CathInfo.com

I know Father Jenkins, and he is about as non-dogmatic a sedevacantist as you'll ever meet.  He's very balanced on this matter.  I have a lot of respect for him.

Where people have issues with the SSPV is in their Sacramental nαzιsm.  They are reported to have denied the Last Sacraments to a dying "Feeneyite" ... despite the fact that they had a close working relationship with a woman who was the secretary to Bishop Alfred Mendez and an open Feeneyite.  They also deny the Sacraments to anyone who might frequent a CMRI chapel.  Openly they delcare the Thuc-line priests to be invalid, but in a closed meeting that was leaked, then-Father Kelly stated something along the lines of, "We can't tell people they're valid because then people might go there."  They also insist that a large number of SSPX priests are invalid due to the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre sometimes performed priestly ordinations with "one hand only" vs. the "hands" specified in the rubrics.  This has been thoroughly debunked (Eastern Rites use 1 hand and the Roman Rite rubrics for several centuries used 1 hand also), but they persist in spreading this around, considering their rival Father/Bishop Dolan to be invalid as a result and referring to him as "one-hand Dan".  They also consider Bishop Williamson to be invalid for the same reason and have conditionally reconfirmed people who had been confirmed by Bishop Williamson.  They refuse the Sacraments to women with slightly-short skirts whereas certain families who were part of the "in" crowd at some of their chapels were given the Sacraments despite much more immodest dress than others who were refused.

In addition, Father Cekada's behavior in particular when "The Nine" split from the SSPX was absolutely deplorable.  He treated Archbishop Lefebvre in an extremely vile manner.  They ripped off a lot of SSPX properties using various pre-orchestrated ploys (like putting them in Father Kelly's name to begin with).  Several of their follower seminarians laid low in the SSPX instead of leaving, pronounced the vow of obedience to the SSPX Superior (+Lefebvre), got ordained to the priesthood, and then immediately bolted.  Some people in the SSPX refer to them as having "stolen" the priesthood.

They apply various reasoning about why the Thuc line bishops are not valid, and yet the EXACT SAME conditions applied when Archbishop Alfred Mendez consecrated Bishop Kelly; they refuse to admit the hypocrisy and inconsistency in it.

irifleo - ladislaus is mixing truth and error, but it is mostly error.

The sspv/cspv does not say that thuc line is "invalid".  They say that they are "doubtful", and therefore in the practical order they treat them as "invalid"(which is the correct way according to tradition to deal with it).  So, it is only in the "practical order", which is a most important distinction.

This same comment applies to +Dolan and +williamson.  They consider +Dolan doubtful, and I think it is correct that they consider +Williamson doubtful(which is a shame IMO).  

As for all of this, what bothers me is that all this is "rubbed in" you could say.  Their sermons are good, but there are still too many sermons mentioning and or reminding us in one way or another of the doubtful thuc line and doubtful sacraments elsewhere.  They do it in a very subtle way.  I mean every sermon always reminds the people how fortunate they are to have "true valid sacraments"(indirectly implying all of the "false sacraments" on the market).  I personally would like to hear sermons about other topics.      

I don't take issue with their position holding that thuc line is doubtful, but what bothers me is all of the emphasis placed on it both directly and indirectly.  

That "leaked meeting" information is simply a story of fr. cekada's.  And, fr. cekada is not trustworthy.  Ladislaus even comments about how "extremely vile" fr. cekada was to +lefebvre.  

The +Mendez secretary feeneyite story is doubtful.  Because, feeneyites try to "kidnap" you could say true traditionalists who simply hold the eens dogma by saying that they too are "feeneyiets".  But, that(eens) is not feeneyism.  A feeneyite is one who rejects BoB/BoD.  And, that is the heresy.  But, they hide behind EENS.  Feeneyits are trying to steal EENS from catholicism, and claim it as their own, when it is not.  All false religions do this along some line(fight over the scraps that fall from the table).  So, +Mendez's secretary may have just been a true and solid eens catholic, who BoB/BoD deniers(feeneyits) are trying to claim as their own.  It is most wicked what they(feeneyites) do.

The "exact same" conditions do not at all apply to the +mendez consecration of +Kelly.  That is garbage.

irirfleo - listen to the cspv sunday sermons from stpiusvchapel.org, and judge the group for yourself.  I like them, and they are proximate to the true trad position imo; which I think is somewhere in between that of the resistance and them.