Yes, it's very complicated, and that's a testimony to the depth of confusion regarding the Church today.

SSPX believes that Vatican II taught some errors.  Archbishop Lefebvre, who signed off on all the V2 docs, minimized the problems with V2 as ambiguities, which could be interpreted in either a Catholic sense or a modernist sense, deliberately planted there by the modernists themselves, with the intent to exploit them down the road.  I believe that most SSPX clergy and faithful would go further and say that there are in fact clear errors in V2.  But Bishop Fellay appears to fall more into the "V2 ambiguity" school of thought, which attitude of his has been driving the recent talks with the Vatican.  Archbishop Lefebvre told John Paul II that he would accept Vatican II if interpreted in the light of Tradition.  JP2 responded something like, "But of course we have to understand it in the light of Tradition."  As it turned out, JP2 had an evolution of dogma "heremeneutic" with regard to V2, and so that "agreement" almost immediately evaporated.  Unfortunately, quasi-official-SSPX-theologian Michael Davies, for instance, reduced the error in V2 that could not be reconciled with Tradition (albeit with serious theological gymnastics) to the word "publicly" in Dignitatis Humanae.  SSPX unfortunately does not understand that the errors and bad fruits of Vatican II derive from a completely new ecclesiology that revolves around a watered-down view of the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus--the same watered-down if not grossly erroneous and even implicitly heretical view of it that quasi-official SSPX publications have promoted.

Now I've used the term "quasi-official" with regard to SSPX, because there's hardly a single monolithic SSPX.  Bishops Tissier, Williamson, and Galaretta are more hardline than Bishop Fellay, and among the SSPX priests and faithful you'll find anywhere from quasi-modernists to closet sedevacantists.

Now, the SSPX also holds that the NO Mass is intrinsically valid (or capable of being valid) but often in practice invalid due to a lack of proper intention from the priest.  SSPX holds the NO Mass to be quasi-Protestant and harmful to faith.  Yet they argue that this does not violate the theological certainty of disciplinary infallibility because it was never strictly, officially, legally mandated upon all the faithful by the V2 popes.  It's a rather tortured legalistic argument.  SSPX knows that many or most of the faithful want to have Sacraments received in the NO conditionally repeated (such as Confirmation), so they placate the masses by this theology of the bad intention.

So if you hold an ambiguity view of V2 and a non-legally-binding view of the NO Mass, you can posit that the V2 popes are legitimate.  Some of the SSPX (including Bishop Fellay) are adamant that the V2 popes MUST be regarded as legitimate.  Others, including Bishops Tissier, Williamson, and Galaretta have said that it's OK to entertain certain private doubts regarding the legitimacy of the V2 popes but that you can't get dogmatic about it.  These same bishops would probably reject the ambiguity view of V2 as well.

SSPX holds that V2 and the V2 popes did not teach any of their errors infallibly--which opens up another huge discussion for which I don't have time at the moment.

So that's SSPX in a nutshell.  I'll write later about sedevantism and its various flavors--and that gets even much more complicated.
 

Now, the SSPX also holds that the NO Mass is intrinsically valid (or capable of being valid) but often in practice invalid due to a lack of proper intention from the priest.  SSPX holds the NO Mass to be quasi-Protestant and harmful to faith.  Yet they argue that this does not violate the theological certainty of disciplinary infallibility because it was never strictly, officially, legally mandated upon all the faithful by the V2 popes.  It's a rather tortured legalistic argument.  SSPX knows that many or most of the faithful want to have Sacraments received in the NO conditionally repeated (such as Confirmation), so they placate the masses by this theology of the bad intention.
 

Exhibit A:

Ladislaus, much of your post is doctrinally correct, but your own views are seeping into it.

You have your own issues with the SSPX; I realize that.

But an argument is an argument. Why do you have to insert the adjectives "tortured" and "legalistic"?

You know, there are simple-minded Novus Ordoites who would count any Traditionalist argument (you know, those who say "I can't attend the Novus Ordo") as being legalistic, just because it sounds rational and/or complicated. In the end, what does "legalistic" mean? Of the law? Logical? Jesuitical? Pharasaical?

I know it has an objective definition, but it's one of those words that can be used and interpreted by different people in different ways.

And what evidence do you have that they are "placating the masses"? Why not just stick to the facts? You have to get your digs in...

Quote from: EcceAgnusDei

From what I have learned thus far, I think that the SSPX does not believe in Vat2 changes nor do they believe the NO consecration is valid. Do they have a stance on the false ecuмenism/heresies of B16 or JP2?

I don't understand why they came back into line with Rome with all the modernist infiltration still occurring. I think that SSPX did something great which was necessary at the time but it seems like they whimped out and just went right back to a heretical "pope".

I'm trying to figure out the positions of SSPX, sedevacantists, and modernist NO defenders. Does anybody know a good way to go about this? I've been reading the SSPX websites, listening to the Dimonds and other sedes, and also seeing what modernist Catholics have to say. It all seems so confusing and I can't find definitive answers. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places?

If you have any advice, I would love to hear it. Also, if I've said something incorrect, please correct me!

I do suggest that you get your information about the SSPX from someone INSIDE the SSPX or at least amenable to them.

You wouldn't want me getting my knowledge of you from your worst enemy, would you?

Likewise, you wouldn't ask the Dimond brothers about the SSPX positions. They likely would get many things wrong, either by accident or on purpose. They would see the SSPX through a certain lens, which would distort things.

It's hard to be objective about your enemy. Few people have that ability.

Matthew

Well, that's why I went to the sspx.org website and I read their Q&A but I felt that it was so confusing. I couldn't get a definitive answer on V2 and what they think about the recent popes. That's why I was hoping some of you who are SSPXers could help clarify these questions or show me where I can find the answers aside from sspx.org.

From listening to the Dimonds and reading their website, I understand their position on V2 and the popes since then. Is there a group like the Dimonds in the SSPX which can help me understand SSPX views?

Thanks!

Ladislaus, much of your post is doctrinally correct, but your own views are seeping into it.

You're right.  I did make a couple of editorial comments there.  Guess I just couldn't help myself.  I set out with the intention of being objective.  Take those out, however, and I think I've actually captured SSPX fairly well.  I used to be SSPX, and I also used to be sedevacantist--so I do have inside first-hand knowledge of how some people think, since I used to think like most of them at various points in my life.  Where I've landed right now is somewhere in the middle, not 100% SSPX (again, not everyone even IN SSPX is 100% SSPX--since there are so many shades of opinion even among them), not 100% sedevacantist.  I'm pretty much 50/50 SSPX/sedevacantist--disagreeing with the majority of those among both these groups regarding the EENS issue.  I'm actually closest to the opinionist folks in SSPX and the opinionist folks in sedevacantism (i.e. the non-dogmatic, more moderate elements of both--yet landing even between these two).