CathInfo.com

…The longest vacancy of the Holy See has been less than three years, and the episcopate remained one and the same moral body during the interregnum.  And no sane person would claim that the Holy See has been vacant since '89 or '58, nor is that what the insane Sedevacantists are really claiming.  They are claiming that a series of false Pope have been reigning in the Holy See for over 60 years, and that the entire episcopate has recognized them as the legitimate Popes the entire time.  That is a denial of the indefectibility of the Church.…

Dogmatic non una cuм is straight from the pit of Hell and is a tool used by Satan to keep traditional Catholics from comingling or from the sacraments altogether.

I've said this before, but, there is absolutely no historical or Magisterial basis for non una cuм. At all. It is a novelty dreamed up by Bp. Guerard des Lauriers and later catapulted by Fr. Cekada into the only "Catholic" position. Citing an early 19th century English Missal, John Daly noted that the King of England is also prayed una cuм in the Mass following the Pope and the Ordinary; proving that the intention is that the Mass is offered through the office of the one named, not the person. Otherwise, all English Masses would have been mortally sinful to assist at because the Anglican King of England was named una cuм.

Furthermore, we have the Western Schism to look at as well. Where saints, such as St. Vincent Ferrer, supported the later-declared anti-Pope over the true Pope; therefore, meaning that he offered Masses una cuм an anti-Pope, and, by the logic of this position would have been offending God by committing a grave sin. Yet, as we know, St. Vincent was a great saint who was merely mistaken on the identity of the Pope, and therefore, was not at fault. One could retort that anti-Pope Benedict XIII was "orthodox" therefore nullifying any such comparisons between anti-Pope Francis and Benedict XIII. But this, too, is nonsense, as it either way, by their logic, the Masses said by St. Vincent would still be gravely sinful because a false Pope was named in the Canon.

Therefore, to dogmatically declare that there is not only sin attached to assisting at a Mass una cuм Francesco, but even a mortal sin, is beyond the authority of those proclaiming it: namely, SGG and MHTS. It is correct to form an opinion on the Pope question, or even act on it individually, but to teach the laity that it would be a sin to attend an SSPX, or even SSPX-Resistance, Mass because they say it una cuм Francesco is divisive, diabolism.

"And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand."
[Mark 3:25]

Yes. The sacraments are indeed valid, but the Sedevacantist priests dispensing them are heretics for rejecting dogmas, nay even waging war on dogmas, of the Church. Bishop Sanborn’s views on Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus and Natural Family Planning makes his group an impossible choice for me otherwise I am most well disposed to his group’s otherwise phenomenal work. They are especially to be commended on their correct understanding of Communicatio in Sacris and their torch bearing of the late Bishop Guerard des Lauriers’ Cassiciacuм Thesis.