so the early Baptists would not have anything to do with it.

And with the "Puritans," celebrating Christmas was outlawed at one time in certain places in the American colonies and in England.

Southern Baptists have not always embraced Christmas | Baptist Press

How the Puritans Banned Christmas - New England Today

Did The Puritans Celebrate Christmas | Hearinnh