[Claud]

The very post you put up says directly that attendance at SSPX chapels does not necessarily constitute formal adherence to the schism--but that such adherence can come over time. So be careful about uncharitably throwing around terms like "schismatic" to people that may well have more love for the Pope of Rome than the average Joe in the pews on Sunday.

Secondly the argument that both Masses effect the same sacrifice, while true, does nothing but state the obvious. The debateof traditionalism is not whether what happens at the altar in NO and traditional Roman Masses is the same event.

The great debate rather, is whether what is going on around the altar reflective of what is happening on the altar. In other words, does the rite accurately, clearly, and obviously communicate the sacrifice? The validity of the NO is not the end of the story.

[bornacatholic]

Schism is a grave evil. Those who support it are participating in grave evil and exhibit not a scintilla of evidence of "love" for the Pope while Joe six pack, whose butt is in the pew of a Catholic Church, does exhibit a love for the Pope. the actions of schismatics speak louder than words and nowhere in Tradition can one find an example of Traditionalists molly-coddling a schism or its adepts.

The Magisteriun decides what is and isn't Tradition. Any Christian who maintains the Bonds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine,and Authority is,therefore, a traditionalist. That being the reality, the vast majority - over 90% - of true Traditionalists are those in union with Rome and assisting at the normative mass