I'm no scholar, but there really is no difference except that CMRI holds that there is no Pope and SSPX says there is one.  They both hold the same errors except SSPX has the extra error of implictly denying papal infallibility.  

The reason I left CMRI is that they allow their laity to go to SSPX masses, making me wonder why they bother in the first place to call themselves sedevacantist.  CMRI pretends that they only allow you to go to SSPX in an emergency, but in practice it is not like that.  I remember the priest mentioning a family who had decided to jump ship and to attend a closer SSPX Mass at San Pedro, and he had no problem with this; to him it was all the same.

Another one of their priests did mention that SSPX had the wrong theological position from the pulpit, but if this is true, why the open-door policy?  

However, tolerated una cuм attendance is the least of my concerns about CMRI at this point.  That is why I left, but not why I'm staying away.  

Bishop Pivarunas' outspoken defense of NFP, which he disingenuously refers to as "rhythm" as if it's the same as the 19th century rhythm method, and the Baltimore Catechism heresy.  

Bishop Pivarunas --

"Not unlike the Protestants who misinterpret Sacred Scripture, there are some traditional Catholics who misunderstand past teachings of the Catholic Church and thereby arrive at erroneous conclusions. I believe that this is certainly the situation with 'rhythm.'"

We'll see on the Day of Judgment who the "Protestant" is.  Stop Protesting against the truth and admit you were wrong, Bishop Pivarunas.  It's not too late as long as you're still breathing.  

Bishop Pivarunas:

"Well before Vatican II, moral theologians consistently reiterated the teaching of the Sacred Penitentiary and Pope Pius XII on the morality of rhythm.

( a ) 19th-century rhythm is not the same as rhythm of 1929, and the rhythm of 1929 is not the same as nearly 100%-accurate NFP

( b ) The 1880 decision of the Sacred Penitentiary said that rhythm could be "cautiously suggested" to those who were using withdrawal.  If it were "moral," why would it have to be suggested with "caution"?  Obviously, it was seen as the lesser of two evils in that case, because with rhythm at least the spermatozoa have a chance to reach their destination.  

Also, what about all the other stuff Pius XII said about the reasons why NFP could be used?  Where in any of these decisions of the Sacred Penitentiary does it tell you that you can literally prevent birth over an entire marriage for "economic, eugenic, medical or social" reasons?  

It's remarkable how they try to avoid what Pius XII really said, or at least try not to shine an overly bright light on it, these defenders of NFP.  If they did, they might have to answer tricky questions like "What is a social reason?  Overpopulation?  To save room for the spotted owl?"  They just mention "grave reasons" vaguely, when these grave reasons themselves make NFP so much worse, and so very communist in mentality.  

Not only that, but those decisions of the Sacred Penitentiary could easily have been the result of Freemasonic infiltration, and they are not Magisterial teachings.  The one from 1853 may be totally made-up out of thin air as I have never seen any reference to it in books that pre-date Vatican II.  That one says that couples using rhythm are not to be disturbed at all -- by that logic, if rhythm is the same as NFP, you don't even need "grave reasons" to use it.  Whoops, hey, another contradiction!  Surprise surprise!  

Or perhaps in 1853 couples were not to be disturbed using the rhythm method because it was so crude and ineffective that it was barely worth mentioning?  Has that thought sprung to mind, Bp. Pivarunas?  

"It is difficult to comprehend how anyone can claim that the pope, the Sacred Penitentiary, and moral theologians have been in error on this issue for some 150 years and that laity have now figured it out."

"The Pope"?  You mean the liberal who appointed Bugnini to a new Commission on the Liturgy, whose right-hand man was Montini, the future Paul VI, whose confessor was the shadowy figure named Augustin Bea?  I'm supposed to stake my soul on the whirligig fantasy that Pius XII is somehow not part of what later became Vatican II, when he is quoted over 200 times in Vatican II docuмents, more than any other source except the Bible?  I'm supposed to trust a radical new teaching from this source, I'm supposed to believe birth control isn't birth control because the precursor to Vatican II said so?  I don't think so, Bishop.

"The moral theologians"?  You mean all those priests from the 1940's and 1950's that you quote in your article?  Or how about the one whose book was published in 1963, during Vatican II... Pretty odd that a sedevacantist would quote VII "moral theology" while selling NFP, also a VII term, by the way.

I've explained the Sacred Penitentiary.

Also, speaking of Popes, if Pope Urban VI could listen to a member of the "laity" known as St. Catherine of Siena, how much more should a priest living in confusing times listen to the truth when spoken even by laymen?  

While CMRI are very good at pretending to be humble, read this essay on NFP.  It does not even allow for any sort of concerns that people might have but calls them a name right off the bat -- Protestants.  This is what really strikes you about the clergy who defend NFP, that they don't try to assuage those who are troubled by it in their hearts, but instead they stonewall them with a "We're the clergy and you're just peons" routine.  

It may work in the case of BoD, since they have evidence on their side there, but in this case there are all sorts of loopholes.
And while the bishop presents the "evidence" for NFP in a way that seems convincing, it falls apart under scrutiny, just like his disingenuous pretense that the rhythm method of the 19th century is somehow the same as modern NFP -- that's like comparing a child's drawing to a Michaelangelo.  

I remember being convinced by his essay when I was a catechumen, and now it is completely different.  Cracks have appeared in his case -- huge, whopping cracks.

Sorry, couldn't resist an NFP rant before bed.

from waht I can see, the SSPX wnats its own prelature or some other arrangement where they are protected and have their own structure-bishops, priests,etc...unlike say FSSP, which are dangling out there at mercy of NO est.....

Either the Norvus Ordo is Catholic or it isn't at all. In this case, the SSPX wants to be a church within a church.

I am reading these articles in order to better understand how the Church got off-track with heresy. I would appreciate it if the more experienced scholars among us would explain the differences between CMRI theology and SSPX theology.

http://www.cmri.org/errors-vatican2.html

TYIA  :reading:

The big thing, IMHO, to remember about Vatican II is that the Council contradicted itself.  That is why no one should accept it as being a legitimate expression of the Catholic faith.

Quote from: littlerose

I am reading these articles in order to better understand how the Church got off-track with heresy. I would appreciate it if the more experienced scholars among us would explain the differences between CMRI theology and SSPX theology.

http://www.cmri.org/errors-vatican2.html

TYIA  :reading:

The big thing, IMHO, to remember about Vatican II is that the Council contradicted itself.  That is why no one should accept it as being a legitimate expression of the Catholic faith.

I ignore the Council, it is a robber Council and not binding on me at all....

Since the seat is vacant, there is no pope(Peter) to follow.  As soon as a Catholic attains the seat, then we will be obedient.

God never promised that there would always be a pope.  Given that the gospel has been preached to all nations, and has been rejected by all nations, we do not deserve a pope.

OK, this makes sense to me. It is like we are in a holding pattern, not like we are just suddenly independent or anarchic.

This means that either the present person holding the title of "Pope", (Ratzinger) could face facts and repudiate the heresies of the past 50 years, or we wait until he is replaced through the normal procedures.

Now, I am not ready to say I would support that "Sede" position myself,  but I can see that it is a rational solution to the problem. Before, I was looking at the claim that there is no "Pope" as just some kind of neo-protestantism that is putting the laity into the papal position, and I would rather compromise with the present Church than engage in yet another round of schismatic new theology.

Thank you.