I'm making a point that doesn't necessarily have to do with your point. Not directly anyway.

This is why most of your posts are convoluted.  You fail to debate like a normal human being.

I think that the one thing which complicates the V2 heresy is that those in the Novus Ordo still continue to publicly PROFESS the faith, many of them continue to publicly profess subjection to the Pope.  They have embraced the V2 errors in many cases simply because they THOUGHT it was taught by the Church.  So they continue so have the formal motive of faith, the subjection to the Church's authority.  That is the very essence of purely material heresy, where the formal motive is there.  In most typical cases of heresy, since the Church teaches the opposite of what they hold pertinaciously, the obvious presumption is that they lack the formal motive of faith and are therefore formal heretics.  But here where they continue to aver publicly that they adhere to said formal motive of faith, it makes it much more blurry.

When I was young, I had a completely heretical concept of the Holy Trinity.  But the second someone corrected me and said, "no, the Church teaches ...", I rejected the position immediately.  That is the standard St. Augustine put forward for the identification of purely material heresy.  But when the highest visible authority in the Church, as they see it, tells them that people have a right to religious liberty, it's very difficult to "correct" them.  What do you mean the Church rejects religious liberty?  The Church taught this at Vatican II.

So this is a horrific mess, a great chastisement, that God has allowed.

Well, if ~60 years of it wasn't enough, what's another decade or two?  Don't be surprised if after another 50 years this absurdity still exists.

Haha, yeah, there's that. Maybe some people will defend even a 100+ year SVism. Anyway, as a former sedevacantist, Bon, would you like to share your experience with us as to what caused you to finally reject that theory? Thanks.

Sedevacantism doesn’t depend on the PIus XII appointed bishops.

Sure, it does, Bellato. And this for two reasons. First, the Doctrinal One: (1) A Church that lacks Papally appointed Bishops is a Church that lacks Formal Apostolicity. And this is impossible, and even heretical. The CE, the Catechisms, the Manuals etc say very clearly that Jurisdiction is essential to Apostolicity. In the Creed, we sing every Sunday, "Et Unam, Sanctam, Catholicam et Apostolicam Ecclesiam". Do we really believe it? The CE was cited on the first page to this effect. "jurisdiction is essential to the Apostolicity of mission."  There are some 5000+Bishops in the Catholic Church, 1000s of episcopal sees. To say every episcopal see can fall vacant denies Apostolicity.

Second, the Practical One: (2) If 61 year SVism were really true, then it would be of the utmost urgency to do the needful to elect a new Pope before time runs out. Fr. Suarez writes, "In the first place, who should pronounce such a sentence? ... it must be affirmed that, of itself, it belongs to all the Bishops of the Church. For since they are the ordinary pastors and the pillars of the Church, one should consider that such a case concerns them. And since by divine law there is no greater reason to affirm that the matter involves some Bishops more than others, and since, according to human law, nothing has been established in the matter, it must necessarily be held that the matter should be referred to all of them, and even to a general Council. This is the common opinion of the Doctors". 

Therefore, if anyone really believed 61 year SVism is true - and it seems the seeds themselves are now beginning to suspect that that may not be the case- he should be racing against time with desperate haste to reach out to 104+ year old Archbishop Emeritus Bernardino by writing letters etc to assemble the remaining Bishops (just the 1 now, +AEB alone) in a general Council before it becomes too late! Who are the Ordinary Pastors or Shepherds of the Church? Only the Bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction.

The fact that Svists are not doing this shows that they themselves hardly believe their opinion. At any rate, others can see that it is mistaken. Soon, the idea of a Vacancy since 1958 will become manifestly heretical to hold, since it entails the heretical proposition that the Catholic Church has ceased to be Apostolic.

The sooner Sedes come out of this small mistake, the sooner we can all work together in the Church for Traditional Catholic Restoration.

God bless.

I won't answer for Pax, although I think he'd agree, but the way I answer that question is:

I am sure that I would go to hell if I were to accept V2 and the new "mass", because accepting necessarily means that I believe all of the heresies of V2 to be Catholic truths. To do that means that I no longer believe, and instead reject the true faith and Mass for the new faith and "mass". I cannot do both, God said no one can.

There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that I'd end up in hell because I'm positive that I would lose the faith in very short order, just as has happened since V2, and is still happening to, *as far as I know*, every single person who accepts V2 and the new mass. I could never get to heaven if I lose the faith before I die.

I know what my fate would be, but how or if others are able to avoid losing the faith and avoid going to hell by accepting V2 and the new "mass", I have no idea how they can accomplish that.  

The way pax worded it, it seemed like he was saying they were all damned.  But he clarified later after I asked.
I see what you’re saying, it seems you’re making a decision between knowingly rejecting what you know (which is damnable) and going to the NO simply because you don’t know it’s bad (which you left uncertain).  Conceptually that makes sense 

If one can save their soul in spite of accepting V2 and the new mass, then Traditionalism is schismatic and all Trads will go to hell for their grave disobedience.

Byzcat, I never used the word 'damned' or 'hell' or anything of the sort.  I said that "if one could be CERTAIN they could save their soul by accepting V2 and the new mass", then Tradition is schismatic and sinful.  The point being that the V2/new mass church provide UNCERTAIN ways to salvation, because those that accept the new religion don't receive the full Faith, nor do they attend a mass that is without sinful abuse/scandal.

I am confused.

Those in the novus ordo cannot be certain of their salvation ...

Those who are traditional would go to hell for the sin of schism...IF...it could be proven that the novus ordo is a certain way to salvation.

Sins Against the Holy Ghost: Presumption of God's Mercy.

I dunno... the quoted language above sure seems to smack of Trad presuming God's mercy.  In other words, I fail to see how anyone can be certain of their salvation, extra ecclesiam nulla salus notwithstanding.

Anyway, as a former sedevacantist, Bon, would you like to share your experience with us as to what caused you to finally reject that theory? Thanks.

While I've researched the topic, I've never been a sede, so therefore not a former one.

However, if Benedict XVI dies prior to Bergoglio, I may become one.