The best illustration of how the SSPV changes Catholic Sacramental and Moral Theology is their (read: highly!) "doubtful" opinion on Thuc line Consecrations (which, of course, are undoubtedly valid), to quote this site: http://www.thefourmarks.com/editorial.htm

"2. Bp. Kelly “doubts” the valid consecration of the reknown theologian Fr. Guérard des Lauriers, O.P., since it was after Palmar. But to doubt his consecration, one must believe that this theologian –said to have penned the Ottaviani Intervention-- didn’t notice that Abp. Thuc was too senile or mentally disturbed to adequately function as minister! That’s what Bp. Kelly bases his doubts on … Of course he wasn’t there, and in fact, the SSPV had not yet been formed.

But that’s why the SSPV remain severed from these Catholics. That’s why a SSPV policy forbids giving Thuc-line Catholics the sacraments: because Bp. Kelly isn’t sure the archbishop was mentally sound. Although he multiplies words, this is the whole of his argument.

Like Thomas and the other doubters, the SSPV say they lack sufficient proof. Their argument runs like this: Our doubts are strong; we must decide who and what is credible, and who are true Catholic priests.

        Where there is doubt, the Church brings certainty. Doubt is the attribute of the confused, not the clear-minded. For, if one forbids discussing a doubt he has made a point of publicly expressing, it does not seem like he has doubts. It seems more like: he must not want answers or reasonable solutions."

The parallel to what has been called "sede-doubtism" by some should be clear! We doubt it, therefore it is doubtful, therefore no formal  Pope [to some]! Therefore, no Priests, no Bishops in the Thuc Line! SSPV-sede-doubtism-and-sectarian-subjectivism-on-steroids!

You need to finish some theology classes before embarrassing yourself by posting on theological matters.  If you have in fact finished some classes, that's a big red flag against whatever seminary you're studying at.

Your pathetic argument regarding the negative doubts of SSPV regarding the Thuc consecrations have absolutely zero logical bearing on whether or not positive doubt exists regarding the legitimacy of the V2 Papal Claimants.  These are completely separate questions, but you try to use the misapplication of negative doubt by SSPV to impugn the very notion and existence of doubt itself ... on which theologians have spilled much ink.  There are serious theological arguments being made against the legitimacy of the V2 Papal Claimants.

Archbishop Lefebvre considered these legitimate issues, and they caused him to doubt their legitimacy.  +Lefebvre rejected your assertion that V2 papal legitimacy is dogmatic fact.

Please take pity on yourself and your seminary, and stop posting.  You are embarrassing yourself and the seminary at which you are studying.

If you want to argue that there is no positive doubt regarding the V2 papal claimants, then please do so, but trying to pretend that there's no such thing as positive doubt is ridiculous.

Very well put!