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]

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]

Well said. I have said many times in the past how Cekada's novel "Una cuм" construct was a convenient, selfish, self-serving device to "remove the competition" and make more income/money for himself and his chapel(s).

What better way to "own" your parishioners, than by removing all other Masses as an option?

It's diabolically brilliant -- and quite obvious.

I forget which video it was, but I also recall +Sanborn railing about tithing in his chapels stating how much they must contribute based on their income. His example was $800 a month for someone that makes $50k/year. I don't know about some of you, but, I make a little more than that as our household income as the sole breadwinner as of late, and certainly wouldn't be able to meet $800 a month in tithes.

That was a big red flag for me.

Maybe the video should be provided.  I wonder whether this was in reference to making a lump sum donation to help fund the new seminary building.

Mario Derksen attends a CMRI chapel.  I've not seen this promotion of the "non-una cuм novelty of Father Cekada and co." on Novus Ordo Watch.  I think you may be confusing the position of Novus Ordo Watch with the people who post comments.  He is most definitely against the Novus Ordo and believes that the sedevacantist position is the correct position, but, as far as I can tell, his doctrinal positions on this matter pretty much mirror those of Bishop Pivarunas and the CMRI.

The CMRI’s laxity on this issue is only more troubling when compounded by their permissiveness in the creation of annulment tribunals. The SSPX has engaged in this sham for years, but it has been known for some time that some of the CMRI’s priests engage in the judging of marriage cases. But this is something that falls directly under the legal functions of the Church and does not fall under epikeia. No one currently possesses the authority to issue judgments in these marriage cases and so the best our clergy can do is investigate to give someone some sense of probability, but no more than that.
In any case, the fact that even as late as 1968 there were only 338 annulments given for the entire United States that year should give helpful context in this regard.
In our unfortunate situation, there is an easy and effective way for these people to solve their marital dilemmas: abstinence and chastity.  One should not risk a “re-marriage” if one’s “previous” marriage is doubtful or probably invalid.
.