My mother will possibly be Confirmed by Bp. Dolan in May. Should we be concerned about his validity as a Bishop?

And yet it is still divisive among sedevacantists regardless of your assertion. As the SSPV and CMRI perform non-una cuм Masses but do not teach that one is committing a mortal sin assisting at an una cuм Mass; whereas Dolan and co. do, based upon Fr. Cekada's infamous "Grain of incense" argument drawn from Bp. des Lauriers, which they seem to teach as de Fide.

As far as I know, no.

Thanks. 

It's nice to hear or see some consistency sometime. 

Ah, yes, I see the "divisive"' as applied.

But not the "baseless" or "diabolical." How could one pray "una cuм" with a "pope" who is an impostor, and not a pope? It would seem to me to be rather "baseless" or "diabolical" to say Mass "una cuм" with such an impostor.

"Baseless" in the sense that it is a novel theory that has no concrete backing in a Council or pronouncement of a Pope or even a precedent in Church history outside of the Western schism, which didn't even touch the issue of saying Mass una cuм a Papal impostor. Many Masses were said una cuм the Papal claimants, and nowhere did any theologian come out and question the moral nature of assisting at those Masses. It is a novel theory drummed up in the 1980s.

"Diabolic" in that it has further fragmented the traditionalist movement into several camps rather than allow them to unify and counter the Novus Ordo anti-Church. It reeks of the influence of Satan for the purpose of infighting and obfuscation of the laity.

Yeah, no kidding it is a different situation, I'm not unaware of that.

Now, since it is unprecedented, how is it that some who hold the non una cuм position can impose sin upon those who do not without a pronouncement of the Church? They cannot. It resides purely in the realm of theological opinion until the Church declares otherwise. Last I checked, neither +Sanborn, nor +Dolan, nor +Cekada, nor Novus Ordo Watch, possess the authority to do so.

Just like R&R, or sedeprivatonism, or sedevacantism; all of these being theological opinions on how to address this Crisis. Which is why not only the schismatic attitude ALL of us trads have towards EACH OTHER needs to stop but why pithy, worthless feuds like the one now starting between +Sanborn and +Dolan need to stop.

15. St Hypathius and Nestorius

Another historical example has been invoked in favour of the position of those who condemn all misguided traditionalists as heretics or schismatics: the case of St Hypathius. This Bythinian monk insisted on omitting the name of the heretic Nestorius from the diptychs from the moment when he began to preach his heresy, denying the unity of person in Our Divine Lord. His ordinary, Eulalius, while refusing the heresy of Nestorius, rebuked the holy monk Hypathius for withdrawing from communion with their Nestorius, who was their patriarch, before the judgment of a council. Hypathius replied: "...I cannot insert his name in the Canon of the Mass because a heresiarch is not worthy of the title of pastor in the Church; do what you will with me, I am ready to suffer anything, and nothing will make me change my behaviour." (Petits Bollandistes, 17th June)

But in fact this case merely illustrates what all sedevacantists are agreed upon: given a case in which one clearly sees, in all prudence, that one is dealing with a heretic, one must at once withdraw from communion with him. That is of course the correct position to hold with regard to Karol Wojtyla and many others in our days.

But when some sedevacantists withdraw from communion with other sedevacantists on the grounds that the latter remain in communion not with Karol Wojtyla but with certain traditional clergy or laity that the first group consider heretics...they are quite mistaken to quote the case of St Hypathius in their favour. For Hypathius, though he withdrew from communion with Nestorius, clearly did not withdraw from communion with Eulalius, who, though orthodox, mistakenly thought it right to remain provisionally in communion with Nestorius until the Church should have formally pronounced him a heretic.



http://sedevacantist.com/heresyhistory.html