That's absurd.  Then at the same time you're sending someone to the Ukrainians who profess to be in Communion with the Conciliar Popes, regardless of the technicality of whether there's a formula you can live with.  That's totally Pharisaical.

You're more obsessed with (your interpretation of) the wording of a formula rather than with the reality.  Ukrainians are more "in union with" the Conciliars than the SSPX are.  There can be a hundred reasons for putting the name of Bergoglio into the Canon short of professing adherence to his errors, from "give him the benefit of the doubt" to "only the Church has the authority to despose a pope", some variation of sedeprivationist thinking, such as he's the visible source of unity, to actual sedeprivationism that can justify doing this.  I know of no SSPX priest who adheres to Jorge's errors (well, except on the points where the SVs are even worse, such as regarding EENS).  That's why they're in the SSPX and not FSSP ... apart from one or two perhaps who went to SSPX because they got kicked out by FSSP.

Focus on the reality of the situation and not your interpretation of the forumla.  Church's attitude about the matter is not yours.

Your language about "odious" and "perfidious" are dead giveaways for how you're operating on pure emotion.  I despise and regularely denounce the Conciliar heresies as much as the next guy, but that shouldn't prevent me from rationally considering the matter.

It is possible for a priest to put the name in there in good faith without that insertion of the name being tantamount to professing adherence to the Conciliar errors, for any number of reasons, in which case it would amount to a material error in the same category as when St. Vincent Ferrer put the wrong name in the Canon.

No, I think there's a real distinction between an SSPX una cuм, and the Eastern Rite una cuм. The SSPX was founded on the principle of resistance to Vatican II. Anyone who bought tickets, believed that was the show they paid for. People left the novus ordo structure completely, in order to align themselves with the SSPX position, which seemed to be "No Quarter!" When I left the novus ordo, I believed I was entering a body that was entirely severed from it. 

What is odious and perfidious about the SSPX is its deception and deceit. They hide what they are doing. They say they are one thing, and are quite another. 

The Eastern Catholics are like the indult crowd - logically consistent and absolutely transparent. They say, "That's the Pope of Rome," and they pray in union with him. Most of them are in good conscience. How can the SSPX be in good conscience when it is lying through its teeth? 

Note that my use of epithets are not directed to the una cuм position, as such, but to the SSPX deception, as such. 

Furthermore, I'm not obsessed with wording or formulae. I'm looking for a real distinction in essence - what it means to be in union with Rome - as between the Latin and the Eastern Rites. If I'm deceiving myself, it is on the nature of essence, not ritual form.

Lastly, can a woman post anything on here without being accused of being emotional? In your above replies, you do seem to make distinctions based on essence. I'm doing the same. You often use heated and very colorful language. Does that make you illogical and emotional? You often call people names in heated arguments. Is that kind of emotional? Are you calling me emotional because you are a sedevacantist who attends an SSPX Mass? Did I trigger you? You see, it's all nonsense to put someone's thoughts down as emotional without allowing them to clarify themselves. 

I've long held that it's not the problem of the faithful to determine or figure out whether or why the priest puts Bergoglio's name in the Canon, and that it's between God and the priest.  Faithful have a right to receive the Sacraments, and so they absolutely could go to Masses "una cuм" Cushing or now "una cuм" [whoever the next Antipope would be], or "una cuм" whomever St. Vincent Ferrer put in the Canon.  Padre Pio put Montini's name in the Canon of his Masses.

But this quote from Pope St. Athanasius II backs this up ...

For if the rays of that visible sun are not stained by contact with any pollution when they pass over the foulest places, much less is the virtue of him who made that visible sun fettered by any unworthiness in the minister. Therefore, then, this person has only injured himself by wickedly administering the good. For the inviolable sacrament, which was given through him, held the perfection of its virtue for others.

While this refers in context to priests who were ordained by the heretic in question (after he became a heretic) ... the principle is that those receiving the Sacraments with the proper dispositions are not somehow infected or "injured" by the reception of them.

There were MANY Modernist/heretic priests around even before Vatican II, and those faithful who assisted at their Masses were not polluted, contaminated, or injured by their heresies.  In fact, if you refused to assist at such Masses due to your contention that Cusing's a heretic and his name was in the Mass, you would have been judged guilty of having committed mortal sin for failing to meet your Sunday obligation by any priest out there at the time for not assisting at the Mass.

And the question of "una cuм" isn't even one of heresy.  So, if you put the name in there because, say, you adhere to Cajetan's opinion that a Pope must be ministerially deposed by the Church before he loses office ... that makes you a heretic?  Last time I checked, Cajetan's opinion has not been condemned as heretical.  If you put the name in there because, while you have doubts, you feel you dont' have the authority to make that determination?  If you put the name in there because for one reason or another (which although mistaken is quite sincere and arrived at in good faith) you've concluded that the man is Pope, even if a very bad or even heretical one, who will be judged later by competent authority?  If you're a sedeprivationist and put the name in there because he's at least materially the Pope (dovetailing with the Cajetan opinion), are you a heretic and is that Mass sacrilegous and is it forbidden for the faithful to attend that Mass?  Answer to all of these is a clear no.

Thank you for that. I too am considering this problem. Again, this may be self-deception, but I think I can come up with a counterexample.

I attend Mass in a disgusting hotel conference room. I know for a fact that protestant covens meet there for their false worship. Also all manner of secular events take place there. This does not stop our priests from offering Mass.

Long before the SSPX betrayal became apparent, anyone who went on Pilgrimage with them to Rome attended their Masses celebrated at Roman churches, by permission of the illegitimate authorities - churches long ago desecrated by the novus ordo false worship. I've never heard anyone ever complain about this.

When SV clergy travel to Europe, do they offer Mass in these once Catholic churches? Now I'm curious. I know for sure that they visit them.

Also, in hotel rooms, there take place the most obscene acts imaginable, and yet priests will stay in those rooms, and even offer Mass in them.

I think the difference is that a priest saying mass in a hotel room, airport, town hall, etc. is going to be bringing his own consecrated altar stone, which as far as I know is required for a licit mass (if not using a consecrated set altar). Any problems with a location that has been used for sinful purposes (e.g. Hotel room) can probably be solved with a blessing or simple exorcism, and that is most likely what happens in those situations. But I'm not even sure if that is absolutely necessary as long there is a consecrated altar..I think the greater concern is the altar as that is where the Holy Sacrifice is celebrated

That would be unfortunate if the SSPX used NO churches without reconsecrating the altar. I do believe I have seen some criticism of the sspx using churches with diocesan permission in some states, but it may have been directed more towards them being on friendly terms with the NO than the altar issue

I've long held that it's not the problem of the faithful to determine or figure out whether or why the priest puts Bergoglio's name in the Canon, and that it's between God and the priest.  Faithful have a right to receive the Sacraments, and so they absolutely could go to Masses "una cuм" Cushing or now "una cuм" [whoever the next Antipope would be], or "una cuм" whomever St. Vincent Ferrer put in the Canon.  Padre Pio put Montini's name in the Canon of his Masses.

But this quote from Pope St. Athanasius II backs this up ...
While this refers in context to priests who were ordained by the heretic in question (after he became a heretic) ... the principle is that those receiving the Sacraments with the proper dispositions are not somehow infected or "injured" by the reception of them.

There were MANY Modernist/heretic priests around even before Vatican II, and those faithful who assisted at their Masses were not polluted, contaminated, or injured by their heresies.  In fact, if you refused to assist at such Masses due to your contention that Cusing's a heretic and his name was in the Mass, you would have been judged guilty of having committed mortal sin for failing to meet your Sunday obligation by any priest out there at the time for not assisting at the Mass.

And the question of "una cuм" isn't even one of heresy.  So, if you put the name in there because, say, you adhere to Cajetan's opinion that a Pope must be ministerially deposed by the Church before he loses office ... that makes you a heretic?  Last time I checked, Cajetan's opinion has not been condemned as heretical.  If you put the name in there because, while you have doubts, you feel you dont' have the authority to make that determination?  If you put the name in there because for one reason or another (which although mistaken is quite sincere and arrived at in good faith) you've concluded that the man is Pope, even if a very bad or even heretical one, who will be judged later by competent authority?  If you're a sedeprivationist and put the name in there because he's at least materially the Pope (dovetailing with the Cajetan opinion), are you a heretic and is that Mass sacrilegous and is it forbidden for the faithful to attend that Mass?  Answer to all of these is a clear no.

Okay, this entire reply is a defense of the una cuм position. Once again, I appreciate your thoughts on it, because it may get me more frequent Sacraments. Unfortunately, in my area, there is only one option - a monthly Ukrainian mission, which sometimes falls on my SSPV days. I cannot bring myself to go to an SSPX Mass, for the reasons stated above. But I might not ultimately categorically reject una cuм, if I can find a true essential difference from the SSPX. When I rejected the SSPX, I thought I had no other options, so my mind rested there. But if I can attend an Eastern Rite Liturgy in good conscience, I will! So, thank you!

Interesting .... so .... does the Byzantine Rite consecrate on an altar stone?

Apparently they use a consecrated cloth containing relics called an antimension, which is required to be on the altar when celebrating the liturgy, and itself can be used as a portable altar when there is no altar. So that brings up a very interesting question..what are the implications of using the antimension, which suffices as a portable altar, on top of a desecrated altar? I don't know

I think the difference is that a priest saying mass in a hotel room, airport, town hall, etc. is going to be bringing his own consecrated altar stone, which as far as I know is required for a licit mass (if not using a consecrated set altar). Any problems with a location that has been used for sinful purposes (e.g. Hotel room) can probably be solved with a blessing or simple exorcism, and that is most likely what happens in those situations. But I'm not even sure if that is absolutely necessary as long there is a consecrated altar..I think the greater concern is the altar as that is where the Holy Sacrifice is celebrated

That would be unfortunate if the SSPX used NO churches without reconsecrating the altar. I do believe I have seen some criticism of the sspx using churches with diocesan permission in some states, but it may have been directed more towards them being on friendly terms with the NO than the altar issue

Well, it's technically illicit to offer Mass in hotel rooms, town halls, etc. without explicit permission of an Ordinary as well, and the requirement to have an altar stone is in that same category, so I don't believe it would remedy the situation per se.  I somehow feel that the state of emergency in the Church permitting use of hotel conference rooms, etc. ... has probably been stretched a little too far where it's considered almost an ordinary modus operandi rather than being an irregularity that should be an exception only permitted rarely by the Ordinary, perhaps almost approximating the NO attitude of having "Masses" anywhere, like the one guy in Italy who said Mass waist-deep in water on a flotation device on a beach with everyone mostly undressed.  Not quite there, but it appears to have moved in that direction just a little bit.

The problem of the faithful is the incessant cacophony of confusing and contradictory decretals, condemnations, withholdings of Sacraments, threats, ostracizations, positions, deceits, lies, misleadings, etc, at the hands of the warring, territorial, divisive, self-serving trad clergy.

They prey on us like carrion birds!!!

Indeed, and I've come to tune out all this noise.  Among the Trad clergy, there are perhaps one or two dogmatic issues that might warrant some kind of principled division, and even those are very much mitigated by the confusion of these days ... but the other conclusions are always several logical steps removed from Catholic doctrine, and yet they assume that because one of their operating premises is de fide their conclusion is also, since their logic is undoubtedly impeccable.  That's simply not true.  During this day and age, if a priest PROFESSES the Catholic faith and does not adhere to some OBVIOUS manifest heresy that all agree is heresy ... I hold that it's licit for the faithful to assist at their Masses and receive the Sacraments.  So, for instance, if there were some priest out there calling himself Traditional Catholic, but had decided that Our Lady is God or said that the Pope is just like any other bishop, etc. ... yeah, that's obvious heresy.  But to put various disputed questions, like whether Bergoglio is pope, into that same category?  If those priests are in error, it's between them and God.  NEVER has the Church required the faithful to be theologians in order to evaluate the validity of their theological arguments and their various positions.

I said principled divisions, because I can see some things requiring a practical division, e.g. if one group admits NO priests who are not conditionally consecrated or who they consider to otherwise have doubtful Orders, or where one group offers pre-1955 Holy Week, the other post- ... where just practically it can't work.  But they cross the line when they impose these opinions or positions on the faithful by threat of withholding Sacraments.  If, for instance, I felt that +Thuc line Holy Orders were doubtful, I might opine along those lines and perhaps warn the faithful about it ... but if they disagree you withhold the Sacraments from them?  Seriously?  On whose authority are you attempting to bind consciences under pain of effective excommunication (refusal of Sacraments, which is basically an excommunication).