//The sspx does not say the new mass, therefore per the "motu" law, they are illicit because they refuse to submit to the local bishops.  You contradict yourself//

I thought groups like the FSSP did not celebrate the New Mass, though it was also my understanding that they don't say its intrinsically immoral to attend or celebrate it.  Is that what you meant, or am i misinformed?

For myself, it's sufficient to say that I have no need to defend myself against a false accusation, but for argument's sake, my statement did not denouce the pope as pope at all, whereas schismatics refuse all subjection to the pope as they denounce the pope(s) as the visible head of the Church on earth.  

do you believe John Paul 2 is a saint?

yes or no?

Pope Benedict XIV: “If anyone dared to assert that the Pontiff had erred in this or that canonization, we shall say that he is, if not a heretic, at least temerarious, a giver of scandal to the whole Church, an insulter of the saints, a favorer of those heretics who deny the Church’s authority in canonizing saints, savoring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous opinion and liable to very grave penalties.”[10]

//Pope Benedict XIV: “If anyone dared to assert that the Pontiff had erred in this or that canonization, we shall say that he is, if not a heretic, at least temerarious, a giver of scandal to the whole Church, an insulter of the saints, a favorer of those heretics who deny the Church’s authority in canonizing saints, savoring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous opinion and liable to very grave penalties.”[10]//

Devil's advocating.

Benedict XIV isn't defining dogma here.  And its clear because he says that someone who says a canonization erred might not ACTUALLY be a heretic.

Given that, could this be a case where Vatican II's streamlined procedures changes things?

Lemme give an analogy to explain what I mean.

If a well learned college professor gives his explanation of some historical event, and cites several highly regared scholars to back him up, his explanation isn't infallible, but you'd darn well better have extremely good reason to question him.

Now say that same college professor says its arrogant to challenge the professor.

Say that professor dies, and is replaced with a professor that somehow only really has a high school degree in history (his collegiate credentials were forged) but yet somehow the school hired him anyway.

This is a rough and imprecise analogy, but if its *temerarious* (as opposed to heretical) to challenge a canonization given in the context of requiring 4 miracles and having a devil's advocate, perhaps its reasonable to have some doubt when there are only two miracles and no devil's advocate.

Or else, if canonizations are *automatically* infallible (apart from the process used) it seems strange that Benedict XIV doesn't actually say that (he says the Church hasn't erred, not that its infallible) nor does he say that its heretical outright to deny the validity of canonizations.  Whereas denying an infallibly defined dogma would be heresy.  If you deny the immaculate conception, you aren't "savoring of heresy" or "temerarious" you're an out and out heretic.

Could Benedict's thinking here have been predicated on the process he knew he was using?

I'm not "R&R" (which means Recognize and Resist, for those whom this is new - coined by Fr. Cekada). If you want a convenient acronym to describe the True Traditionalist position, it would be something like, "RSWR" (i.e. Recognize, Submit, Work for Restoration).

I have cited this before to certain people, but they ignore the Pope, His Excellency Bishop Fellay, and basically everyone who doesn't agree with their resistance polemics, "As a result of the Pope’s act, during the Holy Year, we will have ordinary jurisdiction." https://damselofthefaith.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/ordinary-jurisdiction-for-the-year-of-mercy-bishop-fellay-says/

The Pope granted it. The Bishops and Priests of the Society know they have it. That settles it. OJ cannot exist outside the Church.

Now, lest we forget, the article of Siscoe and the focus of this thread is not over the SSPX's canonical status, but over SVism and Schism

I challenge any SV to answer these questions which Ladislaus couldn't or wouldn't answer, (1) Where is the OUM of the Church today? (2) Does the OUM recognize the Pope? Those are the only 2 questions sedes need to ask and answer to know SVism is certainly false.

Xavier, you correctly point out many good catholic principles but you don't know (or ignore) the many exceptions which exist, so your conclusions are false.  You really need to do more reading on these topics; you are very wrong.

Then, give me one or two texts from pre-Vatican II manuals that (1) speak of "material offices" (2) disagree with the CE's explanation of Apostolicity of mission (you won't find any) as I asked (or with that of Fr. Gueranger, St. Anthony's Catechism etc). You have not done this. When something is true doctrine, you will easily find it in multiple sources, widely attested.

If you think St. Robert has said something about "material offices", cite the text or give the reference. The Doctor never did.

Here is the CE again: "Billuart(III, 306) concludes his remarks on Apostolicity in the words of St. Jerome: "We must abide in that Church, which was founded by the Apostles, and endures to this day.: Mazella (De Relig. et Eccl., 359), after speaking of Apostolic succession as an uninterrupted substitution of persons in the place of the Apostles, insists upon the necessity of jurisdiction or authoritative transmission, thus excluding the hypothesis that a new mission could ever be originated by anyone in the place of the mission bestowed by Christ and transmitted in the manner described." The Pope grants mission to the Bishops, the Bishops do to Priests (unless the Priests are specially authorized by the Pope); in the case of the SSPX, the Pope has already granted Ordinary Jurisdiction to the Bishops of the Society, and he also specially authorized its Priests. Game over.

because they consider the V2 hierarchy as having no authority

You notorious subjectivist, in that case, the Protestants and Orthodox are also justified! The Protestants "consider the Catholic Church as having no authority", the Orthodox "consider the Roman Church as not being the Church and having no authority"; so according to Ladislaus' ridiculous and persistent subjectivism, everybody is justified who believes the Hierarchical Church is not the Church. Not just the Dimonds, who according to him are perfectly ok because what they "consider" is all that matters.  ;D

Note that Ladislaus still hasn't answered the question "Where is the OUM of the Church" but expects everyone to answer him.

I don't live in the US. I'm going back to the Priory in my country around July. Someone who wants to know more, please PM me. 

Except that this is not true according to the principles of sedeprivationism ... which is, again, why I hold to it as the most reasonable explanation for the current crisis.

Well, that's a start; at least you see the problem a simple sedevacantism would cause upon the demise or resignation of all Ordinaries and Roman Clergy. But sedeprivationism doesn't solve the problem for 3 reasons (1) First, as many, I think even sedes have pointed out, sedeprivationism involves the same private judgment - an Old Catholic could say the Church lost authority at Vatican I, a Protestant at Trent, an Orthodox at Florence, an Arian at Nicaea etc. So, it is more of the same subjectivism instead of the objective fact of identifying where the Church is, by Petrine and Apostolic Succession, which is how the Magisterium and the Fathers proceed (2) sedeprivationism, by half measures, ends up applying to the Catholic Church what the Catholic Church has historically applied to the Orthodox Church - the Orthodox Church has no jurisdiction, the Patriarch of Constantinople is himself a vagrant Bishop. If now it has really become true according to the sedeprivationists that the Popes and the Catholic Hierarchy themselves are vagrant and have no jurisdiction, that would constitute a defection of the Catholic Church. (3) the original sedeprivationists, decades ago, claimed the Pope could designate Bishops, but these Bishops would lack authority. So if they now want to claim their "material Pope" can actually invest Ordinaries with habitual jurisdiction, they've firstly changed their story. Secondly, as for example that Bishops appointed by the Patriarch of Constantinople would possess absolutely no authority, so also Bishops appointed by a "material Pope" would not. Therefore, sedeprivationism does not really solve the problem, and needs to be revised. It is very probable there was interference and more in the Church especially in the 60s and therefore these reforms are not free. But the absolutely minimum requisites are there.

We support and are devoted to men like His Excellency Bp. Athanasius and His Eminence Cardinal Robert in their work for the Church.

Bp. Athanasius Schneider spoke to the Pope and received a clarification that false religions come only from the permissive will of God.

"The Pope explicitly stated that Bishop Schneider could share the contents of their exchange on this point. “You can say that the phrase in question on the diversity of religions means the permissive will of God,” he told the assembled bishops, who come from predominantly Muslim regions." https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-schneider-extracts-clarification-on-diversity-of-religions-from-pope-francis-brands-abuse-summit-a-failure

The Pope was trying to secure some freedoms for Christians in a Muslim country where Christians are oppressed; he did it badly but has clarified it means only permissive will. That's the end of that matter. How many of us have tried in any way to help persecuted Christians?

Cardinal Robert Sarah favors Tradition and some parishes have begun offering Mass ad orientem thanks to H.E. and some have the Traditional Mass more frequently. H.E. recently wrote a great book called the Power of Silence that has been widely praised: https://adoremus.org/2017/09/20/cardinal-sarahs-new-book-power-silence-breaks-noise-world/

The Pope offered Holy Mass versus Deum in the House of Loretto recently. See, prayer for H.H. works. The Pope needs many prayers for the Church to be saved. These are the times of which Sr. Catherine Emmerich spoke of, with a counter-church in Rome beside the true Church of St. Peter's in Rome, with Masonry having infiltrated the great Church of Sts. Peter and Paul, with two Popes etc.

The Church is suffering this Crisis predominantly because of a lack of prayer and sacrifices, lack of a desire for sanctity and so on.

We should have an ongoing prayer crusade for the Holy Father. It will take at least Nine Years of a Novena of Masses and Communions, Rosaries and Consecrations and countless other sacrifices from all the Faithful to save his Soul and the Church. I would much prefer all Traditional Catholics unite in doing this than get into these polemics, but resistance-ism and svism is unnecessarily splitting and dividing Catholics. You who have attacked His Excellency Bishop Fellay for being ready to work with Rome for Catholic Tradition in the Church have weakened the SSPX and its work for Catholic Restoration by attacking it from every side. I hope you're happy if that was your aim.

There are only a few ways the Church will be saved, either (1) Pope Francis is miraculously enlightened by God, or (2) a good Tradition-leaning Catholic Cardinal becomes Pope, or (3) a good Traditional Catholic Bishop (like Bp. Fellay) becomes Cardinal and then Pope etc.

It is for one of those, according to God's Will, that we have to pray and work.

If you want a convenient acronym to describe the True Traditionalist position, it would be something like, "RSWR" (i.e. Recognize, Submit, Work for Restoration).

Whatever, except that you refuse to submit ... as the very raison d'etre of the Traditional Movement comes precisely from the refusal to submit.

Now, lest we forget, the article of Siscoe and the focus of this thread is not over the SSPX's canonical status, but over SVism and Schism

Too bad you've forgotten that Archbishop Lefebvre rejects your position (and that of Siscoe) that the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants is dogmatic fact.

I still think XavierSam asked a fair question, whether he's being consistent with it or not.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Francis is indeed the Holy Father, how are someone like the Dimonds (or whoever) not schismatic?  How does the "material schismatic" argument not apply just as well to professing Protestants or EOs who are in good faith?  Or heck, someone like Richard Ibryani who thinks there hasn't been legitimate authority since 1130?

To be clear, I'm not definitively saying this is the case, just wondering why it wouldn't be, assuming Francis is really the pope.  Obviously if he is not in fact the Pope, this line of questioning wouldn't really apply.