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]

I own a pair of English printed hand missals, from the early 1800s, one which I think is what Mr Daly cited (there's a scan of it in full on archive.org), and also a priestly missal (a bit bigger than a Maryknoll missal and with a fine cover, which is a bit fragile) with the same, used in Co. Kilkenny, Ireland from the late 19th century onwards. Neither Queen Victoria nor Edward VII were Catholic, even if her son loved France and its women. That's a very strong summary done by you on the matter. Non una cuм seems a device to keep people from going to other chapels.

That's all well and good, but, how can any of that apply if Francis has never been formally declared a heretic by the Holy Office? I can believe that someone is a heretic, but, that remains in the realm of my opinion, especially when pertaining to clergy or the Pontiff, until the Church makes a declaration.

Further, those instances you cite apply to communion with formal heretics, such as the Greeks or Anglicans etc. While many suspect the Novus Ordo is not the Catholic Church, this, again, has not been defined by the Holy Office. So I fail to see how that falls into Communicatio in Sacris?

Kindly refer to proposition “b)” in my initial post. The CMRI, and similar groups, believe that Bergoglio is a heretic. So formally declared or not, they are in communion with other groups, like the SSPX, which are in communion with a man they (the CMRI) believe to be a heretic. 

This is analogous to the objective schism that the SSPX is in due to their belief that Bergoglio is a valid Roman Pontiff yet they refuse obedience to him.

These groups do not have any internal theological consistency or logical coherence regardless of where you stand on these issues.

Any kind of Communicatio in Sacris/Divinis with a heretic and/or schismatic or Communicatio in Sacris/Divinis with those in communion with a heretic or schismatic was unanimously held to be forbidden by all of the Church Fathers & Church Councils as well as the vast majority of theologians, Popes, and Doctors of the Church.

The logic is simple.

a) If Bergoglio is a heretic then one cannot be in communion with him, directly or indirectly, (knowingly and intentionally) under pain of heresy and mortal sin.

b) The CMRI & similar groups believe Bergoglio is a heretic.

c) The CMRI and similar groups are in indirect communion with Bergoglio. i.e. They are in communion with those who are directly in communion with Bergoglio such as the SSPX which offers the Una cuм Mass.

d) The CMRI and similar groups are heretics themselves for being in intentional indirect communion with a man they consider a heretic.

The only way this "logic" is correct is that if a person does not believe Bergoglio is a heretic, that person (i.e., a priest who offers Mass "una cuм") is, by that fact alone, also a heretic.

It seems that the CMRI is being condemned for not being dogmatic sedevacantists.  This is a rather curious position to take on CathInfo.

The only way this "logic" is correct is that if a person does not believe Bergoglio is a heretic, that person (i.e., a priest who offers Mass "una cuм") is, by that fact alone, also a heretic.

It seems that the CMRI is being condemned for not being dogmatic sedevacantists.  This is a rather curious position to take on CathInfo.

That logic is a massive oversimplification, as the dogmatic extreme of either position tends to be.

This notion of "communion" and what constitutes "communion" is a bit slippery.  St. Pius X for instance permitted Catholics in Orthodox territories to receive the Sacraments from the Orthodox when they had no access to Catholic Sacraments.  Even the Dimonds wrote a good article about how a certain amount of intermingling with the Anglicans was permitted by the Church for various prudential considerations.

But here's where it's not so simple.  If I were to regularly attend Orthodox liturgies, I would certainly be suspect of herersy.  But the problem with the Conciliar Church is that it's not formally professing schism from the Catholic Church.  Conciliar Catholics, many of them anyway, believe that they are in the Catholic Church and continue to profess that they are Catholics.  In the latter case, it's more of a material error than a formal one, whereas with the officially-condemned groups like the Orthodox or Old Catholics of heretics, since they're formally and officially rejected as non-Catholic, there's no gray area.  But there's a ton of gray.

And this is the failure of the dogmatic positions.  They construct a neat syllogism that seems logically sound and conclude therefrom that their conclusions are dogmatically certain, but only the Church has the authority to bind consciences with the certainty of faith, and some or many of the premises to our conclusions come from our own personal private judgment and reasoning and therefore cannot have such certaint.  Father Jenkins, a moderate sedevacantist, agrees with this reasoning.

So, for instance, the premise for Traditional Catholicisim is [this, that, or the other heresy or error taught by the Conciliar Church].  But the Church hasn't officially declared the Conciliar Church to be non-Catholic, so right now the best we can hope to have is a personal moral certainty regarding the state of the Church.

At some point Heiner might just find himself the last Catholic on earth.

Heiner is going down a dark path here.  He may have to hit rock bottom before he realizes that he's veered off the path.

Therein lies the temptation in this line of thought. It is a special form of pride where group A believes group B to be heretics, so group A must carry on the will of God as His chosen group. It's an insidious temptation that infects not only those making dogmatic statements of their own opinions, but a temptation all of us face as Traditional Catholics.

Tangent: This "pride of the chosen" is something I've been thinking about lately in context of the Last Days. As, after the promised Restoration of the Church, somehow a completely Catholic world will be deceived by the claims of the Antichrist to come. I believe that due to the laxity of our times, those who follow in this age of Restoration may birth a new Pharisaism. Not unlike the Babylonian Captivity, which, as a reaction, led the to the Pharisees of the Old Covenant. This kind of revived sanctimony may bring forth another, even worse, reactionary laxity that will be advantageous to the Antichrist.

We, as Traditional Catholics, need to tread carefully in esteeming ourselves too highly as a group.

Therein lies the temptation in this line of thought. It is a special form of pride where group A believes group B to be heretics, so group A must carry on the will of God as His chosen group. It's an insidious temptation that infects not only those making dogmatic statements of their own opinions, but a temptation all of us face as Traditional Catholics.

Tangent: This "pride of the chosen" is something I've been thinking about lately in context of the Last Days. As, after the promised Restoration of the Church, somehow a completely Catholic world will be deceived by the claims of the Antichrist to come. I believe that due to the laxity of our times, those who follow in this age of Restoration may birth a new Pharisaism. Not unlike the Babylonian Captivity, which, as a reaction, led the to the Pharisees of the Old Covenant. This kind of revived sanctimony may bring forth another, even worse, reactionary laxity that will be advantageous to the Antichrist.

We, as Traditional Catholics, need to tread carefully in esteeming ourselves too highly as a group.

Therein lies the temptation in this line of thought. It is a special form of pride where group A believes group B to be heretics, so group A must carry on the will of God as His chosen group. It's an insidious temptation that infects not only those making dogmatic statements of their own opinions, but a temptation all of us face as Traditional Catholics.

Tangent: This "pride of the chosen"

We, as Traditional Catholics, need to tread carefully in esteeming ourselves too highly as a group.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO SAY since I got here!!! Unbelievable! I have been harping on Pride, and intellectual pride--you keep saying, "No Anne, it's only you, blah, blah." Or however you said it.  NO!

YOUR LAST LINE IS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN ALSO--to everyone here, but I specifically mentioned the word "tread" in my post to you, because of this fact--converts can sometimes fall into the pride trap of going all gung-ho on something (pick a topic, any topic), and they set themselves up for a fall. It was a warning to you NOT to fall into the danger of PRIDE as a lot of Trads fall into because they seem themselves as the only ones who will be 'chosen.'

Also see my post to Lad that I just posted. The posts to the both of you are what I have been AWKWARDLY TRYING TO WARN about since I got here. And MEN usually fall more into the traps like Heiner does, and more men end up as Home Aloners than women do by choice--women end up as home aloners usually by circuмstance--BUT, if they are encouraged by Heiners or the likes, they will think it is indeed fine to stay home, which it is NOT. 
 
THAT is why I suggested to Seraphina to go pray, even if she doesn't have Mass. Does it all make sense now what I was trying to say and why I was getting SO frustrated in trying to reply to some of the men here? Because it seemed like they SLOT people into different categories, subcategories, and so on, until they have atomized every person, member, Trad Catholic, etc.

I got fed-up and said, "NO MORE TRAD LABEL for me! I am Catholic. That's what I am." I refuse to be in camp that fights itself ALL THE TIME.

Your last line. Your last line. Your last line. One of my prayers was answered. I was PRAYING desperately for someone else to post what I have been trying to explain--nobody was understanding me. Talk about banging my head against a wall here. 

Thanks. 

BY STEPHEN HEINER · JANUARY 21, 2022

There is no Wikipedia for traditional Catholicism. One has to learn things over time from various sources and even then, one has to then contend against the widespread malformation of human minds worldwide, general disrespect of clergy, and the frequent failure to recognize the laity’s proper role in subordination to those clergy. Coming to proper Christian thinking and acting at every moment is a long process, never likely to be fully achieved by many of us during this life.
I did not come to the non una cuм position right away. My journey from ten years in the SSPX (“recognize and resist”) position to sedevacantism took roughly two years, but it would be another two before I would stop attending the SSPX Mass in Kansas City, where I lived.
This was in part due to my emotional attachment to the sacraments, but also because there were clerical voices telling me that attendance at these Masses was permissible. One of those voices was Bishop Mark Pivarunas of the CMRI.
In 2011, returning from a CMRI ordination in Spokane which I had attended, I ran into His Excellency in the airport and in the course of a brief discussion I disclosed, somewhat shamefacedly, that I attended Mass with the SSPX. Rather than rebuke this position, the bishop merely said something to the effect of “what else can you do” and said that he understood.
Lest my anecdote be marginalized as permissive in my particular case but contrary to the actual rule, there is also a publicly available docuмent in which Bishop Pivarunas defends attendance at una cuм Masses as legitimate and permissible in itself.
Assistance at an una cuм Mass is objective participation in the modernist Novus Ordo. There’s simply no getting around this.

If I understand the above correctly, Heiner is upset because he told a CMRI bishop that he had attended an SSPX Mass, and the bishop was okay his attendance at said Mass, and did not rebuke Heiner. It's like Heiner was trying to trap the bishop or something. Very strange.

On the old Angelqueen forum, I recall when it was first revealed that Heiner was a sedevacantist, around 2010, or 2011 or so. He was a forum member there, and of course wasn't allowed to discuss SV. He had previously posted Bp. Williamson's Eleison Comments on his blog, but that eventually stopped a while after his blog went full-sede.

I think that Heiner is trying to do the right thing, but takes an extreme view, IMO. Perhaps he believes that since the Crisis is extreme, that the laity absolutely must take an extreme view as well. I'm not so sure that's a good idea.

The only way this "logic" is correct is that if a person does not believe Bergoglio is a heretic, that person (i.e., a priest who offers Mass "una cuм") is, by that fact alone, also a heretic.

It seems that the CMRI is being condemned for not being dogmatic sedevacantists.  This is a rather curious position to take on CathInfo.

Right?!

I thought I'd add Bishop Pivarunas' statement from 2002 on the una cuм matter.  I can't find anything more recent.  

Although His Excellency allows for assistance there, he is certainly not encouraging it due to their theological contradictions and erroneous opinions:

The Religious Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (C.M.R.I.) holds that the Catholic faithful may petition the Sacraments from traditional Catholic priests who unfortunately offer their Masses "una cuм" (John Paul II).


Although C.M.R.I. does not accept John Paul II as a legitimate successor of St. Peter, it does not consider such traditional priests (who offer "una cuм" Masses) as schismatic. For, if such priests were schismatic in the canonical sense of the word, then they would be required, upon their recognition of the vacancy of the Apostolic See, to abjure their error and be received back into the Church.

Nevertheless, it has never been the practice of any traditional bishop or priest to require this abjuration of error of any priest who at one time mistakenly recognized John Paul II as a true pope.

This does not mean that C.M.R.I. in any way endorses the theological contradiction of those traditional priests who maintain that John Paul II is a true pope.

Lastly, we exhort the faithful to use great discretion when they approach such priests for the Sacraments. This is especially true in regard to their children, who may be confused by their erroneous opinions on the Papacy and on the infallibility of the Church.

Bp. Mark Pivarunas, C.M.R.I., Superior General
The Priests of C.M.R.I.
August 10, 2002