It is good to have this discussion every six months or so.

The SSPX has always considered the conciliar popes to be true popes but the society has refused to follow them in their deviations from the traditions of the Church.  

Then we also have to incorporate the conciliar belief that other religions, even those that deny Our Lord, have components of holiness to them and may also be salvific outside the Church.  We would need to embrace Cardinal Kasper's assessment which publicly states that Vatican II renounced the concept of "ecuмenism of return" and that other faiths, especially Judaism, are not in need of converting to the Catholic faith.  In short, we must also accept as a new, post-Vatican II belief that the Catholic Church is one of many routes to Heaven.

Then there is the banality of the Novus Ordo Missae, the greatest faith killer ever invented because that is where Catholics embrace their faith publicly and, unlike all other complaints, you can read actual sociological data of Church decline in the public realm which almost matches the spiritual decline.  The New Mass doesn't feed Catholics but it does encourage the sycophantic, cheap grace types who see their Catholicism as volunteering at a soup kitchen or starting a local campaign against a landfill.  

The SSPX is not sedevacantist so a Catholic could partake of all the sacraments at their chapels from their priests and even though irregular, and even if declared schismatic at a future date, because the SSPX is a part of the Catholic Church where the noxious novelties of the modernists are not celebrated nor tolerated but rejected in the proper Catholic manner.

Does this mean the sedes are wrong?  The only way they could be wrong is in imprudently declaring the current conciliar popes to be non-popes.  The only error here is if they are overstepping their boundaries by declaring something of such a grave matter that it is reserved for special entities that are normally unavailable to them.  But in times of emergency like these times, are the sedes wrong?  

It is a good idea to have these arguments every six months or so.  

Capt says:

"But in times of emergency like these times, are the sedes wrong?"

YES!

Dogma 6:6 of the Roman Catholic Church

"According to Christ's ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Catholic Church and for all time."

Leave them to their errors - they are not dogmatic. God will preserve the Church in relation to whatever beliefs are necessary for salvation. Matt 23:1-3 & 1 Tim 3:15.


Kiss the wife and go out for dinner.

If I had the certainty of faith that Francis was the true Pope, I would submit completely to his Magisterium.  God will never fault you for acquiescing to the Magisterium of a legitimate pope.  NEVER.  YOU CANNOT LOSE YOUR SOUL BY SUBMITTING TO THE MAGISTERIUM OF A LEGITIMATE POPE.  To say anything else would be heresy; it would be to claim that the Magisterium and the Church have defected.  I would then go about the business of reconciling Vatican II with previous Magisterium.  From a liturgical standpoint, I would attend the Tridentine Mass, Eastern Rites, or even a Novus Ordo properly implemented with due reverence according to the intent of the Vatican II Fathers.  Even the latter could NEVER displease God because one can never displease God by attending a Rite of Mass promulgated by the Holy Catholic Church (that too was anathematized as heretical by Trent).

R&R, in other words, is complete non-Catholic crappola, this idea that you can lose your soul or harm your faith by submitting to even the non-infallible Magisterium of the Pope and an Ecuмenical Council, that you could harm your faith by assisting at a (properly-implemented) Mass promulgated by the Holy Catholic Church, that's heretical crap and it outrages me to no end that Catholics can think like that.

Sede-doubtism, however, makes it an entirely new ballgame.

As far as how far obedience to the Roman Pontiff goes, a good rule is that it cannot supercede Divine Law under no circuмstance. St. Bellarmine here describes a very balanced approach to the topic of obedience to the Pope:

Although it clearly follows from the circuмstances that the Pope can err at times and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not … it is said in the Acts of the Apostles. “One ought to obey God rather than man:” therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truths of the Sacraments, or the commands of natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be passed over (despiciendus).  [as quoted in Turrencremata's Summa de Eccles.]

In sum, were the Roman Pontiff to command anything AGAINST Holy Scripture, or the defined Catholic truths, he ought NOT to be obeyed, but in such commands, to be ignored.

The SSPX says the man is doubtful and to give him the benefit of the doubt!

There is no single, monolithic SSPX "position".  I have no problem with the above-stated position, which some / many in the SSPX do in fact hold.  That is enough to justify resistance.

 Confusion among faithful Catholics are one of the signs of the Great Apostasy.

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Ladislaus

Normally, Jehanne, the legitimacy of a pope needs to be known with the certainty of faith, as a dogmatic fact.  

The certitude of faith, and a dogmatic fact are not equivalent.

Dogmatic facts have to be known with the certainty of faith.

No, they are not equivalent, if that is what you were implying.

It is certain, by not an object of the faith itself. It is merely certain that the fact is intrinsically connected to an object of the faith, and can be produced through a personal conclusion.

For instance, I am certain that a skull found at an archeological site is not the skull of Our Lady, because it is intrinsically connected to the dogma of the Assumption.

You know with the certainty of FAITH that the skull could not be that of Our Lady.  Similarly, you must know with the certainty of faith that Pius IX was a legitimate pope; if you did not, then you could not believe in the dogma of papal infallibility with the certainty of faith.

In the case of the skull, it's an a posteriori conclusion from a point of faith.

In the case of papal infallibility, it's a priori to the definition of any other dogma.

But they are both dogmatic facts and both must be known with the certainty of faith.

Do I know with the same degree of certainty that Pius IX was a legitimate pope and that the skull could not have been that of Our Lady?  Absolutely.

Do I know with the same degree of certainty that Pius IX was a legitimate pope and that Francis is a legitimate pope?  Absolutely not.

You're talking in circles and have no idea what you're saying.  Certainty of faith refers to the formal motive of faith, that you know it with the absolutely certainty of God revealing it.