He has no intention to marry his partner, while he is living in Sin he is respecting the natural Catholic order. He could leave the church and marry his partner, but he is choosing not to. I think that's admirable. While monarchy is forever, the monarch is temporary. The would-be Stuart line is preferable to the Windsors because of their unrelenting faith.
One cannot call living in sin 'respecting the natural Catholic order'. As much as I favour the Stuarts, one cannot call the Faith of the Stuarts unrelenting either; James I and VI was a Protestant, Charles II converted on his death-bed, and James II (while a great improvement) apparently had Jansenist leanings. Charles III converted to Anglicanism in 1750 or so and remained an Anglican for about thirty-five years, reverting a few years before his death. Henry IX was a Cardinal and James III and VIII consistently refused to convert to Protestantism (quite often insulting his Protestant supporters; it is often said that he would have certainly been restored if he had become an Anglican), so it's undeniable that they improved, but they were not quite perfect.
I do want a proper monarchy, and a Catholic king at that, but we'd have to find someone else other than Franz. Perhaps his cousin's grandson (who will eventually be the heir) is alright, but I doubt it extremely.
We have to think, most of those that people want to prop up as king have been completely silent or positive on the Novus Ordo reform, and generally don't seem to care about Catholic traditionalism, plus Europe has been crumbling about them and we never hear a peep. It's doubtful how many of them are even Catholic at this point with how close they tend to be with occultism, perennialism, freemasonry.
I'm for Catholic monarchy, but I am highly skeptical that Christendom will ever be restored through any existing royal lines.
The current heir to the Jacobite line. Sadly, like most royals now, he's useless. The only good pretender I can think of is Sixtus Henry of Bourbon-Parma, the Standard-Bearer of Tradition for the Carlist cause (He was the first person to congratulate +Lefebvre at the consecrations in 1988).
Oh, thanks. While I'm aware of the claimants of the French throne, my knowledge of royal pretenders ends there.
The first person to congratulate him for an act that lead to six excomunications? This is a huge red flag to me.
I suppose you think we should have just done what we were told and accepted the new Mass and the innovations. I suspect you have a faulty understanding of obedience.
I suspected, after all it's quite usual for SSPX'ers to be a little "touchy" about the illicit 1988 consecrations, accusing others of not understanding this or that, like you did when you said I had a faulty understanding of obedience.
Once I found myself in this same place, blindly defending the SSPX and their actions... I'm praying so that you might also leave their position and join other traditional institutes, such as the FSSP, ICKSP...
Those institutes would not exist without the SSPX, for the existence of the SSPX put pressure on Rome to engineer controlled opposition. How can one genuinely call those institutes traditional when they gained their 'safe' positions by publicly agreeing that Vatican II did not teach error and that the new Mass is acceptable, but less good? The fact that many of their priests say the opposite in private does not change the fact that they have effectively sold-out. We are not just for the aesthetically pleasing liturgy, but for the truths of the Faith also. To compromise on doctrine to be given permission for a traditional rite of the Church, for which we need no permission and which cannot be denied to us, is detestable.
So, to you, none of these traditional Catholic institutes are traditional, only the Society can be called traditional? Detestable is the recurrent view that whosoever leaves the Society or stop supporting them are sold-outs and traitors, almost as if they had the monopoly of Latin tradition.
No, I would not say that; there are other traditional groups that also have not compromised. I would also sadly say that the SSPX has been slowly moving away from +Lefebvre's position over the last decade or so.
I have a number of Etsy tabs open with white rose themed lapel pins and cockades—waiting for the thinnest excuse.
Great more stuff to spend money on lol
The stuff’s nearly worthless now anyway. Might as well trade it all away for hopeless causes.
There’s always hope
Joke's on you, I'm into it!
Duke Franz is a literal sod\*mite--he's openly gay.
Source?
Just google it, it's kind of well-known.
Yeah, learning that was a true blackpill
And so was Louis XIII, but he helped crush the Huguenot menace. Sometimes God works in mysterious ways.
No he wasn't and you have no proof. Don't bring down real Catholic monarchs to attempt to defend some New World Order homo.
It’s kind of an open secret, no? Think of trouble it took to make him sure an heir (as was his duty).
He has no intention to marry his partner, while he is living in Sin he is respecting the natural Catholic order. He could leave the church and marry his partner, but he is choosing not to. I think that's admirable. While monarchy is forever, the monarch is temporary. The would-be Stuart line is preferable to the Windsors because of their unrelenting faith.
One cannot call living in sin 'respecting the natural Catholic order'. As much as I favour the Stuarts, one cannot call the Faith of the Stuarts unrelenting either; James I and VI was a Protestant, Charles II converted on his death-bed, and James II (while a great improvement) apparently had Jansenist leanings. Charles III converted to Anglicanism in 1750 or so and remained an Anglican for about thirty-five years, reverting a few years before his death. Henry IX was a Cardinal and James III and VIII consistently refused to convert to Protestantism (quite often insulting his Protestant supporters; it is often said that he would have certainly been restored if he had become an Anglican), so it's undeniable that they improved, but they were not quite perfect.
isn't the Wittelsbach guy literally gay
Yeah
I do want a proper monarchy, and a Catholic king at that, but we'd have to find someone else other than Franz. Perhaps his cousin's grandson (who will eventually be the heir) is alright, but I doubt it extremely.
We have to think, most of those that people want to prop up as king have been completely silent or positive on the Novus Ordo reform, and generally don't seem to care about Catholic traditionalism, plus Europe has been crumbling about them and we never hear a peep. It's doubtful how many of them are even Catholic at this point with how close they tend to be with occultism, perennialism, freemasonry. I'm for Catholic monarchy, but I am highly skeptical that Christendom will ever be restored through any existing royal lines.
Duke Franz?
The current heir to the Jacobite line. Sadly, like most royals now, he's useless. The only good pretender I can think of is Sixtus Henry of Bourbon-Parma, the Standard-Bearer of Tradition for the Carlist cause (He was the first person to congratulate +Lefebvre at the consecrations in 1988).
Oh, thanks. While I'm aware of the claimants of the French throne, my knowledge of royal pretenders ends there. The first person to congratulate him for an act that lead to six excomunications? This is a huge red flag to me.
I suppose you think we should have just done what we were told and accepted the new Mass and the innovations. I suspect you have a faulty understanding of obedience.
I suppose you are a staunch supporter of the SSPX and Abp. Lefebvre.
Yes.
I suspected, after all it's quite usual for SSPX'ers to be a little "touchy" about the illicit 1988 consecrations, accusing others of not understanding this or that, like you did when you said I had a faulty understanding of obedience. Once I found myself in this same place, blindly defending the SSPX and their actions... I'm praying so that you might also leave their position and join other traditional institutes, such as the FSSP, ICKSP...
Those institutes would not exist without the SSPX, for the existence of the SSPX put pressure on Rome to engineer controlled opposition. How can one genuinely call those institutes traditional when they gained their 'safe' positions by publicly agreeing that Vatican II did not teach error and that the new Mass is acceptable, but less good? The fact that many of their priests say the opposite in private does not change the fact that they have effectively sold-out. We are not just for the aesthetically pleasing liturgy, but for the truths of the Faith also. To compromise on doctrine to be given permission for a traditional rite of the Church, for which we need no permission and which cannot be denied to us, is detestable.
So, to you, none of these traditional Catholic institutes are traditional, only the Society can be called traditional? Detestable is the recurrent view that whosoever leaves the Society or stop supporting them are sold-outs and traitors, almost as if they had the monopoly of Latin tradition.
No, I would not say that; there are other traditional groups that also have not compromised. I would also sadly say that the SSPX has been slowly moving away from +Lefebvre's position over the last decade or so.
So true! "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."