This is from a letter I just wrote to the relative of a well-known sedevacantist, edited for clarity and length.  I hope he will forgive me for reprinting part of a private letter here but I'll probably never be able to describe my feelings about the "una cuм" Mass so well again.

---

I am now about to say something nice about SSPX, so prepare for the shock.  Since it would seem to be an objective fact -- or at least you and I think so -- that these Popes are not Popes ( not just anti-Popes with invalid elections but non-Popes and non-Catholics ), then the clergy of SSPX are not really in schism when they sift and pick-and-choose.  Sadly, it is those who remain in VII who bear the full brunt of schism.

Many sedevacantists say the SSPX is in schism against the "man they think is Pope."  But who cares what those in SSPX think?  They think wrong.  How can you be in schism against a figment of your own imagination?  Because if JPII was Pope, or Ratzinger is Pope, than I'm here typing this to you with Minnie Mouse on my lap, feeding me wine and cheese.

I see it a bit differently than most.  Those in SSPX are not schismatics, even if they rebel against "the man they think is Pope," because he is NOT Pope.  However, they may be heretics, because of their offense against the dogmas of infallibility and indefectibility.

What a terrible and blasphemous assumption they make about the Catholic Church, that it could give us Popes who say the Old Covenant is still valid and that Jєωs can convert people to the "light."  Do you know what that means?  It means Christ may as well never have come down to earth to have had the flesh torn piece by piece from His body.  Here is where, if I were in SSPX, I'd be getting scared.  Their offense is directly aimed at God Himself, with an implicit denial of His mission.

I know this may sound hysterical or like exaggeration, but I believe that with every "una cuм" that is offered, the crown of thorns is pushed deeper down into Christ's skull.

Being una-cuм with idol-worshippers is an implicit denial of the Church and thus an implicit denial of the Passion itself.  The consequences of that, to put it mildly, could be serious.

The question is, how many people have a mind subtle enough to put together the syllogism I just did?  I know God's mind is subtle enough ( ha ha ).  But does He really expect Joe Schmo to be able to figure it out?  Well, why not?   God reveals his secrets to the humble.  What excuse would Mr. Schmo have when SSPX itself gripes about Vatican II and its leaders with the much softer-sounding term "ecuмenism," which is really a euphemism for "idolatry"?

If the Popes are "ecuмenical" -- idolaters, Judaizers -- then how can they be Popes?  SSPX make it sound as if worshipping strange gods is a minor fault, when it is really BLANKET APOSTASY.  And the fact that so few see this can only be attributed to the shell-shock, the hypnotism, the vivid confusion spread not only by Vatican II but by SSPX.

The sedevacantist position, on the other hand, is like having smelling salts thrust under your nose.

That stems from an imaginative poetry devoid of rational foundation.  He argues from a grand "thematic" perspective and judges in light of a story he has created in his mind.  When we descend to the level of proposition and sound philosophical examination it all falls to pieces.  I call it the "Hollywood solution" since their imaginative interpretation makes for a good movie script.  Gerry Matatics has the same intellectual problem.  But for those interested in rational concepts like "proposition," "evidence" and "reason" this kind of talk is nothing but hot air.  I think this tendency is a direct result of watching too many movies.  This is the "television's generation" of apologetics which takes sensation in the place of well-reasoned discourse.    

The French press is reporting that Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, who many think is the most traditional of the four living bishops of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), has announced in a letter dated February 28, 2009, that "there exists a 'legitimate doubt' on the 'validity of a pope such as Benedict XVI." Tissier noted in his letter that the SSPX's founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, also had this doubt. -From a letter by the good Bishop dated 2/28/09.

It is one thing (and quite awful enough) to lend credence to a false religion; it is something else altogether to become an adherent to a false religion. The latter is to become an idolater, which is precisely what Raoul76 has accused Benedict XVI of being.

So, Raul76 and Dawn, can either of you provide a single shred of evidence to prove that Benedict XVI actually worships idols?

It's a simple question, really.

The French press is reporting that Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, who many think is the most traditional of the four living bishops of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), has announced in a letter dated February 28, 2009, that "there exists a 'legitimate doubt' on the 'validity of a pope such as Benedict XVI." Tissier noted in his letter that the SSPX's founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, also had this doubt. -From a letter by the good Bishop dated 2/28/09.

Firstly, quote the entire text.  Secondly, what does he mean by "legitimate doubt" in terms of moral theology?  Does he mean that such a doubt is equivalent to militantly declaring he is an "anti-pope" and denouncing other Catholics who do not share this opinion?  Does he mean that such a doubt amounts to the pretended "absolute certainty" that "sedes" claim to possess?  I'm sorry to be such a nag, but if you are going to make claims, then at least have the willingness and ability to analyse them.  At least have the decency to quote things in the proper contexts and adhere to the intention of the author.  This a virtual plague among "sedes."

I do not hate Benedict. You are quite wrong on that. It is the whole quote from Bishop Tissier, who has said much the same before. So has Archbishop Lefebvre. Those two along will Bishop Williamson are men that I admire greatly. I have read the biography on Lefebvre.

If there is hate on this thread, it is hatred of truth by people who perform Hegelian double minded back flips to excuse the most scanalous behavior of the "modern Popes." that in and of itself says much. God is the same yesterday, today, and always. He does not change and His Mass and Sacraments do not change.

Now, for further example of Alinsky's rule number five I shall hit reply and let you both have at it.

If there is hate on this thread, it is hatred of truth by people who perform Hegelian double minded back flips to excuse the most scanalous behavior of the "modern Popes." that in and of itself says much.

You've got to be kidding. Do you even read what you write before you post it? My dear, we're not talking about BEHAVIOR, we're talking about APOSTASY FROM THE FAITH (which concerns explicit denial of doctrine or explicit adherence to false doctrine). By no stretch of the imagination do either Caminus or I excuse the utterly scandalous behavior of Benedict XVI.

Will you please for once ANSWER THE QUESTION:

Can you produce a single shred of evidence that Benedict XVI literally worships idols???

By the way, I read and re-read Lumen Gentium 16 yesterday, and it really gives me pause. However, I don't want to discuss that just yet. For the moment, I simply want to address Raoul76's assertion that Benedict XVI is an idolater.

If you folks cannot produce evidence to back up that assertion, then you need to retract it. Otherwise, you are indeed guilty of bearing false witness.