Non-dogmatic non una cuм-ism is a logical impossibility.  All patience and subjective benefit of the doubt to whoever hasn't realized that yet.

When it comes to the question of una cuм, what Fr. Wathen said is absolute truth no matter how the whole issue gets  sliced, diced and juiced. 

Exactly.

However clearly or intelligently you argue, or how "good" you think your opinion is, in the end it will never by more than your personal opinion.

Fundamentally, we are lacking dogmatic clarity on the exact nature of the Crisis in the Church. Until God intervenes and clarifies the situation for us all, there WILL BE some confusion or disagreement as to the exact nature of the Crisis. The correct course of action will always be inconclusive, or a matter of personal prudence, or opinion.

You can't condemn Catholics for having a different opinion than you. If they are baptized and have the Catholic Faith (they accept everything the Holy Catholic Church teaches), they are Catholic, period. You must be in communion with them in order to be Catholic yourself. You can't shun part of the Mystical Body of Christ unless YOU want to cut YOURSELF off from it.

There are "dogmatc sedes" which is just another term for anyone who is a devout and consistent Catholic who believes in papal claims (I am one of them). There are "dogmatic non una-cuмers" but, thankfully, very few. These are the Stephen Heiner wannabes (minus the ugly gook face) that everyone else pretty much ignores.

Yes, because insulting people you disagree with is going to help. Dogmatic non-una-cuм is a weird position anyway; it turns the entire Trad movement into a cult of personality.

Exactly.

However clearly or intelligently you argue, or how "good" you think your opinion is, in the end it will never by more than your personal opinion.

Fundamentally, we are lacking dogmatic clarity on the exact nature of the Crisis in the Church. Until God intervenes and clarifies the situation for us all, there WILL BE some confusion or disagreement as to the exact nature of the Crisis. The correct course of action will always be inconclusive, or a matter of personal prudence, or opinion.

You can't condemn Catholics for having a different opinion than you. If they are baptized and have the Catholic Faith (they accept everything the Holy Catholic Church teaches), they are Catholic, period. You must be in communion with them in order to be Catholic yourself. You can't shun part of the Mystical Body of Christ unless YOU want to cut YOURSELF off from it.

So, your responise appears contradictory.  I agree with most of what you said after the "Exactly", but you were saying exactly to a statement from Stubbonr that contradicted your next sentence.  He was saying that Father Wathen's opinion on "una cuм" is "absolute truth".

Unless Wathen somehow had some direct inspiratio fromt the Holy Ghost, his position too will "never be more than [his] personal opinion", as you then stated.

Yes, this is precisely what I was saying, except that your opinion can be MORE than JUST your opinion, and there's a bit of gray area between just your opinion (flip a coin, 50-50 shot it's right) and dogmatic certainty.  I think someone can construct arguments that render it more than JUST an opinion, i.e. where it's basically moral certainty.  Theologians do that all the time where they hold that certain conclusions are "theologically certain", where they are certain based on a close logical connection to various revealed truths that we know to be true ... and yet because they're just logical conclusions they're not "de fide" or even proximate to faith, etc.  That's precisely the error that Dimonds and many dogmatic SVs make, where they construct a very solid syllogism based on dogmatic truths, and then declare their conclusion to be dogmatically certain.  No.  As soon as you start layering logic on top of a dogmatic premise, it's no longer dotmatically certain.  If it's just a tiny logical step removed from a dogmatic truth, it might be "proximate" to dogma (i.e. extremely close where no one can see how it isn't), but if it's a little more removed, then theologically certain, then probable, etc.  There are different degrees of certainty that a lof of individuals don't consider.  This also plays into many shoot-from-the-hip accusations of heresy against the Conciliar papal claimants, where they might here an error uttered by the Pope and declare it heresy.  "Where's the dogma he's contradicting?"  In most cases, the accusations involve error that, while grave, fall short of being "de fide", where they're more "theologically certain".  While the case can be made that you still sin against faith by rejecting something theologically certain, the distinction is crucial for the SV hypothesis, since you don't lose membership in the Church for denying a theological certainty or even rejecting something that's proximate to faith (and thereby being proximate to heresy).

Heresy is a much higher bar than just "error", but it's often used interchangeably, and incorrectly.

So, your responise appears contradictory.  I agree with most of what you said after the "Exactly", but you were saying exactly to a statement from Stubbonr that contradicted your next sentence.  He was saying that Father Wathen's opinion on "una cuм" is "absolute truth".

Unless Wathen somehow had some direct inspiratio fromt the Holy Ghost, his position too will "never be more than [his] personal opinion", as you then stated.

Amazing the lengths sede doubtists go to.......Fr. Wathen said something along the lines of: "All of the cardinals in the conclave accepted him as pope and we must also." That the pope was elected and accepted by all of the cardinals is reality, not opinion. On the contrary, that the election was invalid for any number of reasons is only an opinion.

Amazing the lengths sede doubtists go to.......Fr. Wathen said something along the lines of: "All of the cardinals in the conclave accepted him as pope and we must also." That the pope was elected and accepted by all of the cardinals is reality, not opinion. On the contrary, that the election was invalid for any number of reasons is only an opinion.

I am so confused.  If you accept Pope Leo XIV as pope, then why are you here.  Pope Leo XIV would not accept any of us as Catholics in good standing. That is just a fact (it doesn't matter if we attend the SSPX (ok maybe them), but the rest SSPX "resistance", CMRI, SSPV, RCI, Independent chapel, we are all essentially in schism (not the dogmatic one, but we are at odds) with Rome.  Why do we have to make any of this dogmatic?  It just is.  And we pray and wait and hope that we haven't made the wrong decision and that God forgives us if we did.  We try to keep going forward knowing that we will probably die before anything is clear. 

I don't even know who this Father Wathen is.  Did he continue his priesthood in his diocese?  Did he become and independent priest?  What makes him someone I should be taking advice from?

Is it that simple? A priest who is certain that the conciliar popes are not popes would be acting against his own certain conscience in naming them in the mass, and therefore sinning. The logical conclusion of Fr. Wathen's statement is that no one can come to be certain that they are not actual popes, but that is merely his opinion

What did he say that is not true? What did he say that is contrary to what the Church teaches?

There are some things we may not do, one of those things priests may not do, is introduce their opinion into the Church's liturgy. Far as that goes, the Church has taught explicitly that the name of the pope must be mentioned in the Mass. There is no way out of this, you must leave your opinion at the door in this matter. 

I am so confused.  If you accept Pope Leo XIV as pope, then why are you here.  Pope Leo XIV would not accept any of us as Catholics in good standing. That is just a fact (it doesn't matter if we attend the SSPX (ok maybe them), but the rest SSPX "resistance", CMRI, SSPV, RCI, Independent chapel, we are all essentially in schism (not the dogmatic one, but we are at odds) with Rome.  Why do we have to make any of this dogmatic?  It just is.  And we pray and wait and hope that we haven't made the wrong decision and that God forgives us if we did.  We try to keep going forward knowing that we will probably die before anything is clear. 

I don't even know who this Father Wathen is.  Did he continue his priesthood in his diocese?  Did he become and independent priest?  What makes him someone I should be taking advice from?

Gray, don't let yourself be confused about all of this, which primarily revolves around the misunderstanding of papal infallibility, which leads to the idea that we must decide the status of popes. 

A little about Fr. Wathen - he wrote the book The Great Sacrilege when most people never heard of the new mass yet, and he was one priest who remained faithful, never strayed from the traditional faith. I attached a pdf of one of his other books. You would do well to learn about the faith from him - but he has very little to say in the way of sedeism. The video below is, as far as I know, probably the most he ever talked about it in one sitting - interviewed by one of the Dimond bros.

https://youtu.be/_OKbykOfMb4?t=1