CathInfo.com

If you read his twitter posts you see he does understand the difference.

Likely explanation is that whatever resistance priest he contacted told him he was "allowed" to go to the SSPX. because the resistance has no presence in idaho sadly.

That's funny, because I've been following him on X for a long time, and I've seen him refer to the "Resistance" serveral times when he was clearly referring to the SSPX proper.

So, this gives me hope for the Resistance afterall, that they're nowhere near as dogmatic as you are.  Funny that you call me "dogmatic sede" when I'm fine with people going to SSPX Masses, in principle, barring certain circuмstances such as doubtful NO presiders or a particularly egregious Modernist type being the priest (aka Fr. Paul Robinson).

Here's the thing, Tom.  Before Vatican II, there's no doubt but that in the 1940s and 1950s there were huge numbers of Modernist and heretic priests floating around, and nobody had any obligation to avoid the Sacraments.  In fact, if you had told a confessor that you missed your Sunday obligation or Easter duty because the priest at the only church you could get to is a Modernist, he would not hold you exonerated for having failed to meet your obligation.

I think you need to snap out of whatever "No Salvation Outside Williamson" mentality you're stuck in, since Bishop Williamson would have been the FIRST one to denounce this thinking.  As I said, I knew Bishop Williamson (very well), and you're no +Williamson.  Ironically, Tom, this is precisely that schismatic thinking that has long plagued many of the more dogmatic sedevacantists (and despite your allegations, I have long denounced that mentality), so please (and I say this sincerely) please pray about this that you can snap out of it, since it has resulted in the shipwreck of many a a soul, where the mentality is highly redolent of that "leaven of the Pharisees" that Our Lord denounced.  You are not appointed some gatekeeper of orthodoxy, where you have some obligation to warn others way from SSPX, CMRI, etc.  Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but at the end of the day, once your opinion has been duly noted, you let it drop and leave people to decide for themselves.

While I otherwise respect SSPV, I find serious fault with them over their attitude toward the +Thuc line.  They have no authority to impose their opinion on the consciences of others.  They are entitled to opine and to warn people that "hey, I feel that you're endangering your soul by going there", but that's where it stops.  They have no business refusing Communion to someone who assists at the Mass of a +Thuc-line priest.  Zero.  Church has not ruled on the matter, and they are not the Church.  Period.  End of story.

That's funny, because I've been following him on X for a long time, and I've seen him refer to the "Resistance" serveral times when he was clearly referring to the SSPX proper.

So, this gives me hope for the Resistance afterall, that they're nowhere near as dogmatic as you are.  Funny that you call me "dogmatic sede" when I'm fine with people going to SSPX Masses, in principle, barring certain circuмstances such as doubtful NO presiders or a particularly egregious Modernist type being the priest (aka Fr. Paul Robinson).

Here's the thing, Tom.  Before Vatican II, there's no doubt but that in the 1940s and 1950s there were huge numbers of Modernist and heretic priests floating around, and nobody had any obligation to avoid the Sacraments.  In fact, if you had told a confessor that you missed your Sunday obligation or Easter duty because the priest at the only church you could get to is a Modernist, he would not hold you exonerated for having failed to meet your obligation.

I think you need to snap out of whatever "No Salvation Outside Williamson" mentality you're stuck in, since Bishop Williamson would have been the FIRST one to denounce this thinking.  As I said, I knew Bishop Williamson (very well), and you're no +Williamson.  Ironically, Tom, this is precisely that schismatic thinking that has long plagued many of the more dogmatic sedevacantists (and despite your allegations, I have long denounced that mentality), so please (and I say this sincerely) please pray about this that you can snap out of it, since it has resulted in the shipwreck of many a a soul, where the mentality is highly redolent of that "leaven of the Pharisees" that Our Lord denounced.  You are not appointed some gatekeeper of orthodoxy, where you have some obligation to warn others way from SSPX, CMRI, etc.  Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but at the end of the day, once your opinion has been duly noted, you let it drop and leave people to decide for themselves.

While I otherwise respect SSPV, I find serious fault with them over their attitude toward the +Thuc line.  They have no authority to impose their opinion on the consciences of others.  They are entitled to opine and to warn people that "hey, I feel that you're endangering your soul by going there", but that's where it stops.  They have no business refusing Communion to someone who assists at the Mass of a +Thuc-line priest.  Zero.  Church has not ruled on the matter, and they are not the Church.  Period.  End of story.

Making things personal about me is just your slimey way of trying to stop people thinking objectively about the issue of where God wants them to go to Mass.

(Hint - its not the tradecuмenical blob that you promote)

If you read his twitter posts you see he does understand the difference.

Likely explanation is that whatever resistance priest he contacted told him he was "allowed" to go to the SSPX. because the resistance has no presence in idaho sadly.

Not only does the Resistance have no presence in Idaho, it has no presence in my state either (Washington state). In fact, there are many states with no Resistance presence. Probably most states in the entire U.S., actually. 

Yes, I think it likely that a Resistance priest said that it is okay to attend an SSPX Mass. They do have valid sacraments, after all.