Pope Benedict XIV, Ex quo primum tempore:

Emphasis mine.

EDIT: the quote above not only applies to the priest celebrating una cuм, but also to the faithful assisting at such a Mass ("Orate fratres ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium...").

The Sacrifice in question is the sacrifice of Christ Himself, not anything personal from the priest officiating. God is not offended when you unite yourself with the sacrifice being offered up by the Priest.

And yes, Catholics are pious and good for asserting their Catholicism, which (might I remind you) involves submission to the Pope. There's a name for those who cut themselves off from the Pope -- schismatics.

It seems strange now to acknowledge and submit to a Pope. But that is THE MOST CATHOLIC of attitudes. Bet that sounds strange at first, doesn't it? I suppose 62 years of "no Pope" will do that to you.

You see, that's another reason I would NEVER become sedevacantist. The whole point of the Traditional Movement is to KEEP THE FAITH during the Crisis in the Church. If I emerge from the Crisis with a punch-card full of hundreds of Tridentine Masses attended, but have completely lost my Catholic sense when it comes to needing a Pope -- what good was the whole lifeboat? If I end up dying immediately after leaving the lifeboat and going on shore?

I have to choose the *safest* and most *prudent* path during the Crisis -- the one that will see me still Catholic when it is all over. And based on the holiness of Abp Lefebvre, I'm going with his position. I'm willing to bet my endless eternity on it.

Here are your "hidden Christians". Read through to the end:

Approximately 30,000 secret Christians, some of whom had adopted these new ways of practicing Christianity, came out of hiding when religious freedom was re-established in 1873 after the Meiji Restoration. The Kakure Kirishitan became known as Mukashi Kirishitan (昔キリシタン), or 'ancient Christians', and emerged not only from traditional Christian areas in Kyushu, but also from other rural areas of Japan.^[1]
Some Kakure Kirishitan did not rejoin the Catholic Church, and became known as the Hanare Kirishitan (離れキリシタン, 'separated Christians').^[1][3] Hanare Kirishitan are now primarily found in Urakami and on the Gotō Islands.^[2]
In the early 1990s, anthropologist Christal Whelan discovered some Hanare Kirishitan still living on the Gotō Islands where Kakure Kirishitan had once fled. There were only two surviving priests on the islands, both of whom were over 90, and they would not talk to each other. The few surviving laity had also reached old age, and some of them no longer had any priests from their lineage and prayed alone. Although these Hanare Kirishitan had a strong tradition of secrecy, they agreed to be filmed for Whelan's docuмentary Otaiya.^[6]
The Kakure Kirishitan still exist today, forming "what is arguably a separate faith, barely recognizable as the creed imported in the mid-1500s by Catholic missionaries".^[3] In 2025, it was reported that there were less than 100 Hidden Christians left on the island of Ikitsuki in Nagasaki, down from 10,000 in the 1940s.^[7]

One of the biggest differences I see between Sede trads and non-Sede trads (I'll include indult, here) is the Jєωιѕн/SOS red pill revelation. Ex., What they are behind, from the early days of the renaissance to now, the infiltration, and they correlation with Apocalypse and the crisis in the Church. I actually came into tradition by learning about the J's first. Just a thing to ponder.

Please realize 60-70 percent of all trads at sede chapels do not agree with Una-cuм stance. Trust me, they don't. The ones that are dogmatic sedes are the brown-nosers at Church (we know who they are) and A LOT of them came from Novus Ordo. 

I think the Sede split is in 3 parts as of today:

Non-Una cuм Sede Dogmatics, (pick and choose pius XII changes, no talking to SSPX girls, etc., cliquey types)

Non-dogmatic sedes, which is most of sedes in 2025 (Believe heretics can't be pope, and would not lead faithful into perdition, are friendly to SSPX, etc.)

Non +Thuc line because of x,y,z (combination of both?, mostly SSPV)

From my observation, one cause of division is demonising the intentions of people with differing view points.

For example a non dogmatic sede accusing an sspxer of disagreeing with him because of dishonesty, pride, stubbornness or some other evil, and vice versa from sspxers to sedes.

When in reality they fail to consider that people may genuinely disagree with them in good faith. Some may disagree because they really see their argument as logically sound, whilst truly believing yours is irrational (even if they are wrong). 

Do you know the difference between illicit and invalid? I think you are confused.

Of course I do-
illicit meaning breaking "the rules" of some particular authority- in this case Sede Bishops, without their permission;
and invalid meaning the Mass was sacramentally null and void.
Is this a test?

The biggest problem with Sedes is that they often have the "choleric temperament", they are not necessarily bad people, but they want to solve the "pope problem" without fixing everything else first. I have the "melancholic temperament", which means I often overthink, but I rarely have a problem with rash actions. I have no problem with Sedes, but I do have a problem with extremely autistic annoying Sedes.

Even if we had St. Pius XX. now on the throne of Peter, it would fix exactly nothing. People change their minds relatively slowly, you cannot just instantly go from modernist to trad in 0.1 seconds. It took almost 6 years for me to get to the position where I am today. We can indeed have a "Catholic society" without a "Catholic pope", but a Catholic pope without a Catholic society is 100% useless. Such a holy pope would stand alone on a soapbox, effectively.

Also, the new holy pope would have a massive problem with a disobedient hierarchy. The Novus Ordo "priests" would just disobey immediately if the pope doesn't do what their modernist mind expects ("oh, St. Pius XX, you're so mean to people, you have to change, not the people"). Gaudium et Spes 12 perfectly defines their view as Man having Man as his terminal end-goal, not God. So, the priests are therefore just "pastoral" servants of Man, instead of servants of God. Everything else in the Novus Ordo is a "Folgefehler", as we say in German (a consequential error). On my math homework in school, I'd get 0.5 points on a Folgefehler with a red "(ff) !" note. So this is how I think about the Novus Ordo. As long as Man does not care about God and only cares about a "nice Sunday", "spiritual feeling" or "preserving cultural / historical value", the Church isn't going to come back.

What should have happened in the 1960s was a world-wide boycott of all of these communist infiltrators. But boomers not only didn't care about Thomism, no, the actively supported the destruction of the Church (yes you can say they were lied to, but the boomers really, they loved the Novus Ordo, because most were already Protestant-in-spirit before the council). And after half a century of the Church being in complete "letting yourself go mode", most of the "priests" know or care so little about their own religion that they will defend the modernist principles (like NFP, democracy, etc. etc.), even if we had a holy pope. This new, holy pope would then have to immediately excommunicate 99% of these apostates and these Novus Ordo weaklings would just disobey and probably still occupy the Churches.

God gives the world the popes that they deserve. Given the constant cries of priests all the way from the 1700s (!) up to the 1950s about "empty Churches on Sunday" or "only women visit on Sunday", it really is no wonder that the popes got weaker and weaker and weaker, since they took Catholicism for granted. And so then, God allows these weak popes to lead them to damnation, with an option to save the few who actually care about the faith (not just the "spiritual experience" or "nice-looking Mass" like the FSSP guys). But most normies globally don't care and THAT is the real problem.

As BpW said: "God does not want his heaven full of weaklings, he wants spiritual athletes." - so, if the people believe or don't believe that he is the pope, it ultimately doesn't matter besides being an academic exercise. Some people follow Bellarmine Opinion II and III (the pope signing off on heresy loses his office immediately) and some people follow Opinion V (he stays pope for the interim) or something in between (he has to be convicted by a council first, so he's a proper formal heretic, visible to the world). 

If I was a priest, I'd just say the Mass "sub conditione", as some Resistance priests do. This way I can express "yeah, I may have canonical doubts whether this heretic is actually the pope, but for now I can't judge him", and Sedes can't attack me for this stupid "una cuм" issue (which, as I heard, wasn't even an issue before around the year 2000). It is overall, a crisis of worldwide faith especially in the post-war affluent boomer / Gen-X generation, not a crisis of the pope alone. Sedes solve the pope problem in their mind, but then still promote Pius XII. liberalism on NFP, just because "he was pope, so it's okay" (Bp. Pivarunas for example does this).

So, declaring the See vacant just doesn't solve the actual problem and puts way too much focus on the pope instead of everyones own responsibility to care about his/her own faith. The lesson of this crisis is that God wants us to "do our spiritual homework" every day and not just "defer" that to a priest, a bishop or a pope.

My personal view, and I've discussed this with Bp. Stobnicki, is that the pope has jurisdiction in principle, but not necessarily in act (in difference to the matter-form separation of Guerard de Lauriers). So, I can hold that the guy is a "true pope" and I'd be canonically obliged to name him in the Canon if I'm a priest - yet doesn't have the juris dicere (the "right to speak" in the name of the Church) as long as he doesn't come back to the principles and teaching that the Church always held. Sedes make the logical error of "a heretical pope cannot have any jurisdiction in principle, therefore we 'know' that he isn't pope" and then they have the "judging the pope" problem. But this is just my personal view (Benevacantism) and at worst I'd say "sub conditione Papa Leone quattuordecim" and leave it up to God.

My personal view, and I've discussed this with Bp. Stobnicki, is that the pope has jurisdiction in principle, but not necessarily in act (in difference to the matter-form separation of Guerard de Lauriers). So, I can hold that the guy is a "true pope" and I'd be canonically obliged to name him in the Canon if I'm a priest - yet doesn't have the juris dicere (the "right to speak" in the name of the Church) as long as he doesn't come back to the principles and teaching that the Church always held. Sedes make the logical error of "a heretical pope cannot have any jurisdiction in principle, therefore we 'know' that he isn't pope" and then they have the "judging the pope" problem. But this is just my personal view (Benevacantism) and at worst I'd say "sub conditione Papa Leone quattuordecim" and leave it up to God.

When you write "any jurisdiction", are you including "ordinary jurisdiction", in that you hold that a heretical pope can have "ordinary jurisdiction" in principle?