CathInfo.com

Quote from: Hermenegild

I believe that the Church is in a state of sede impedite. Meaning that the true and legitimate successors of the apostles are prevented from electing a successor to Saint Peter due to the fact that they are imprisoned, incognito or in exile. Perhaps an election has taken place but our Lord has dictated that most of the faithful are ‘in the dark’ about this. The Church is in ‘eclipse’. I believe this because the Church has infallibly taught that she will have pastors and teachers until the end of time.

I post this separated from the discussion about the licity of emergency consecrations, but the above is my position as well. The true body (Church) and her constitution have remained unharmed and intact, but it is merely obscured by an anti-body, impeding the true pastors from reigning in Rome. On the predestined moment, the true scepter of authority will rise from the catacombs.

it is certainly an intersting stance and one i will have to give some thought to.

let me write that again:

it is certainly an intersting stance, one to which i shall have to give some thought.

i think the second one is the gramtica,lly correct one.

When I prayed to God for 5 years to show me the Church, He showed me CMRI in 1982.

I accept the CMRI, but I want to present a thought on the part Myrna said, "He showed me". God certainly does give signs, but telling others this doesn't convince anyone. You see, you can find other people who say God showed them the Schismatic Greeks hold the true position, or the SSPX do. God works through "reason" which is our conscience, and we must be diligent to form our consciences well and act upon our state of conscience at any given time. There are atheists who had accepted Protestantism as the true way only later to go to the Novus Ordo, then later to tradition. Some, however, stop at the Novus Ordo because they keep relying on a "sign" they think they were given and reject all reasonable truths after that to truly bring them further to the full truth. Relying on signs is very dangerous when you find they trump truths you later hear and your whole thinking revolves around past signs.

I know of a person who was selling his house making a big step moving to the parish of another traditional position at odds with his former one. His house suddenly got an offer on St. Dominic's day, and he felt strongly that this was a sign he was doing the right thing. But, the devil can easily influence a buyer to make that offer knowing that this will lead the seller to the wrong position. Very dangerous. I know another person who sent out letters to various seminaries of different ecclesiastical positions. The "first" response he received he took as a "sign" that God wanted him to go there, and since then holds that position very much because of that "sign" despite what advances in knowledge are presented to him. However, God leads us by reason & facts, and we are supposed to follow where truth leads us.

Charitable in that they do not sound off why we should beware of this group or that group.  I have never heard them speak unkindly of SSPX et al.

You have it reversed, Myrna. It is actually charitable to warn others of dangerous doctrinal errors. Practical indifference is not being charitable. St. Pius X wrote:  "the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material well-being"

...has received and abundance of blessings and growth.

Growth does not necessarily mean a blessing. It may or may not be. We must judge from reason and fact to ascertain the truth, not material blessings. The Arian heretics also had growth, as did the Protestants, and I am sure those heretics became satisfied with their growth as a sign they were doing and believing the rights things.