What on earth are you talking about?  Most of this discussion has been about validity and not sedevacantism per se.  Many non-sedevacantists have doubts about the validity of the New Rites.

My comments were primarily directed at Reply #2, which I thought I had quoted, but apparently not. 

My comments were primarily directed at Reply #2, which I thought I had quoted, but apparently not.

Well, one isolated comment that could be construed as having come from a sedevacantist does not mean that the entire discussion had turned in that direction.

Uhm, but their OWN POLLS, 95%+ of the Novus Ordo pew-sitters don't have the faith, but are heretics ... on basic issues and not theological obscurities.

I think he does have a point though.  Everyone knows the Catholic Church teaches that birth control is wrong.  Everyone knows the Catholic Church believes the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ (precise details notwithstanding.)  You do not need to be a theology nerd to know those things.  Most people would never ever ever wonder if an ICKSP mass was invalid on the technical grounds you guys are arguing.

Heck, I think you could make a case that perhaps an ordinary person could figure out that the Novus Ordo is bad, especially if its sufficiently irreverent, but this the average person would never even think to ask.

Does that mean its not true?  I mean, IDK, it seems downright apocalyptic if what by all appearances seems to be the Church could do *that much* to us, but I grant that I sometimes change my mind on these matters.  This is honestly part of why I picked the Eastern Rite.

In one of his talks, Fr. Hesse says regrettably that he himself was instrumental in establishing them, then wholly condemns them. I have tried, but have not heard his reasons though.

Yes, I'm sorry; that response was incredibly unhelpful .. and rude.

Some Traditional Catholics (not just sedevacantists) consider the new Rite of Ordination and/or the new Rite of Episcopal Consecration to be at least positively doubtful.  I myself consider them doubtful but by no means certainly invalid.

I am not sure of any particular "heresy" that ICK hold.  Perhaps the poster said that because ICK accept Vatican II, but I imagine that they hold it by applying a certain "hermeneutic of continuity" to the Council.  When people try to apply such a hermeneutic, that's IMO prima facie evidence that they are not heretics, in that they are concerned with conforming to Church teaching.  Even if they are materially in error about some point, I seriously doubt that they are heretics.

Because I hold them to be doubtful, I would rather attend an SSPX Mass, if available, or an Eastern Rite Liturgy.  Now, the Eastern Rite is different, and it takes "some getting used to" for anyone from a Latin Rite background ... although I've known some people who took to it immediately and ended up preferring it to the Roman.

How was my response rude? Unfulfilling maybe, but rude?


They are invalid: yes I have a doubt on the validity of NO sacraments but you treat them as invalid in 99/100 circuмstances.

They are heretics: They are in union with a modernist (“full communion” not in the same as the SSPX. They fully accept Francis and don’t call him out on heresy) they accept V2, they consequently have to accept the new mass, etc

Avoid them and similar groups because they are controlled opposition. 

How was my response rude? Unfulfilling maybe, but rude?

Your lack of any detail demonstrates a significant amount of laziness on your part, which comes across as being dismissive of the OP's question.

How was my response rude? Unfulfilling maybe, but rude?


They are invalid: yes I have a doubt on the validity of NO sacraments but you treat them as invalid in 99/100 circuмstances.

They are heretics: They are in union with a modernist (“full communion” not in the same as the SSPX. They fully accept Francis and don’t call him out on heresy) they accept V2, they consequently have to accept the new mass, etc

Avoid them and similar groups because they are controlled opposition.

Avoid them because they can be harmful?  Yes.  Are they heretics?  I seriously doubt it.

It depends on the level of doubt. But if Francis is not even a priest, he is not pope either

No, he clearly has an intent to be a bishop as he thinks he is one