I'm not demanding that you change your position(after all, you are your each your own person, with free will)

What I do ask is for you to appreciate the fact that your "chosen path" is fraught with at least as much danger, and is every bit as sloppy/messy as the SSPX path you look down upon.

I guess my view is that Sedevacantists miss the point. They are so focused on whether or not a heretic can be pope, and whether or not Benedict XVI is a heretic, that they lose sight of the big picture. They lose sight of many things:

1. Dismissing the pope really solves nothing.
2. They are really dismissing the entire institutional Catholic Church, not JUST the Pope, reducing the size of the Church Christ founded by an order of magnitude (from 900 million, down to about 900 -- or even 90, depending on the Sedevacantist)
3. There are very real issues with laymen attributing authority to themselves that an Ecuмenical Council would tremble to wield.
4. Sedevacantism has very serious issues with trust. In most cases, trust is non-existent.
5. All the adherents of Sedevacantism have only "secession" as a unifying factor, if you can call it that. That is why Sedevacantist groups are constantly fighting, splitting and sub-dividing -- actually much like Protestantism, which, while different in many important ways, is also similar in many ways.
6. Deciding to reject the entire mainstream Catholic Church as being non-Catholic is a positive decision. Meanwhile, holding back from such a decision, doing only what is necessary to keep the Faith, does not constitute a positive action. It is a refraining from what could easily be considered a rash action.
7. Sedevacantism is inherently unconstructive. It is more about cursing the darkness than lighting a candle. It is about amputation rather than disinfecting a grievous wound.

There is a war for "who has the True position in this Crisis" between the SSPX and the Sedevacantists. How can we judge a winner?

How about judging by the FRUITS? That sounds like a very good idea, having come from Our Lord Himself.

The SSPX and Sedevacantist groups both had their chance to do their thing. Who is doing better? How can that question possibly be answered... Who is keeping the Faith? Who is converting souls? Who is holding out holy Hope and doing their best to shine light in the present darkness? How can Faith be judged... again, let's look to Scripture. "Faith without works is dead." So who is doing works that look like the Catholic Church before the Crisis? Who is being most faithful to Tradition?

Which side has more "cult" chapels, with bullying, strong-handed tactics by the priest, exile of various parishioners, contracts to sign, charismatic leaders, etc.?

By whatever yardstick you judge, one must conclude that the SSPX is easily holding its own beside all the Sedevacantist groups. Shining a light in the darkness? How about Angelus Press and all the thousands of conferences, retreats, sermons, books, etc. the SSPX uses to enlighten minds. Converting souls? The SSPX seems to be growing, including new priestly and religious vocations. Laymen attending SSPX chapels are living like true "trads", having large families even to this day. The SSPX certainly isn't fruitless.

Those are just two points; I don't need to go on down the line and talk about morals, dress, customs, etc. which are easily as good at an SSPX chapel as they are at a Sedevacantist chapel. Anyone who disagrees is probably going to point to ONE priest, or a GROUP of laymen who were uncharitable, guilty of this or that sin, etc.

As an aside, I would recommend all sedevacantists -- at least those who are interested in the truth -- to read an early history of the SSPX and/or Archbishop Lefebvre. It reads like the founding of many other Catholic orders, such as the Dominicans, the Franciscans, the Redemptorists, etc. Maybe comparing the SSPX to those heavyweights is a bit much, but the SSPX has more than its share of evidence of God's providence, just like any work that is of God.

The Catholic Church has always been a church full of sinners! That includes the priests! Only Our Lady was without sin.
It is the height of folly to disagree with a certian priest, and to conclude that the entire organization of which he is a member is worthless, evil, etc.
How is that logical?
Let's illustrate such a person's "logic":

Fr. Joe is uncharitable.
Fr. Joe is an SSPX priest.
Frs. A, B, C and D are SSPX priests.
Therefore Frs. A, B, C and D are all uncharitable.

Joe is a thief.
Joe is a man.
Matthew is a man.
Therefore Matthew is a thief.

If you think these syllogisms show good logic, go back to logic class!

At any rate, *AT BEST* one could say the "judgment by fruits" is inconclusive at this time.
Saying the SSPX flunks out of the Fruits test is simply willful blindness, axe grinding, bad will, or a combination of the three.

You would have to honestly find serious issues in more than one or two chapels, and then determine that those issues are due to the essence or founding principles of the SSPX, to conclude that it is bad.

The fact is that the World, the Flesh, and the Devil have dealt serious damage to Catholics, both lay and cleric, both inside AND outside of the SSPX.
Most critiques of the SSPX that I've read here on CathInfo have nothing to do with the mission statement or the ESSENCE of the SSPX, but rather personal experiences, or individuals within the organization, who are quite fallible -- and peccable (able to sin).

The World, in particular, has been firing its machine gun at Catholics for decades. Joe Catholic watches a few SSPX parishioners fall dead of bullet wounds, and feigns horror, as if the SSPX chapel he's in is not a safe place to be. The truth is that the "casualty list" was probably just as large, if not larger, that day at the equivalent sedevacantist chapel.

What is disgusting is to see Sedevacantists so lost in despair that they can no longer understand what Hope means. They can only assume that Bishop Fellay is conspiring to sell out the SSPX, because he holds out hope for Rome to convert. Yes, it takes supernatural hope to do so. Yes, we realize the "talks with Rome" have a snowball's chance in Hell, humanly speaking. BUT what other choice is there? We're talking about the visible Catholic Church, for God's sake man! You don't just cut her loose and watch her sink! Is that a Catholic attitude? I believe that all other Catholic fora (from Angelqueen to Fisheaters) answered with a resounding NO as they instituted a ban on sedevacantist members. It's not even necessarily because they don't want to hear the truth. They probably banned them for the same reason you and I don't like to hang out with negative people. They do you no good, and only bring down your spirit until you're as unhappy as they are. Misery loves company.

I had to post this, because I was sick of seeing the SSPX being attacked all the time, as if it is somehow the weaker position, or on the defensive. The SSPX position is easily as tenable as the sedevacantist position.

I just don't have as much time to defend it as Raoul has to attack it. I have a job, and a family.

Matthew

Catholic truth is immutable.  Either the Benedict XVI is the Pope or he is not...it is important for every catholic to know who the Pope is.   There cannot be a conciliar church, and a traditional church;  there is only  one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.   And we recognise this by the possession of the 4 marks.

The true Pope is the shepherd of the ONE true church;  he is not Pope of the conciliar church and of the true church.  One fold and one shepherd, not two folds and one shepherd.

The divine will of Christ placed Peter and His lawful succesors as head of the Church, to confirm the brethren in the faith and to feed the universal flock.  He established him [Peter]AS THE GUARANTOR AND CUSTODIAN OF THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH.  Not Archbishop Lefebvre, nor Bishop Fellay or anybody else.  If SSPX or anyone departs from this teaching, we have to dissent.

The SSPX cannot convert the Pope!!  The Pope confirms them in the deposit of faith. No one else has the divine mission, but that given to Peter [and his successors] alone.

There is no guarantee or safeguard for anyone else.  SSPX say they are keeping to tradition but who decides what traditions are to be kept?  Is it for this group [SSPX] not the pope; not the college of bishops; not the ecuмenical council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith?

The reason why there is so much dissention among traditionalist catholics is precisely because there is no pope to unify and confirm the faithful.

The reason why the SSPX cannot move from their middle of the road position is because they do not recognise the times we are living through.  They cannot see that this is the Great Apostasy, which is unprecedented.

Perhaps with more prayers and sacrifices, they may look again objectively at their position.   It is fearful they may end up like Campos or Papa Stronsay, which have been absorbed into the one world church.  

I don't have time for a full response, but I will offer this.

SSPX has only the glue of the Archbishop Lefebvre personality cult (if someone disagrees, the SSPX pulls out the Lefebvre hand puppet to rebuke them and beat them over the head with), the untainted episcopal lineage, and the weapon of "obedience" (which is ironic given that SSPX is in a state of disobedience).  For every few priests SSPX ordains, that many priests leave or are expelled.

While the fact of papal legitimacy may not be crucial, there are critical theological principles at stake, and my biggest beef with the SSPX is the creation of this weird sensus Catholicus in which it's considered OK to be in chronic disobedience to and separation of Communion from the pope and the implicit notion that it's possible for a pope and an Ecuмenical Council to lead the entire Church into error.  There are serious ecclesiological problems with the SSPX.

With that said, there are also problems with sedevacantism--as I've pointed out--which leads to the bad fruits thereof.

That's why I take a middle position of:
1) rejecting the notion that a legitimate pope and Ecuмenical Council could lead the entire Church into error (SSPX)--which undermines the indefectibility and infallibility of the Church
2) rejecting the notion that private individuals can start deposing popes based on private judgement (sedevacantism)--which uproots the magisterium and the notion of a priori infallibility

I believe that it's highly probable that the V2 popes are illegitimate but defer to the Church's judgment on the matter.  Or else there's some other nefarious dynamic at work (extortion, mind-control, people other than the Pope issuing various decreets, etc.).  But I cannot accept that a legitimate Pope functioning freely and an Ecuмenical Council approved by him could lead the entire Church into this horrific mess.

Matthew, Myrna, Emerentiana and I are sede and we don't attack SSPX that I know of.  I think it is like you said, an individual thing.  The sins of one individual being attributed to the group.  But  then, some of us have been complaining about those sins, too.  It just depends on whether you've been one of the victims, doesn't it?

Matthew, your overall explanation is focused on generalities, feeling and externals. You reverse the notion of coming to a conclusion based on reasonings. That is, you desire to have it a certain way, and to not have it a certain way with the Church, and then you attempt to fashion your reasonings so that it appears like they come to the conclusions you already wish to have. You avoid lengthy debate on specific matters. In fact, that is the SSPX, unlike the SVers.

You have a false principle already that something must be false because you foresee a dilemma or difficulty connected with it. Do you know that is false pragmatism?  This tends to make you fashion your own truth in a reverse process, because you want to avoid difficulty. A well-formed conscience does not use such a false method. But, truth is truth whether it entails a difficulty or not.

You run right for "fruits". Do you know that the Arians had just as much, if not more, "good fruits" as you relate the SSPX have? Good fruits can exist along side of bad fruits. It is ecuмenical to focus on the positive fruits and ignore the bad fruits. That is like wearing a white tie because 99.9% is white ignoring the blood stain. It is the intrinsically NEGATIVE that determines the overall worth of a position. The Arians had one philosophically subtle error against the dogma of the Trinity. That determined their worth. St. Athanasius went with truth, and accepted all the dangers and difficulties of following the truth. And there were dangers and difficulties. He could have said, "I don't want to get excommunicated so I will concede to the Arians". Avoidance of danger and difficulty is NOT the Catholic way. St. Athanasius did not have good fruits of externals, numbers, churches, presses, conferences, retreats, etc. The truth takes precedence to all these so called "good fruits". He had Truth whole and entire and consistency of doctrine. St. Athanasius was excommunicated by a pope he recognized as legitimate and conceded to the excommunication. St. Thomas said that if one is excommunicated unjustly he should submit anyway. Archbishop Lefebvre, and his bishops and people, all did not submit to excommunication by a pope they considered legitimate. Why does this not bother you at all? Because it was pragmatic to violate it? Pragmatic to give the bad example and instilling in all SSPXers the opposite principle? This is a good fruit?

The only thing to easily stop a position from being true is that it necessarily implies a violation of some truth. Even ONE. Do you know that, Matthew? The SSPX position violates multiple truths inherently. A true position does not have internal inconsistencies. Why does it not bother you that your position contains such? Because it makes life easier? Why does the SSPX completely avoid talking about the principle that "a doubtful pope is no pope"?  It is not a well-formed conscience that is afraid of looking at a true principle and applying it because of fear where it may lead.

Some bad fruits are incidental and some inherent. Violation of principle is inherent. Individual cult-like priests are not inherent to a position. It is a SOLID Catholic principle that the Church cannot approve, even tacitly, of something harmful. That is inherently violated by the SSPX. It is, in fact, a blasphemy to say the Church can produce a harmful liturgy, Sacraments or canon law. It is a heretical error against the mark of the Church, that She is Holy. The SSPX is flatly in violation of this fundamental truth. How about the heretical notion that "the pope is head of the true church and head of a false church at the same time"?  

How about the contradiction of saying the SVers "cannot judge a pope". Yes, we cannot. We judge "a man" not to be a true pope. That is not judging a pope. Ironically, the SSPX continually judge a pope by telling their people to listen to THEM for what is good or bad coming from the pope! What is sloppy/messy inherently is violation of truth and principle and internal inconsistency of a position. The SVers don't have that. There is nothing more "constructive" than having internal consistency in a position and adherence to principle and truth. The SSPX doesn't "hold its own" because their position inherently contains contradiction. Ah, yes, it can hold its own as an "organization", but so have heretical Churches done so.

The SVers have more hope than you think. If there was despair, the SVers would not have such an excellent record for spending so much time reasoning logically and consistently for truth while the SSPX run from it. I think, ironically, the SSPX feel they may despair themselves by really visiting their own inconsistencies.

I have hope in truth. All SVers believe in conversion and miracles. I never detect despair except in an occasional stay-at-home Catholic. The SSPX have hope in a world with less difficulties accepting to live in contradictions and inconsistencies. Even after Scripture says there will be a great falling away and hardly faith found on earth, you Matthew, practically ridicule the SVers for believing in a remnant. It is quite incredible to watch how inconsistencies at the base of your position just spawn more and more inconsistencies and contradictions, and they are the bad fruits, really bad fruits, doctrinal errors and violations of Catholic principles.

Wonderful Patman, well said.

I'm with Ladislaus, R76, Dawn and Patman on this one.

What amazes me the most is how an SSPXer can't see his/her own inconsistencies, or that the SSPX has become an ABL cult - Lefebvre is your very own JPII.

Sorry, Matthew.   I spent, as you all know, almost ten years with the SSPX.  I am sick and tired of sedes being denigrated and looked down upon as third class Catholics by neo-Cats and the SSPX.  Does it make you all feel better about yourselves to have a common enemy - "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Matthew, what I don't understand is why you allowed Charlie to come on here and try to shut down his local SSPX school.  Were you just trying to be fair because you allowed the SGG thread - equal time maybe?  As much as I do not care for the SSPX, even I was appalled by that thread since I know the problems there and, like in everything, there are two sides to every story, and I know the other side.  To me, THAT was worse than anything on here.

Since I am a sedevacantist sympathizer and, if I had to choose between sedes and the SSPX, I'd go with the former, I'm posting my thoughts on the separate "SSPXers only" thread that you, Matthew, started.

How can we be keeping SSPX people off CathInfo when that other SSPX forum, Ignis Ardens, is so dead?  If the SSPXers are so desperate for a forum, they already have one.  If their Moderator is so busy, why is she here so much?  Anytime I go over to check and see what is going on, the place is deader than a door nail.  

What don't you just come clean, Matthew, and tell us what it is you are really trying to do instead of this going through this nonsense.