The argument as I understand is basically this:

The SSPX is seeking to bring tradition to confused catholics. In doing so, they believe they are upholding the Catholic faith.

Now, to be a schismatic or a heretic, you must be PERTINACIOUS, that is, pig-headed and obstinate after being warned.

But the SSPX and even some MOTU masses said by valid priests are said with the INTENT of ADHERING to the Catholic Church.

Therefore to simply dismiss an una cuм mass as schismatic or heretical fails to appreciate the gravity and nature of both heresy and schism.

Think of the great Schism. You had St. Vincent Ferrer offering mass UNA cuм Benedict XIII, an anti-pope, yet he is a SAINT!

Now think of the other side, you had other saints on the other sides of the issuee offering mass una cuм their respective "popes" yet none of their masses were condemned as intrinsically heretical or schismatic.

In this day where the identity of the Pope is an issue of confusion, it makes sense to not set scruples before the sacraments. Our first duty is to save our soul, and that requires the sacraments. I KNOW I can get them at an SSPX chapel, even if I do not agree with their opinon. A motu mass, not so much. So for me to attend an una cuм mass is me doing the best I can. God knows I have no intention of unitng myself to what I believe to be a false shepherd, and he knows that I am doing what I can. He will provide the rest. Besides, heretics need prayer too! lol; Although I deally not in the Liturgy...nevertheless, there is Christ, there is the sacrifice.

I disagree strongly with CMRI on this one.  I would only go to an una cuм Mass in an emergency.

The comparison to the Schism is the commonly given one but it doesn't hold.  There was no way for the faithful to know, in that time, who had a valid election; in this case it's a theological dispute and there is a way to know who is right and who is wrong; though it takes grace to see it.  All of us have been wrong about some aspect of the crisis at one time or another.  But SSPX is definitely wrong; sedes should not be wishy-washy about this.

Raoul, you said "I would only go to an una cuм Mass in an emergency." What do you mean by this? What is an "emergency"? When are we as sedes ever REQUIRED to go to an una-cuм mass?

Who does or doesn't have a valid election is not something that people are expected to know, it's not a matter of the faith that can be learned through diligent study.

In the case of SSPX vs. sedevacantism, there are theological issues involved and both sides cannot be right.  So someone is wrong here; someone is in error if not schism or heresy.  The sedes clearly believe they are right; from our position there is good reason to believe the una cuм Mass is offensive to God -- if a Mass that mentioned the relatively benign figure of Nestor was offensive, this one must be much more so -- so why tell people to go unless it's an emergency?

Why do you assume that people in SSPX aren't pertinacious?  I don't assume that they are or they aren't.  There's no way for anyone to know but God.  It depends on the person.  For those who are expected to know more, like the bishops, there is a far higher likelihood that they are pertinaciously spreading error if not heresy.

The SSPX is good at avoiding clear charges of heresy.  If you say that a true Council cannot err, they will say ( a ) That was in the Catechism of Pius X and catechisms are not infallible, which I disagree with but then they would say that catechisms being infallible is not dogma; ( b ) They'll say that VII was a pastoral council, though I deny such a thing can even exist and don't see why they play the semantic games of the Modernists.

If you mention the encyclical where JPII authorizes Catholics to attend a Mass with no consecration of the Eucharist, they say "encyclicals aren't infallible."  If you say they are when it comes to faith and morals ( I defy anyone in SSPX to find one heresy or error on the faith in any encyclical prior to Vatican II ) they say that Popes are only infallible when they speak ex cathedra -- which is either a good-willed or bad-willed misreading of the Vatican One Council.  But only God knows if it's good-willed or bad-willed.

I can do this all day.  I know all the arguments.  They always have some kind of excuse that makes it very hard to say they're heretics.  They seem to be denying dogmas of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, but if they're not SURE these dogmas are part of the OAUM yet, then it seems likely they're material heretics at worst.  And how are we ever really sure when a dogma enters the OAUM?  St. Bernard denied the Immaculate Conception at a time when many believed in it; it wasn't in the OAUM yet, let alone the Extraordinary Magisterium, but how was anyone to know that at the time?  The fact that people don't call Feeneyites flat-out heretics shows how unsure we are that baptism of desire has become part of the OAUM, and this was taught by the Council of Trent!  It is far more likely, as St. Alphonsus said, that BoD is de fide.  Yet we still don't call Feeneyites heretics.

I've seen the same thing with the Jansenists.  Some call them heretics; some just seem to consider them scrupulous or having a kind of skewed spirit.  SSPX would be in this category, it's tweaked but you can rarely find someone in it who is openly deliberately heretical.

Raoul, you're just prejudiced against the SSPX because you haven't been at many (any?) of their chapels. So you can say how they are schismatic, etc. You'd be more likely to go easy on them if you had spent many years at their chapels.

I actually *attend* their chapels, and I think it's insane to allege that there's schism in the intentions of ANY significant number of the parishioners. I think SSPX attendees are among the most promising traditional Catholics alive today. In fact, with all the criticism of their faults by Telesphorus (and others), I'd say they're as Catholic (or even holy) as a body as any cross-section of Catholics in the past. Remember, Catholics have always been taken from all walks of society, and there have *always* been worldly Catholics. The SSPX has no choice but to accept such Catholics, and not "crush the bruised reed". They must try to save as many souls as possible -- and yes, that includes weak and/or worldly Catholics.

They are the ones that AREN'T schismatic, as they're not ready to go off and declare the whole Conciliar Church null and void -- reducing the number of Catholics from the nominal (admittedly exaggerated) 1 billion down to a few hundred or few thousand at best.

There's something fundamental you're missing Raoul, but I haven't been able to clearly lay it out yet. Part of it is "I don't know where to begin".

Raoul, you said "I would only go to an una cuм Mass in an emergency." What do you mean by this? What is an "emergency"? When are we as sedes ever REQUIRED to go to an una-cuм mass?


You said the una cuм mass is "offensive to God". But if it is offensive to God, then why is it EVER acceptable to go to it, even in the case of an emergency?

You contradict yourself. If the una cuм mass is objectively offensive to God, then it is NEVER acceptable.

I still believe lots of lay people who attend una cuм masses are Catholics, I still believe many people who attend novus ordo are even Catholics, just as I believe the illiterate serfs in Europe or new converts in missionary lands, etc. are Catholic. The many who have not figured out Benedict and JP's heresies.

But if they know for a fact that Benedict XVI is teaching conrary to the true faith, and still go on offering mass in communion with him, let them be anathema.

So how does that apply to the CMRI as well? Are they an "anathema" because they allow and even encourage the una-cuм SSPX masses for their faithful who have nowhere else to go?

where do they publically maintain that it is ok?

There priests and even Bp. Pivarunas himself. I even emailed him once and he told me SSPX una-cuм was ok. Now I want to know WHY.