Nuances can be very useful, except when dealing with those who hold that R&R is heretical and schismatic. Not much point in nuances. But you're right in the sense that you really only consider those who follow R&R to be heretical and schismatic.

  Let me repeat this for probably the 25th time.  I do not hold that all articulations of what's very broadly (and unhelpfully) called "R&R" are "heretical".  And it's also a lie that I only consider R&R to be heretical and/or schismatic.  I think that various flavors of dogmatic SVism (while not heretical) are schismatic.  But none of this matters to you or else you're not capable of understanding it.

  Let me repeat this for probably the 25th time.  I do not hold that all articulations of what's very broadly (and unhelpfully) called "R&R" are "heretical".  And it's also a lie that I only consider R&R to be heretical and/or schismatic.  I think that various flavors of dogmatic SVism (while not heretical) are schismatic.  But none of this matters to you or else you're not capable of understanding it.

Actually no one has said it better than Meg herself:

Hi, I'm new to the forum. I'm a regular on FE, but given the recent scandal there, I'm not sure if I can go back there. I would like to participate on a forum where Catholics are serious about their faith. However, I'm not really a fan of the SSPX, so I'll avoid those topics which have to do with the SSPX, or Sedevacantism. If I do posts in those sections, remind me that I said I wouldn't!

God bless!

Meg, please be honest. We discuss ecclesiology and the implication of that for the Church.

If you would honestly engage with us you would realize our position is consistent. I hold 0 ill will against you but you need to overcome these mental blocks/insanity. You and Sean both don't take the vaccine your Pope says should be taken out of love for fellow man, you both don't attend the liturgy he implores is the lex orandi of your Faith etc.  Pope St.Pius X on RnR and obedience:Your position is attractive but simply untenable.

So you do not discuss the implications of Modernism. You implied that you did. You see, the term "Modernism" actually has to be referred to, in order to qualify as discussing Modernism.

So you do not discuss the implications of Modernism. You implied that you did. You see, the term "Modernism" actually has to be referred to, in order to qualify as discussing Modernism.

This is another dishonest assertion, unless you think the VII ecclesiology is entirely orthodox and not infected with Modernism.

Your discussion is geared toward the authority of the Pope. You may use quotes from St. Pius X, but you are not actually discussing Modernism. You only care about the authority of the Pope, and not the actual heresy of Modernism. Only that which will further your chance to convert trads to sedevacantism is discussed.

You need to retract saying I don't care about the heresy of Modernism, because I do. I'm going to disengage from this discussion with you because it clearly is not productive. God bless you Meg.

I do understand it.

You don't.  But ... if you did, then you simply don't care about facts.

focused on incessantly and obsessively… blah, blah, blah sedevacantism… blah, blah, blah sedevacantists…blah, blah, blah sedes…blah, blah, blah sedevacantism…blah, blah, blah sedes… blah, blah, blah sedevacantists…blah, blah, blah sedes…

What a world. Monkey pox, imminent world war, and the shrew is back.

Your opinions, which change often and are not consistent, do not necessarily qualify as "Facts".

While I do occasionally change my mind on a subject, on this matter I've been very consistent for years.  I have a more nuanced position that is actually rather in between the extremes of dogmatic SVism and dogmatic R&Rism.  I have been critical of both extremes, but find anything between the issues with the extremes to be acceptable ...

Dogmatic SPism :::: +Lefebvre ::: Chazal ::: Moderate SVism/SPism ::: Dogmatic SVism

Issues I have are with both the extremes in bold.  I disagree with straight SVism but favor more SPism and Father Chazal's opinion (who thinks of himself as R&R).  I find +Lefebvre's position to be acceptable (if you don't try to distort it and falsely make him out to be a dogmatic sedeprivationist .. which he was not), though I disagree with his lack of properly articulating it (which as led to the evolution of dogmatic R&Rism).

But your mind, it's a binary ... either R&R or SVism ( you lump it all as "sedes", a nonsensical term, since SPs are also "sedes").  Nor is SPism straight SVism, but more akin to Father Chazal's opinion (although there are some dogmatic SPist types).

So your perception of "changing often" and not being "consistent" are merely a product of your mind being unable to grasp the nuances above.  You see in binary:  R&R vs. SV.  You simply can't comprehend how I might disagree and agree at the same time with some of these positions.