Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => The Feeneyism Ghetto => Topic started by: curiouscatholic23 on December 16, 2011, 01:44:04 AM
-
Raoul, I have tried to ask you this privately via message but you never responded so I want to ask you here.
On your cathinfo icon logo you have it posted
"Please ignore my old posts against NFP and implicit faith. Both are true teachings of the Church!"
What infalliable teachings made you decide that NFP and "implicit faith" were true teachings of the Church?
Why did you change your position on these two issues?
I'm asking you this because I think you are one of the most intelligent posters on here and I have a lot of respect for you, but I also believe in water baptism and I also think Pius XII address to midwives was erroneous because it contradicted casti connubi, however it was not heretical because it was a speech addressed to a private audience.
I'm curious as to WHY you believe in BOD (I'm assuming BOD/implicit faith are the same thing) and NFP.
Thank you.
-
Whether NFP is good or evil hinges upon the intent of those using it. I personally think it is a very very dangerous path to walk down, one which can easily lead to embracing a contraceptive mentality.
-
Raoul, I have tried to ask you this privately via message but you never responded so I want to ask you here.
On your cathinfo icon logo you have it posted
"Please ignore my old posts against NFP and implicit faith. Both are true teachings of the Church!"
What infalliable teachings made you decide that NFP and "implicit faith" were true teachings of the Church?
Why did you change your position on these two issues?
I'm asking you this because I think you are one of the most intelligent posters on here and I have a lot of respect for you, but I also believe in water baptism and I also think Pius XII address to midwives was erroneous because it contradicted casti connubi, however it was not heretical because it was a speech addressed to a private audience.
I'm curious as to WHY you believe in BOD (I'm assuming BOD/implicit faith are the same thing) and NFP.
Thank you.
Instead of asking a good poster, which Raoul definately is, about such important questions, why don't you ASK A PRIEST?
Only a fool would ask a layman over a priest such an important question... Please, for the sake of your soul, stop trying to get your religion from the internet.
-
Raoul, I have tried to ask you this privately via message but you never responded so I want to ask you here.
On your cathinfo icon logo you have it posted
"Please ignore my old posts against NFP and implicit faith. Both are true teachings of the Church!"
What infalliable teachings made you decide that NFP and "implicit faith" were true teachings of the Church?
Why did you change your position on these two issues?
I'm asking you this because I think you are one of the most intelligent posters on here and I have a lot of respect for you, but I also believe in water baptism and I also think Pius XII address to midwives was erroneous because it contradicted casti connubi, however it was not heretical because it was a speech addressed to a private audience.
I'm curious as to WHY you believe in BOD (I'm assuming BOD/implicit faith are the same thing) and NFP.
Thank you.
Instead of asking a good poster, which Raoul definately is, about such important questions, why don't you ASK A PRIEST?
Only a fool would ask a layman over a priest such an important question... Please, for the sake of your soul, stop trying to get your religion from the internet.
:rolleyes:
-
I think he's asking me why I changed my mind. He already knows what a priest will say, but he's struggling with scruples.
Well, I'd say one of the things that made me change my mind on NFP, was that someone I respect, a priest in France, saw no problems with it, nor did any of the French clergy. It became increasingly hard to believe that ALL the clergy would be wrong. One day the fog just lifted and I realized it was a true teaching.
I was never a Feeneyite. I had some problems with the invincible ignorance concept for a while.
-
I was never a Feeneyite. I had some problems with the invincible ignorance concept for a while.
What did you read/hear that made you overcome thse problems?
How can you reconcile invincible ignorance with Bull Cantante Domino stating explicitly "All pagans, jews, hertics, and schismatics will go to the everlasting fires unless they convert before death?"
-
I think that has been amply covered, cc23. Someone who dies as a catechumen or in invincible ignorance is a member of the Church by desire, thus he does not die outside the Church.
-
I think that has been amply covered, cc23. Someone who dies as a catechumen or in invincible ignorance is a member of the Church by desire, thus he does not die outside the Church.
What pope/council declared this?
-
Trent for the Council, Pius IX for the Pope, but you have to put them together.
It is better to ask, what Pope or Council ever declared AGAINST the numerous theologians, by far the majority in the 19th century, who taught what I just said. Unless you think that Popes have been asleep on the watch for hundreds of years and couldn't catch this heresy, while you and the Feeneyites can?
-
Trent for the Council, Pius IX for the Pope, but you have to put them together.
It is better to ask, what Pope or Council ever declared AGAINST the numerous theologians, by far the majority in the 19th century, who taught what I just said. Unless you think that Popes have been asleep on the watch for hundreds of years and couldn't catch this heresy, while you and the Feeneyites can?
I would highly recommend reading MHFM book "Outside The Church There is Absolutely No Salvation." It addresses all the points you brought up.
1.) That same Council of Trent also says John 3:5 must be interpreted AS IT IS WRITTEN. Could it be that "desire" mentioned in Trent refers to penance?
2.) Pius IX docuмent was falliable.
One final question for you.
Do you think an unbaptized satanist could ever be "invincibly ignorant" under extraordinary circuмstances? Why or why not?
Thanks Raoul, I just wanted to see what was in your head.
-
Why are you calling out a person in public? I'm a we bit crazy about that
-
Why are you calling out a person in public? I'm a we bit crazy about that
He brought onto himself by saying that NFP and implicit faith were true teachings on the church. I am trying to figure out his perspective.
-
Well, I'd say one of the things that made me change my mind on NFP, was that someone I respect, a priest in France, saw no problems with it, nor did any of the French clergy.
That's a very weak reason. Lots of people support lots of priests, and priests often of approve of things they shouldn't.
As for the fact that French priests you know of approve of it - that's another very weak reason, given the national character of France.
I'm not going to say that periodic abstention is wrong or immoral, but it certainly can be done for immoral reasons. For that reason it seems to me to be a gray area of morality. The people who condemn it all outright do not have justification for their position, because you cannot prove that paying the marriage debt is wrong, or that there are not grave reasons for mutual abstention. The very terminology "NFP" is very troubling, as is the idea that young couples who seek to be married should be trained in such "techniques". (I'm not sure trads do that however)
-
replace "not" with "never"
-
I would highly recommend reading MHFM book "Outside The Church There is Absolutely No Salvation." It addresses all the points you brought up.
I would highly reccommend you burn that book.
And why did they need to change "Outside the Church There is No Salvation" to "Outside The Church There is Absolutely No Salvation"?
-
I would highly recommend reading MHFM book "Outside The Church There is Absolutely No Salvation." It addresses all the points you brought up.
I would highly reccommend you burn that book.
And why did they need to change "Outside the Church There is No Salvation" to "Outside The Church There is Absolutely No Salvation"?
s2srea, I'm just curious when I ask this, but would you or have you attended a sedevacantist-clergy led Mass?
FYI.. I have the Dimonds books, and they are a wealth of knowledge, yet at many times I have felt a bit over the top in their dealings with people they call "heretics" many times. Something about the books feels a little creepy or eerie too... but thats just feelings. Maybe its the devil tempting me away from reading it, but maybe its God saying don't read it. Who knows.
-
s2srea, I'm just curious when I ask this, but would you or have you attended a sedevacantist-clergy led Mass?
FYI.. I have the Dimonds books, and they are a wealth of knowledge, yet at many times I have felt a bit over the top in their dealings with people they call "heretics" many times. Something about the books feels a little creepy or eerie too... but thats just feelings. Maybe its the devil tempting me away from reading it, but maybe its God saying don't read it. Who knows.
PIO, as I've mentioned before, I attend CMRI masses every so often. About every two months.
FYI- As Raoul76 has said before, there's always some truth to heretics, like the Diamonds. Its the non truth that is dangerous, especially for those with scruples like cc223.
-
s2srea, I'm just curious when I ask this, but would you or have you attended a sedevacantist-clergy led Mass?
FYI.. I have the Dimonds books, and they are a wealth of knowledge, yet at many times I have felt a bit over the top in their dealings with people they call "heretics" many times. Something about the books feels a little creepy or eerie too... but thats just feelings. Maybe its the devil tempting me away from reading it, but maybe its God saying don't read it. Who knows.
PIO, as I've mentioned before, I attend CMRI masses every so often. About every two months.
FYI- As Raoul76 has said before, there's always some truth to heretics, like the Diamonds. Its the non truth that is dangerous, especially for those with scruples like cc223.
You just called the Dimonds heretics. Does that mean you believe the Dimonds should be barred from communion if by chance they showed up at your CMRI chapel this Sunday?
Do you think I am a heretic and headed to hell because I believe NFP is sinful and I take John 3:5 as it is written?
Be carefull how loosely you throw around the word heretic.
-
Be carefull how loosely you throw around the word heretic.
:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:
..... Coming from the guy promoting MHFM on this forum! hahahahaha!
:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:
-
I would highly recommend reading MHFM book "Outside The Church There is Absolutely No Salvation." It addresses all the points you brought up.
The problem, curiouscatholic, is that you just can't use the Dimonds as the authority on everything. They aren't even priests, for starters. They're laymen. What a priest says regarding theology is more important than what a laymen says on theology, unless that priest happens to be a flaming liberal.
Be carefull how loosely you throw around the word heretic.
The Dimonds might want to take your advice as well, they throw around the word heretic more than anyone I have ever seen. They say you're a heretic if you put money in the plate of the SSPX, FSSP, CMRI, SSPV, or any of the other priestly groups and encourage home-alone-ism. They also label nearly everyone as heretics, and for pretty ridiculous reasons. For example, one time on their web-site they said Archbishop LeFebvre was a heretic for using the 1962 Missal. Nonsense! I admit that a pre-1962 Missal would be better, but you aren't a heretic just because you use a 1962 Missal.
I agree with Raoul on BOD, if you die desiring to be a member of the Church then you die a member of the Church.
I don't have a problem with you or anyone else using some material from the Dimonds. What bothers me though, cc, is that you use them and what they say for almost every subject. They aren't right about everything and you need to realize that at some point for the good of your soul.
-
Telesphorus said:
That's a very weak reason. Lots of people support lots of priests, and priests often of approve of things they shouldn't.
As for the fact that French priests you know of approve of it - that's another very weak reason, given the national character of France.
Leaving aside the dig at France, no, it isn't weak to be obedient, to learn to mistrust yourself and trust someone who has more expertise than you.
Of course I know priests can be wrong about things, but when ALL priests are saying this is a true teaching, including one who is hitting every single mark politically, spiritually, etc. -- in other words, not tainted with any Americanism whatsoever -- then that has value.
Do you think Christ was obedient to His mother for 30 years because He wanted us to be lone wolves and piece it all together on our own? If even He was obedient, that is telling us we HAVE to be obedient. EVERYONE will be put to that test; if you can't bend the knee, you are heading for blindness. I have seen it over and over and over again.
But the main thing is, I didn't change my mind on my own, meaning it wasn't like I thought my way out of the problem. I can see Feeneyites doing that, everything is about logic and thinking, trusting their own intellect, trying to puzzle things out, make connections -- but it is THEIR intellect, human intellect, not the mind of God. I had a major scruple, the devil was trying to get me to stay home from Mass, and succeeding; I had no peace of mind, looking back I was extremely tormented, and in God's mercy He lifted the fog. I also had people praying for me. I was told by a priest at CMRI that almost no one in that situation ever snaps out of it, so that was yet another miraculous save on God's part. There have been many.
-
Of course I know priests can be wrong about things, but when ALL priests are saying this is a true teaching, including one who is hitting every single mark politically, spiritually, etc. -- in other words, not tainted with any Americanism whatsoever -- then that has value.
How do you define the "true teaching of NFP"
Because even the use of the words NFP to describe it is problematic.
There are people using"NFP" with the approval of trad priests right now who are probably sinning. Just as there are many people who have an overly liberal view of drinking.
There's never been more apostasy than now, so while I'm not saying I approve of the positions of posters like Ladislaus and the scruples of CC, I do think that the fact that sede priests from France seem to generally approve of something is a very weak reason to have unqualified support for it.
-
I would highly recommend reading MHFM book "Outside The Church There is Absolutely No Salvation." It addresses all the points you brought up.
The problem, curiouscatholic, is that you just can't use the Dimonds as the authority on everything. They aren't even priests, for starters. They're laymen. What a priest says regarding theology is more important than what a laymen says on theology, unless that priest happens to be a flaming liberal.
Well said SS. If I may add, not only are they (MHFM) laymen, they're laymen posing as monks! And they're high school dropouts!
Someone (nadie I think) said somewhere that the Diamonds have more 'testicular fortitude' than the posters here who argue against them. Actually, if they're gonna rip hundreds of people off, they'd better damn well have testicular fortitude, condemning virtually everyone they encounter as a heretic- they do this because they're not priests, people will not go to them for sacraments, so they scare people into believing all virtually all priests are heretics, and if they support these priests, they're also heretics! Nice way to make money- only they're placing their souls and the souls of thousands of others in danger! You can keep your testicular fortitude for all I care. I'd rather not be a feeneyite heretic or a follower of a high school drop out.
-
Could you as a Catholic in good conscience say:
"We planned our family, how many children we would have"
The term NFP should not be used.
-
Could you as a Catholic in good conscience say:
"We planned our family, how many children we would have"
The term NFP should not be used.
I agree sort of agree with you Tele but what is the proper term, rhythm?
-
I agree sort of agree with you Tele but what is the proper term, rhythm?
What did Pope Pius XII call it?
The matrimonial contract, which confers on the married couple the right to satisfy the inclination of nature, constitutes them in a state of life, namely, the matrimonial state. Now, on married couples, who make use of the specific act of their state, nature and the Creator impose the function of providing for the preservation of mankind. This is the characteristic service which gives rise to the peculiar value of their state, the <bonum prolis>. The individual and society, the people and the State, the Church itself, depend for their existence, in the order established by God, on fruitful marriages. Therefore, to embrace the matrimonial state, to use continually the faculty proper to such a state and lawful only therein, and, at the same time, to avoid its primary duty without a grave reason, would be a sin against the very nature of married life.
Serious motives, such as those which not rarely arise from medical, eugenic, economic and social so-called "indications," may exempt husband and wife from the obligatory, positive debt for a long period or even for the entire period of matrimonial life. From this it follows that the observance of the natural sterile periods may be lawful, from the moral viewpoint: and it is lawful in the conditions mentioned. If, however, according to a reasonable and equitable judgment, there are no such grave reasons either personal or deriving from exterior circuмstances, the will to avoid the fecundity of their union, while continuing to satisfy to tile full their sensuality, can only be the result of a false appreciation of life and of motives foreign to sound ethical principles.
-
I would highly recommend reading MHFM book "Outside The Church There is Absolutely No Salvation." It addresses all the points you brought up.
The problem, curiouscatholic, is that you just can't use the Dimonds as the authority on everything. They aren't even priests, for starters. They're laymen. What a priest says regarding theology is more important than what a laymen says on theology, unless that priest happens to be a flaming liberal.
Well said SS. If I may add, not only are they (MHFM) laymen, they're laymen posing as monks! And they're high school dropouts!
Someone (nadie I think) said somewhere that the Diamonds have more 'testicular fortitude' than the posters here who argue against them. Actually, if they're gonna rip hundreds of people off, they'd better damn well have testicular fortitude, condemning virtually everyone they encounter as a heretic- they do this because they're not priests, people will not go to them for sacraments, so they scare people into believing all virtually all priests are heretics, and if they support these priests, they're also heretics! Nice way to make money- only they're placing their souls and the souls of thousands of others in danger! You can keep your testicular fortitude for all I care. I'd rather not be a feeneyite heretic or a follower of a high school drop out.
You keep saying they are high school dropouts. Who cares? Its a public masonic school system anyway. And even if they were dropouts, they are the most articulate and intelligent high school dropouts I have ever heard.
-
You keep saying they are high school dropouts. Who cares? Its a public masonic school system anyway. And even if they were dropouts, they are the most articulate and intelligent high school dropouts I have ever heard.
Them having dropped out of high school doesn't bother me that much, even though I wouldn't advise someone to ditch education alltogether (I'd tell them to homeschool instead). But what bothers me cc, is that they label themselves as monks when they're really laymen and go around making declarations and rules as if they have the authority to do so. They are not ordained and we shoudn't trust a layperson over a priest, unless like I said that priest happens to be flaming liberal.
You're missing the point, cc. There's nothing wrong with using some of their materal or to agree with some of the things they say. But to look to them as the authority on everything is dangerous, regardless of how intelligent they are.
-
You keep saying they are high school dropouts. Who cares? Its a public masonic school system anyway. And even if they were dropouts, they are the most articulate and intelligent high school dropouts I have ever heard.
Them having dropped out of high school doesn't bother me that much, even though I wouldn't advise someone to ditch education alltogether (I'd tell them to homeschool instead). But what bothers me cc, is that they label themselves as monks when they're really laymen and go around making declarations and rules as if they have the authority to do so. They are not ordained and we shoudn't trust a layperson over a priest, unless like I said that priest happens to be flaming liberal.
You're missing the point, cc. There's nothing wrong with using some of their materal or to agree with some of the things they say. But to look to them as the authority on everything is dangerous, regardless of how intelligent they are.
Well now that I am a sede and I believe in John 3:5 as it is written and I believe in Cast Connubi who else am I to turn to for answers?
-
You don't have to get ALL of your answers on Catholicism from sedes.
-
You don't have to get ALL of your answers on Catholicism from sedes.
Why not? I am starting to loose patience with SSPXers. How many times do they have to see and hear the arguments before they realize their position is not catholic and unacceptable?
-
Go see a priest. Any priest- sede, sspx, CMRI- just see one. You need it man.
-
Go see a priest. Any priest- sede, sspx, CMRI- just see one. You need it man.
Why? They all believe in NFP, BOD, & Invincible ignorance.
-
These young men are being cut down in rows. At this point it's almost like a rite of passage to go through a Feeneyite or semi-Feeneyite phase, but for many it's not a phase.
Serious Catholics tend to be intelligent; intelligent people tend to be susceptible to intellectual pride. It has always been this way, but today, there is no Pope, and the even bigger problem is a lack of interest in the spiritual life, in learning humility, obedience, in overcoming self.
I understand cc23 quite well, I had a problem with SSPX priests because of their junk theology; so I felt superior there. Then CMRI has that kind of neo-con thing going on that made me paranoid about them. While political affiliation has nothing to do with dogma, I came to religion from the conspiracy-theory angle, and I was really thrown off by the idea of people of the faith supporting the likes of George Bush Jr. and Sarah Palin ( still am, to be honest ). I felt like I had no one I could trust.
CC23 needs prayers, first of all. But I will say, and I have heard this from someone else, probably the easiest and quickest way to get over this intellectual pride, is to read books about saints. I say ABOUT saints, not BY saints; books BY saints comes later, when you are already on the road to perfection, then you can crack St. Theresa of Avila or what have you. But when you read books ABOUT saints, it gives you a pattern of behavior, you see how a holy man should speak and behave and think. The next step after that: The consecration to Mary. The next step after that... I don't know yet.
-
These young men are being cut down in rows. At this point it's almost like a rite of passage to go through a Feeneyite or semi-Feeneyite phase, but for many it's not a phase.
Serious Catholics tend to be intelligent; intelligent people tend to be susceptible to intellectual pride. It has always been this way, but today, there is no Pope, and the even bigger problem is a lack of interest in the spiritual life, in learning humility, obedience, in overcoming self.
I understand cc23 quite well, I had a problem with SSPX priests because of their junk theology; so I felt superior there. Then CMRI has that kind of neo-con thing going on that made me paranoid about them. While political affiliation has nothing to do with dogma, I came to religion from the conspiracy-theory angle, and I was really thrown off by the idea of people of the faith supporting the likes of George Bush Jr. and Sarah Palin ( still am, to be honest ). I felt like I had no one I could trust.
CC23 needs prayers, first of all. But I will say, and I have heard this from someone else, probably the easiest and quickest way to get over this intellectual pride, is to read books about saints. I say ABOUT saints, not BY saints; books BY saints comes later, when you are already on the road to perfection, then you can crack St. Theresa of Avila or what have you. But when you read books ABOUT saints, it gives you a pattern of behavior, you see how a holy man should speak and behave and think. The next step after that: The consecration to Mary. The next step after that... I don't know yet.
BOD lead to Invincible Ignorance which lead to Religious Liberty.
If someone says a great thumb worshiper could be saved through invincible ignorance, you are basically saying the great thumb religion is a means of salvation. If it is a means of salvation, why should someone not be allowed to worship it? Why should the government not infringe on his RIGHT to worship the great thumb?
-
BOD lead to Invincible Ignorance which lead to Religious Liberty.
Horsepoop. Who here who believes in BOD believes in Religious Liberty. That's what you call a slippery slope.
If someone says a great thumb worshiper could be saved through invincible ignorance, you are basically saying the great thumb religion is a means of salvation. If it is a means of salvation, why should someone not be allowed to worship it? Why should the government not infringe on his RIGHT to worship the great thumb?
That was stupid. You really show your ignorance for the matter. Go check out some of the multitude of threads on this forum for why.
-
BOD lead to Invincible Ignorance which lead to Religious Liberty.
Horsepoop. Who here who believes in BOD believes in Religious Liberty. That's what you call a slippery slope.
If someone says a great thumb worshiper could be saved through invincible ignorance, you are basically saying the great thumb religion is a means of salvation. If it is a means of salvation, why should someone not be allowed to worship it? Why should the government not infringe on his RIGHT to worship the great thumb?
That was stupid. You really show your ignorance for the matter. Go check out some of the multitude of threads on this forum for why.
Bad will.
-
Just want to correct two possible misperceptions that could come about from my last post:
( 1 ) I don't know if any of the priests at CMRI are neo-cons. I have been told that Bp. Pivarunas is a staunch Republican. But the CMRI priests do have this habit of telling stirring stories about the Founding Fathers and things like this, while my approach would be more like "Who cares, they're Masons." The laity does seem to have a severe neo-con influence.
( 2 ) I didn't mean to say that cc23 or anyone else shouldn't read books by the saints, just that books about the saints seem to me to be more helpful for someone in his position. Certainly reading about St. Vincent de Paul or St. Theresa or St. Gemma was more beneficial for me than reading tomes about marriage by St. Augustine and fancying myself a super-brain like him.
-
CC23 said:
If someone says a great thumb worshiper could be saved through invincible ignorance, you are basically saying the great thumb religion is a means of salvation. If it is a means of salvation, why should someone not be allowed to worship it? Why should the government not infringe on his RIGHT to worship the great thumb?
Hey, I think it's wrong to say that we can be saved by baptism alone. Someone who dies right after being baptized, and is saved, doesn't even do any good works! So the idea that baptism alone saves people is contrary to good works, it's like saying you can be saved while doing nothing for God. This is a sin against charity. Therefore I believe babies, because they can't do good works, shouldn't be baptized until they are rational adults and can make their own decision if they want to be in God's service. If they die before that happens, that is just too bad, God foresaw that they were going to turn into axe murderers in the future so He took them out before that could happen, so their spot in hell wouldn't be as bad.
A little reductio ad absurdum to show the Protestant lunacy you are on the verge of, or already are, espousing.
It's very simple CC23, God knows the heart, and He knows who would have accepted the Catholic religion if they had known about it, okay? This may be ten billion people or it may be nobody. Do you have to be God, do you have to know exactly who is going to be saved, or can you let Him handle it? This is not saying that the Shaka Zulu religion is the means of salvation. It is saying the Catholic Church is the means of salvation for someone who would have accepted it if he had known about it.
Why would God have allowed someone to be in ignorance of the Catholic Church? Well, why would He allow someone like St. John Vianney to rack up so many good works, and so many merits for himself, while other people maybe do one or two? Maybe someone does nothing good all his life, then saves someone from drowning, losing his own life in the process. If he died in the faith, he gets to go to the same heaven as St. Francis de Sales who converted thousands upon thousands. He may not be as high up in heaven, he may not be a supreme courtier of Mary -- which, by the way, is my idea of a high place in heaven -- but he will still be there. God apportions His grace how He will.
-
I think a Feeneyite just put me on ignore. They are aggressive lately.
-
Bad will.
No, not bad will. Concern for your soul and being led away from truth.
-
I was never a Feeneyite. I had some problems with the invincible ignorance concept for a while.
What did you read/hear that made you overcome thse problems?
How can you reconcile invincible ignorance with Bull Cantante Domino stating explicitly "All pagans, jews, hertics, and schismatics will go to the everlasting fires unless they convert before death?"
I have heard that this Bull was addressed to Catholics and thus applies to Catholics who become pagans, Jews, heretics, schismatics, and not necessarily to those who have been these things since birth.
-
You don't have to get ALL of your answers on Catholicism from sedes.
Why not? I am starting to loose patience with SSPXers. How many times do they have to see and hear the arguments before they realize their position is not catholic and unacceptable?
Listen, some of my answers came from sedevacantists when I was still a fairly new Traditional Catholic. I wasn't a sede and was a staunch SSPXer, yet I didn't go around saying I'd only accept advice from SSPX priests. I've even learned alot from listening to sermons from FSSP priests even though I don't agree with the FSSP position. Just because you hold a certain position on the crisis in the Church doesn't mean you should completely avoid any priest or group that holds a different position on the crisis. If your spiritual life is in need of help, then you need to find a Traditional priest regardless of whether or not he is a sede. I think you'd benefit alot more from a Traditional priest than you would from listening to everything the Dimond Brothers have to say.