I'll quibble only with you saying "The congreagtions of the NO churches - all over - will continue to shrink" because you qualified it with "NO." There is no such church as the No Church. There is only the Church. Calling it the "NO Church" is professing a schism which does not exist. SSPX Is not a basis for qualifying that statement, not because they are schismatic, but because they are insignificant in size to justify qualifying the "Church" with the adjective "NO."
Yes, SSPX has grown. Protestants have witnessed 1000 times when an insignificantly small new denomination starts up, it's growth looks impressive. The act that there are 200 million people who are more comfortable with Latin Mass, and the SSPX has brought over several thousand of them does not impress me that the SSPX is the future of the Church.
Call it what you will, but I was not in any way making a reference to the SSPX. Why do you have to do that?
I dont care what we want to call the institutional structure of the....the "church"......"post-conciliar church"........it really does not matter.
IN using the term "NO", I am referring to the regular Novus Ordo Church. I am not referring to the SSPX, SSPV, FSSP Indult masses, nor independant chapel. All of these groups would style themselves as being Roman Catholic, and as adhering to/professing the traditional faith of the church.
AS a sociologist, I would lump these all together as various flavors of "Traditionalism" in Catholicism, as compared to the regular institutional NO Catholic Church.
By use of that term, I am simply trying to make a distinction - to qualify WHOM I am referring to. That is a lot different from saying "who is better".
Thus, in the use of that term, I have clarified whom I am referring to - in my observations of mass going trends.
I refuse to get dragged into another fruitless "SSPX discussion". I will however state that the future of the Church does indeed lie in those who seek out and follow Tradition.