Would you like to see a phasing out of the Novus Ordo Missae leading to a return to only the TLM?

[saint_rafael]

So there you go you are a Neo-Catholic. An Ex Cathedra statement is not Ex Cathedra or Infallible if it is heretical in nature or heterodox. Vatican I also says that these statements cannot contradict Tradition. We should not follow them if they do.

As a Traditionalist, I have been defending tradition on this thread. How dare you call me a neoCatholic.

**You don’t understand Papal Infallibility.

Here’s the definition:

Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium (“Solemn Magisterium”): this is exercised when the Pope, as supreme pastor of the entire Church, speaks ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) and solemnly defines a dogma concerning faith and morals to be held by the entire Church, or when a Dogmatic Council convened and endorsed by a Pope formally defines a matter of faith and morals to be held by the entire Church. This is a very rarely excercised assertion of authority (only a few times in the past few hundred years). When the Pope teaches using his extraordinary infallible Magisterium, or when a Council dogmatically defines something and the Pope endorses that defintion, Catholics must believe what is taught de fide, as an article of faith. **
fisheaters.com/papolatry.html

As you can see it is impossible to err when a Pope uses Ex-Cathedra. You are basically denying the dogma of Papal Infallibility. To deny this dogma is heresy. A Pope can never teach error when speaking from the Chair of Peter or Ex-Cathedra.

 

[Spiller]

As a Traditionalist, I have been defending tradition on this thread. How dare you call me a neoCatholic.

Why do you capitalize “Traditionalist” as if it were a proper noun?

 

[Aragorn1]

Cardinal Stickler was mistaken. That is his own private opinion. He does not speak for the magisterium.

Yet Popes Davies, Kramer, and Ottaviani do??? The double standard here is obvious.

I should also remind you here that Cardinal Stickler is a traditional-minded Cardinal who has had several things published in The Latin Mass and other like periodicals. He’s not a member of the “modernist Cardinal mafia” that allegedly controls the Vatican (according to you).

The Popes and Churchmen from Pope Pius V to Pope John XXIII have disagreed with his assessment.

Well, go on… Can you cite specific examples?

I am not distinguishing. Some people have claimed invalidity because of the consecration formula but that is a separate issue. I agree with you that makes the Mass valid. My point was that without the first Eucharistic prayer, the consecration. wouldn’t matter because it would be invalid.

Whether they say the first prayer or not during Mass is not important. However, the Roman Cannon should be given greater weight and importance.
All N.O. Masses are valid because they put the Roman Cannon in the Missal in 1969. The Cannon is wriiten in all the Missals.

To clarify: you believe the first Eucharistic Prayer is what renders the Mass valid? I’m not sure I understand what you mean here…

I am not about to go line for line from the two Missals here. I don’t have the time to write a book about this here on this forum. If you are interested you can do it.
The Ottaviani Intervention is a better resource. You can read his essay.
fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html

Actually, since you’re the one who has been attacking the OF on this thread, it is incumbent upon you to cite some specific objections to it so we can test their validity, instead of deflecting (or rather reflecting) my challenge to you by saying “if you are interested you can do it”. If you have an objection, list it; don’t ask someone else to do your research for you.

Ah, the Ottaviani Intervention. Few people who appeal to this as an argument against the OF realize that it expresses its author’s opinions on an earlier draft of the OF, not the one that was eventually promulgated by Paul VI (with changes made). With that in mind, let’s look at what he said about the improved version that would later be promulgated.

I have rejoiced profoundly to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and especially the doctrinal precisions contained in his discourses at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe no one can any longer be genuinely scandalized. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the OF] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae wide diffusion and success.

(Letter from his eminence Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Gerard Lafond, O.S.B., in Documentation Catholique, #67, 1970, pages 215-216 and 343)

I’d like to point out that you have still not answered my challenge - **repeated three times now **- to find an official Vatican document that claims (a) there is no fundamental difference between the priesthood and the laity, or (b) there is to be no kneeling during Mass.

I’d also like to ask a question. It should be obvious to anyone reading through this thread that your argument hinges on the supposition that Quo Primum is infallbile and irrevokable even by future Popes, and also that the EF was perfect in its 1570 form and thus could not be improved in any way. This being the case, can you clarify two points?

1. What precisely is it about Quo Primum that makes it infallible?
2. You have argued that “small changes” in the EF were permitted in the past, yet you claim the OF changed not only small details but removed whole sections of the liturgy and tampered with the structure. Setting aside the question of why this matters (after all, Pius XII wrote that the Pope has supreme jurisdiction over the liturgy, including the power to introduce and approve new rites and to modify existing ones), can you p(name removed by moderator)oint what exactly constitutes the “structure” of the liturgy? That is to say, what is essential and what is nonessential and why? What are the objective criteria for determining this?

 

[Aragorn1]

As a Traditionalist, I have been defending tradition on this thread. How dare you call me a neoCatholic.

LOL, now you know how we feel when we get that epithet thrown in our faces all the time!

 

[EasterJoy]

An Ex Cathedra statement is not Ex Cathedra or Infallible if it is heretical in nature or heterodox. Vatican I also says that these statements cannot contradict Tradition. We should not follow them if they do.

If what is spoken ex cathedra can only be discerned as such either in retrospect or by the critical acclaim of the laity, then I don’t see what the point is of even having the doctrine. “You can believe that we are teaching the truth under the condition that the future judges us to have taught you the truth.”

What on earth good is that? I’m not saying that the Popes can’t make mistakes. None of them have said this. I’m saying that your definition of ex cathedra seems useless on a practical level.

 

[saint_rafael]

LOL, now you know how we feel when we get that epithet thrown in our faces all the time!

 

[Brian777]

The Pope is the head of the Magisterium. See Catechism of the Catholic Church. Only those bishops in communion with him are part of the Magisterium, not the other way around. Otherwise, the Pope would be the first among equals, which is not the case.

**100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him. **

JR

since when?

Also, can anyone explain for me just what is to be done if a Pope is condemned a heretic in his life time. I was under the impression that if the Pope is a known heretic that under Ex Apostolatus Officio his reign becomes void and that we (The Church) enter a period of sedevacantism, papal vacancy, as the current Pope is now an anti-pope. I read that multiple places and not just on SedeVacantist sites but like the actual document itself. If this is so, then is the College of Cardinals supposed to depose and elect a new Pope? Someone told me that Canon Law forbids this! I dont see why that would be a good thing to let a heretic reign. Plus, isnt that what happened in the Great Western Schism? The anti-pope at the time died and so did the official pope, then anti-pope John XXIII (not the one from V-2) was deposed, and then a new election was held. Sorry to go too of topic but it kind of relates and I had some conflicting information so i just wanted to get it cleared up.

 

[AJV]

To clarify: you believe the first Eucharistic Prayer is what renders the Mass valid? I’m not sure I understand what you mean here…

If I may presume to say (and I’m sure strafael will correct me when I stray) based on the references strafael provided earlier in this thread, namely “Liturgical Shipwreck” by Michael Davies.

In it, Mr.Davies makes a brief mention of the fact that the Roman Canon was retained. He says that this saves it form being described as a Protestant liturgy.

In some of his other works (e.g. Pope Paul’s New Mass), Mr. Davies explained his idea more fully in accordance with the principle that a part must be taken in connection with the whole, and thus the rite must be viewed as a whole. His view was that any deficiencies and ambiguities (I add, real or perceived) in this or that prayer, must be interpreted in the light of the whole rite, which includes the Roman Canon. The Canon therefore supplies an orthodox meaning or signification to the others.

For example, in the Offering of the Second Eucharistic Prayer in which reference is made to “Bread of Life” (ICEL: life giving Bread) and the “Chalice of Salvation” (ICEL: “Saving Cup”) They are of course Eucharistic terms and are also sacrificial, though muted. But even if one has a slightest doubt as to how they are to be interpreted, the Canon would provide the necessary intent - it is to offer the Divine Victim.

This was just an example. He explain other areas which he finds problematic in the new prayers, and which (to him) the Canon alone solves (though IMHO, some of those explanations have imparted meanings not necessarily obvious from the text, which can be interpreted in another way) But perhaps that’s better left for another thread.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I don’t think the Popes in my lifetime have been heretics, so this is an exercise of the imagination on my part.

We know as an article of faith that, were a heretic to hold the Chair of Saint Peter, he would not cross the line of actually teaching error under the circumstances in which we are guaranteed that the teaching of the Church is free from error. In other words, a Pope might, in theory, personally hold an errant teaching, but he would never officially teach it. The Holy Spirit guards us from that.

I cannot imagine that a Pope would address personal views held by a previous Pope, views that were not official teaching, in order to condemn his successor as a heretic. I think that he would say of a particular errant view “That is not Church teaching and was not nor ever has never been officially taught by the Church” and leave it at that. I do not think he would risk the confusion and scandal that would be caused by accusing a dead Pope of heresy.

As speculation goes, I see nothing wrong in what you have said.
Prayers & bldssings
deacon Ed B.

 

[AJV]

I believe this is the infallible statement:
“We likewise order and declare … this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law,”

Quo Primum is no “merely ecclesiastical law” (can. 11 [1983]) that can be revoked, but has been enacted into law and declared Ex Cathedra to be irreformable, and is therefore a solemnly defined moral doctrine which is also of itself infallible and irreformable (DB 1829). Quo Primum has been declared to be infallibly declared to be irreformable because the rite of Mass codified in the Tridentine Missal is the “received and approved rite of the Roman Church” that has been “handed down by the Holy Roman Church.” The status of Quo Primum, therefore, pertains to Divine Law insofar as they constitute a particular application of the Divine Law.
–Fr. Paul L. Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.B., M.Div., A Theological
Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism (Nazareth, India:
Apostle Publications, 1997).

I have some questions that I’ve never been able to find satisfactory answers for:

1. Is there any pre-conciliar commentary that Fr. Kranmer (or any other proponents) can point to that interpret this canon of Trent (“received and approved”) in this manner?

I ask because I’ve only seen thsi in reference to obeying the liturgical law as laid down by the Pope (e.g. in the Rituale) where received does not necessarily have the same connotations.

1. If so, how are we to understand “received and approved”? Received from who? What constitutes changing the rites (small ‘r’ which includes all ceremonies)? How does the decree then relate to the rites than were removed from the Missal by St. Pius V? Or the rites for the other sacraments to which changes 9differing in scope) were introduced in the revised Rituale after Trent?
2. If Quo Primum is infallible:
   a. Why does the same wording “in perpetuity”, etc. appear in other Papal documents which have been overturned?

b. St. Pius V declares that the missal to be used is HIS missal - “…juxta Missalis a nobis editi formulam…”. Not the missal-that-will-be-edited-by-Our-successors or the-missal-with-all-later-revised-rubrics-and-calendar. He explicitly declares that no new ceremonies or prayers may be introduced into his volume (neque in Missae celebratione alias caelemonias, vel preces, quam quae hoc Missali continentur, addere vel recitare praesumant) and nothing added, omitted or altered. Now if all of this is infallible, then how, in the first place, are we to reconcile the changes introduced by his successors?

I am of course, not saying that the changes weren’t laudable, or not in continuity or useful for stimulating piety, etc. Neither am I trying to equate the changes to those of the NO. But the thing is that it seems to me that the Bull does not distinguish between whether a change in minor or major. It merely says add nothing, remove nothing, change nothing. Not change-nothing-except-the prayers-to-be-said-in-the-sacristy-before-Mass or alter-nothing-except-the-prayers-of-the-Votive-Mass-of-the-BVM-and other-other-Mass-texts-Our-sucessors-feel-need-altering.

That the text was evidently thought to apply to any changes can also be seen in Leo XIII’s letter “Grande Munus”. Actually, he is doing something quite minor- only inserting saints with a higher rank into the General Calendar. But in doing so, he feels obligated to mention “***notwithstanding ***the constitutions of Pope St. Pius V and other apostolic documents on the reform of the breviary and the Roman Missal”. There was only one such constitution of St. Pius V on the missal- Quo Primum

 

[saint_rafael]

ERROR: The Traditional Latin Mass was established only after the Council of Trent by Pope St. Pius V.

CORRECT: Pope St. Pius V merely canonized Roman Rite for all time, according to the practice of the Holy See, as it had been handed down by Sacred
Tradition, essentially from the beginning of the Church.

ERROR: The Church always felt free to change the liturgy and did so countless
times before Vatican II.

CORRECT: The Roman Rite remained unchanged in almost all respects since the pontificate of Pope St. Gregory the Great ca. 600. It remained unchanged in all essential respects from much earlier.

ERROR: The Mass of the first Christians was vague, undefined, and largely improvised. Fixed, written liturgies are late developments.

CORRECT: Scholarly research has shown that there was a striking uniformity in the elements of the Sacred Liturgy from the earliest times. Improvisation was minimal. Evidence of early written liturgies is substantial.

ERROR: Before the Council of Trent, there was no uniform Roman Rite, but many independent local rites.

CORRECT: These mediaeval “uses” were not independent rites, but local deviations from the Roman Rite. Pope St. Pius V restored the uniform Roman Rite according to the practice of the Holy See.

Pope Pius V allowed that Missals that were older than two hundred years prior to Trent could still be used.

If it were true that another pope or council could set aside the solemn decrees of a former pope or council, there would be no Apostolic authority in the Church, and we could not believe Christ’s promise to be with the Church “all days” until the end of time. Any pope or council that attempts to set aside the authoritative teachings of a previous pope or council is acting in defiance and disobedience to the authority of the Church.

“We need once again to take into account that these various Conciliar regulations [of the dogmatic Council of Trent on the Mass, Chapter XXII] do not only have a disciplinary character. They are based on a doctrinal, theological
foundation that involves the Faith itself.” (Alfons Cardinal Sticker, May 1999)

 

[Aragorn1]

If I may presume to say (and I’m sure strafael will correct me when I stray) based on the references strafael provided earlier in this thread, namely “Liturgical Shipwreck” by Michael Davies.

In it, Mr.Davies makes a brief mention of the fact that the Roman Canon was retained. He says that this saves it form being described as a Protestant liturgy.

In some of his other works (e.g. Pope Paul’s New Mass), Mr. Davies explained his idea more fully in accordance with the principle that a part must be taken in connection with the whole, and thus the rite must be viewed as a whole. His view was that any deficiencies and ambiguities (I add, real or perceived) in this or that prayer, must be interpreted in the light of the whole rite, which includes the Roman Canon. The Canon therefore supplies an orthodox meaning or signification to the others.

For example, in the Offering of the Second Eucharistic Prayer in which reference is made to “Bread of Life” (ICEL: life giving Bread) and the “Chalice of Salvation” (ICEL: “Saving Cup”) They are of course Eucharistic terms and are also sacrificial, though muted. But even if one has a slightest doubt as to how they are to be interpreted, the Canon would provide the necessary intent - it is to offer the Divine Victim.

This was just an example. He explain other areas which he finds problematic in the new prayers, and which (to him) the Canon alone solves (though IMHO, some of those explanations have imparted meanings not necessarily obvious from the text, which can be interpreted in another way) But perhaps that’s better left for another thread.

OK, thanks.

 

[saint_rafael]

(1) Even though Pope St. Pius V decreed that his bull be “valid in
perpetuity,” he didn’t really mean, or couldn’t really have meant, “in perpetuity.”

Reply:

As to content, the perpetuity is confirmed by three characteristics:

• The aim in view, which is that there should be but one missal so
  that the unity of Faith may be protected and manifested by unity of public prayer.
• The method of its establishment, which is neither that of an
  artificial creation devised from a number of possibilities nor even a
  radical reform, but the honest restoration of the ancient Roman Missal: the honest restoration of a well-proven past being the best guarantee of a
  tranquil future.
• Its authorship, which is that of a pope acting with all the
  force of his Apostolic authority, in exact conformity with the express with of an Ecumenical Council – in conformity with the uninterruptedTradition of the Roman Church – and, so far as concerns the principalparts of the missal, in conformity with the Universal Church.

(Fr.Raymond Dulac, "The Jurisdiction of the Bull Quo Primum of Pope St. PiusV, Supplement to Itineraires No. 162, reproduced in Michael Davies, "PopePaul’s New Mass, pp. 571-580)

 

[saint_rafael]

The clear signification of the words in this solemn declaration
leave no room for any positive doubt about what is meant. ** The
clause, “We likewise order and declare … this present
Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall for ever
remain valid and have the force of law,” expresses a precise and unequivocal meaning: namely, that the document cannot ever be
revoked or modified – it is an irreformable document. ** The clause
cannot legitimately be construed to mean anything other than that which it clearly and unequivocally states.

It cannot be legitimately maintained, for example, that “this
present Constitution can never be revoked or modified” means that no one under the rank of Pope may revoke or modify, but that a Pope can revoke or modify Quo Primum… Quo Primum is solemnly declared to be instrinsically incapable of revocation or
modification: the irrevocability of Quo Primum is a proper
attribute pertaining to the very nature of the document itself.
By declaring Ex Cathedra that Quo Primum can never be revoked or modified, St. Pius V infallibly defined that Quo Primum is of
itself irreformable.

–Fr. Paul L. Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.B., M.Div.,
A Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism (Nazareth, India: Apostle Publications, 1997).

Pope Pius V also added a most unusual clause and most grave imprecation in Quo Primum:
**
“shall incur the wrath of Almighty God and of
the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul”**

The infallible document is an extremely grave matter that all Popes after Quo Primum understood of. They also understood and feared the warning clause inserted.

 

[EasterJoy]

From Pope Benedict’s Sacramentum Caritatis, I gather that it was the general opinion of the Synod of Bishops that assembled in 2005 that the liturgical renewal following the Council has only begun its bloom, and is not slated to be phased out (boldface mine).

Other information on that synod? Comments? Actually, I am mostly referring to reference 6, which I don’t have yet, but any comments on the text (rather than the bishops) are welcome!

The development of the eucharistic rite

1. If we consider the bimillenary history of God’s Church, guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, we can gratefully admire the orderly development of the ritual forms in which we commemorate the event of our salvation. From the varied forms of the early centuries, still resplendent in the rites of the Ancient Churches of the East, up to the spread of the Roman rite; from the clear indications of the Council of Trent and the Missal of Saint Pius V to the liturgical renewal called for by the Second Vatican Council: in every age of the Church’s history the eucharistic celebration, as the source and summit of her life and mission, shines forth in the liturgical rite in all its richness and variety. The Eleventh Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, held from 2-23 October 2005 in the Vatican, gratefully acknowledged the guidance of the Holy Spirit in this rich history. In a particular way, the Synod Fathers acknowledged and reaffirmed the beneficial influence on the Church’s life of the liturgical renewal which began with the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (5). **The Synod of Bishops was able to evaluate the reception of the renewal in the years following the Council. There were many expressions of appreciation. The difficulties and even the occasional abuses which were noted, it was affirmed, cannot overshadow the benefits and the validity of the liturgical renewal, whose riches are yet to be fully explored. **Concretely, the changes which the Council called for need to be understood within the overall unity of the historical development of the rite itself, without the introduction of artificial discontinuities.(6)"

1. Cf. Propositio 2
2. I am referring here to the need for a hermeneutic of continuity also with regard to the correct interpretation of liturgical development which followed the Second Vatican Council: cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Roman Curia (22 December 2005): AAS 98 (2006), 44-45.

 

[AJV]

ERROR: The Traditional Latin Mass was established only after the Council of Trent by Pope St. Pius V.

CORRECT: Pope St. Pius V merely canonized Roman Rite for all time, according to the practice of the Holy See, as it had been handed down by Sacred Tradition, essentially from the beginning of the Church.

ERROR: The Church always felt free to change the liturgy and did so countless times before Vatican II.

CORRECT: The Roman Rite remained unchanged in almost all respects since the pontificate of Pope St. Gregory the Great ca. 600. It remained unchanged in all essential respects from much earlier.

I certainly agree that the missal of St. Pius V was not completely ex nuovo. But it certainly differs form previous missals in various areas and defnitely in the rites it employs. Given the intepretation of the Tridentine canon of Session VII that is urged by (e.g.) Fr. Kranmer, how does one reconcile this deleting of rites?

“Almost” seems quite a broad description. Especially given that all the elements that we are so familiar with in the Traditional Mass- Prayers at the foot of the altar, the fixed Offertory prayers, and other ones like Domine, non sum dignus, Placeat tibi, etc. were resisted in Rome until 2 centuries before St. Pius V and his missal- which is quite a long time after St. Gregory the Great.

Furthermore, many of the (variable) prayers of the missal are not the exact same prayers of St. Gregory the Great. They are of Gallician origin, as any book on the study of the Roman liturgy will tell you. In the Common of Saints, this is even more true- a lot cannot be dated to St. Gregory.

ERROR: The Mass of the first Christians was vague, undefined, and largely improvised. Fixed, written liturgies are late developments.

CORRECT: Scholarly research has shown that there was a striking uniformity in the elements of the Sacred Liturgy from the earliest times. Improvisation was minimal. Evidence of early written liturgies is substantial.

It depends I suppose on what is meant by “late”, does it not? So what are these early written liturgies?

To be sure there are a few and fragments. But I was always under the impression that these were opposed by many in the Traditional camp as dubious authenticity, heretical, etc., etc.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Yes, but what the Church is pointing to is the primacy of Peter. He does not need the bishops to be in communion with him to be infallible. They need him. The Pope can be infallible without them or their consent.

Those bishops in communion with him share in this gift, not the other way around.

It sounded like you were saying that he coulld not act infallibly without the bishops.

JR

No no, I was merely stating that within the limits of Papal Infallibility defined in the First Vatican Council the Pope is still a 100% fallible person. The Pope can teach Infallibly, however it needs to be noticed that Ex Cathedra doesn’t equal Infallibility. Ex Cathedra means from the Chair. So that would mean the Pope makes an Ex Cathedra statement showing him teaching from the Chair of St. Peter, so he is teaching to the entire Church. If he proclaims something heretical in the form of an Ex Cathedra statement than it is null and not Infallible.

 

[holdencaulfield]

The Novus Ordo will soon disappear. The prayers of the world for an Ultra-Traditional Pope will soon be answered. You can bet that Pope St. Pius X is not praying for anything else.

 

[saint_rafael]

1. I am referring here to the need for a hermeneutic of continuity also with regard to the correct interpretation of liturgical development which followed the Second Vatican Council: cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Roman Curia (22 December 2005): AAS 98 (2006), 44-45.

Pope Benedict in his heart and mind knows the Novus Ordo was a rupture and break with tradition. Vatican II called for modest reforms in the Missal of John XXIII. Reforms that would still make the TLM, the TLM used since Trent.

There’s a rupture with the New Mass, so there’s two solutions:

1. Restoration.
   Repealing and phasing out the New Mass. Many traditionalists and I believe this is the only solution and would help end the crisis in the Church.

Pope Benedict’s preference:

1. the hermeneutic of continuity or “reform of the reform”
   Changing the New Mass so that it is similar to the TLM by externals and prayers in Latin, AD Orientem, altar rails, fixed altars, etc. The Pope thinks he can fix the New Mass by making it into a hybrid of the N.O. and TLM. He thinks this will resore the liturgy to tradition.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Pope Benedict in his heart and mind knows the Novus Ordo was a rupture and break with tradition. Vatican II called for modest reforms in the Missal of John XXIII. Reforms that would still make the TLM, the TLM used since Trent.

There’s a rupture with the New Mass, so there’s two solutions:

1. Restoration.
   Repealing and phasing out the New Mass. Many traditionalists and I believe this is the only solution and would help end the crisis in the Church.

Pope Benedict’s preference:

1. the hermeneutic of continuity or “reform of the reform”
   Changing the New Mass so that it is similar to the TLM by externals and prayers in Latin, AD Orientem, altar rails, fixed altars, etc. The Pope thinks he can fix the New Mass by making it into a hybrid of the N.O. and TLM. He thinks this will resore the liturgy to tradition.

I agree that Restoration is the only way. If many people leave the Church, then big deal that’s there own problem.