Just Curious.

Why do you ask these polls and make your statements?

What exactly are you trying to get at?

I could only add 10 options but there is one more concrete one that I wanted to add:

Anyone who is Una cuм with "Pope Francis" is in schism because they unite themselves to the heretic Bergoglio in the sacred action of the Mass.

If you agree with this ^^ option - just thumbs down this post. (I am running a pretty sweet ratio, and I don't want to mess it up).

Snip: "This famous Una cuм of the sedevacantists...ridiculous! ridiculous .... it’s ridiculous, it's ridiculous. In fact it is not at all the meaning of the prayer"- Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, retreat at St-Michel en Brenne, April 1st, 1989

… And then, he (Dom Guillou) goes through all the prayers of the Canon, all the prayers of the Roman
Canon. He goes through them one after the other and then he shows the difference, he gives
translations, very good ones. He gives, for example, precisely this famous.. you know, this famous una
cuм.., una cuм of the sedevacantists. And you, do you say una cuм? (laughter of the nuns of St-Michel
en Brenne). You say una cuм in the Canon of the Mass! Then we cannot pray with you; then you're not
Catholic; you're not this; you're not that; you're not.. Ridiculous! ridiculous! because they claim
that when we say una cuм summo Pontifice, the Pope, isn’t it, with the Pope, so therefore you embrace
everything the Pope says. It’s ridiculous! It’s ridiculous! In fact, this is not the meaning of the
prayer. Te igitur clementissime Pater. This is the first prayer of the Canon. So here is how Dom
Guillou translates it, a very accurate translation, indeed: "We therefore pray Thee with profound
humility, most merciful Father, and we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, to
accept and to bless these gifts, these presents, these sacrifices, pure and without blemish, which we
offer Thee firstly for Thy Holy Catholic Church. May it please Thee to give Her peace, to keep Her, to
maintain Her in unity, and to govern Her throughout the earth, and with Her, Thy servant our Holy
Father the Pope." It is not said in this prayer that we embrace all ideas that the Pope may have or
all the things he may do. With Her, your servant our Holy Father the Pope, our Bishop and all those
who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith! So to the extent where, perhaps,
unfortunately, the Popes would no longer have ..., nor the bishops…, would be deficient in the
Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic Faith, well, we are not in union with them, we are not with them, of
course. We pray for the Pope and all those who practice the Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox faith! - Archbishop Lefebvre

  We're 60 years into this crisis and one still has to have 10+ "answers" in a poll.

This proves that the crisis is a supernatural one, a historical anomaly, a unique chastisement sent by God.  ...one not easily explained, until God lets the Church explain it.

Until then, we pray.  Arguing about it has solved nothing in the last 60 years and it won't solve anything today.

Argue all you like, or not, vote or don't, some people have a different opinion about these things. Simply stating "one is doing their best", or "finding answers is too hard", doesn't make it true. . Arrogance can take many forms.

It is not always correct or wise to claim ignorance, but it is the absolute opposite of arrogance. "I do not know enough to say for sure" is not and could not be arrogant. "I know for absolute certain" (where you seem to be) very well could be.

Now of course, you could be absolutely correct, because we could rephrase this discussion as an argument between a Catholic and agnostics, where the agnostics say they aren't sure and you assuredly declare your belief in God. In that case you would be totally correct, as you may well be in this case too, but that's a position you have to justify with a little more than just "anyone answering with uncertainty is an arrogant schismatic".

Well, I didn't actually say that, and that may be the case for some, not so for everyone. Arrogance can and does take many forms. The veiled forms can often hide behind a false humility or feigned ignorance, or self-righteous indignation.

Pretending You Don't Know Something When You Do - The Art Of Faking Ignorance

• It can be a way to avoid appearing boastful or arrogant. Pretending not to know something can make a person come across as more humble.

[which in itself could be a form of veiled arrogance (false humility), "How dare you tell me to study and think to arrive at some sort of certainty, I have no obligation to ask those questions, nor answer them!"]
Are you suggesting that we wait for the N.O. schismatic false clergy to declare themselves such?

Are you suggesting that no one can know if someone is a schismatic otherwise?

No, I'm suggesting you give YOUR reasoning.

Oh, ok, well to me it seems certain that some of the above groups meet the objective definition of being schismatic. Though I will keep my thoughts to myself about which particular ones for now, as I gather more information on them and the other polls I have been running.

I will point out that people pretending that they are all united in the faith seems somewhat absurd to me. for instance;

The SSPV clergy say you cannot go to Thuc-bishops.

RCI says, "do not come here for sacraments if you are a "feenynite" (same with SSPV).

Resistance is pitched against SSPX, and I would guess that some of their priests would at least be displeased to know their faithful go to SSPX chapels and vice versa.

Dogmatic Non-Una-cuм will not go to ANY Una-cuм Francis Masses as they consider it schism/sacrilege.

These are just a few of my thoughts - since you asked...

There are two confusing choices right now.

1》 Follow Pope Francis and the Vatican 2 church.

2) Join rhe scattered sheep who don't have a head.

Which do you choose?

Most here choose 2

Schism can be due to either 1) Refusing subjection/submissoin to and communion with the Holy See or 2) refusing communion with other Catholics.

Per 1 -- If Bergoglio is the Pope, a refusal of submission would constitute schism ... unless the individual entertains some well-founded doubt about the legitimacy of Bergoglio (per the Canonists).  Now, even though some groups hold that Bergoglio is pope, many entertain the possibility that he might not be (we've heard that from +Lefebvre, and even +Williamson and others), at which point, lacking the requisite dogmatic-fact-certainty regarding Bergoglio's papacy, that would absolve someone of schism per those Canonists.  Dogmatic Sedeplenists who refuse submission to and communion with Bergoglio would be schismatic.

Per 2 -- Some Trads dogmatize their conclusions / theories / positions about various subjects that are in fact not dogmatically certain and treat those who do not adhere to their positions as if they were non-Catholics, refusing Communion with them (e.g. priests refusing Sacraments).  By refusing communion with other Catholics, they too can be in schism (if they're wrong about their conclusions, which in most cases they are).  So, for instance, SSPV in treating CMRI and Feeneyites as non-Catholics (refusing them Communion), or the radical Pro-EENS crowd, meaning those who hold that anyone who believes in BoD is a heretic (even if the position is articulated in a way that the Church has tolerated and accepted, e.g. the position of some of the Church Doctors.  There is a distinction, too, where one can argue that a cetain POSITION is objectively heretical, but since the Church has not defined it clearly enough or weighed in on it, they still consider those who adhere to it Catholics, because the Church has not concluded otherwise.  So, for instance, if I were a Thomist priest, I might still argue that Molinism is objectively heretical, but since the Church said we should still consider those who adhere to it Catholic, I would still give Holy Communion to Molinists.  One might HAVE argued before the definition of papal infallibility or the Immaculate Conception, that these were objectively dogmas, but couldn't refuse communion with those who didn't agree with that ... until it was clearly defined by the Church.  In point of fact, they'd be right, since all dogmas were always dogmas, having all been revealed in the Deposit of Faith before the death of the last Apostle (St. John) ... but those who denied them would not be formal heretics (guilty of heresy) until the Church defined it with sufficient clarity to end all doubt and establish the certainty of faith regarding that conclusion.  Consequently, while one might ARGUE that a certain position is OBJECTIVELY heretical, one cannot refuse communion with (or, in the case of priests/bishops, the Sacraments to) those who do not hold your position.

So, many of the "dogmatic" positions, whether dogmatic R&R (while remaining Trad and refusing submmission to Bergoglio), meaning where it's dogmatically certain (dogmatic fact) that Bergoglio is pope, or else dogmatic SVism or dogmatic anti-BoDism, meaning that they'd refuse communion with thoes who disagree with their as-yet-not-defined conclusions ... those would be schismatic.  Unfortunately, many of the Trad positions have been illegitimately elevated to the level of dogma, and I find that there's only one that is a legitimate point of dogmatic contention, namely, the nature of the Church and of the papacy and the Magisterium where it pertains to the indefectibility of the Church.

I'm working on an essay on my Substack entitled "Dogmatic Indefectibilism" to lay all this out.  I actually have a half dozen (or more) essays in various states of completion on there, and have to "pull the trigger" on some of them.  While I can rattle off posts like this in a minute, I tend to be a bit over-perfectionist about the stuff there, trying to make sure they're very polished ... and I think it's a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good.