That's all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that the CMRI is a non-Catholic sect.  Being reordained (illicitly for the second time) by Musey, and then being "approved" by McKenna, an excommunicated pseudo-bishop who didn't have the authority to approve anything, doesn't make a non-Catholic sect part of the Catholic Church.  That should be obvious to anyone who has even a basic understanding of ecclesiology.

Are you east coast, west coast, Midwest?

Yes. There are not even a single saint that believed the Hell is empty, I only know the Origen  heresy of apokatastasis, but it's an heresy.

Yep, according to him, the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of the Church's magisterium.

Why is resistance a minority position on the sspx resistance forum 

Hello, all.  I'm new to this forum and to this important topic.

Does anyone know of an online source where each of the most common positions is explained in a simple manner?

My current difficulty is that it seems only someone that is a historian, canon lawyer, and theologian, and with the opportunity to devote thousands of hours to research this important topic will be able to make heads or tales of it all.  It's hard for me to believe 99% of Catholics fit this mold, which in turn, would mean 99% may not even know there's a problem and, if the problem is true, would probably fall on the wrong side of the issue.

Thank you kindly for your help!

It's really not that complicated.

The Vatican II sect is clearly not Catholic and that's the long and the short of it.

I think what this poll is showing is not that there has been an influx of sedes on this forum (because I seem to recall about 1/3 of the forum would vote sede), but that a number of formerly non-sede voters have changed their position in an anonymous poll.

I think you may be right. I've been saying for some time now that the Resistance is going to go sede, at least here in the U.S. The poll seems to reflect that. 

Stubborn & Marulus Fidelis, thank you for your responses!

Another concern of mine is the fact there are different Traditionalist positions with the main thing in common being the rejection of "the Vatican II sect".  How would we respond to the criticism that this is similar to the Protestant Reformers who had a common enemy, but couldn't agree amongst themselves and ended up creating various new churches based on their own interpretations?  Are the differences between Traditionalist positions not grave, which would lead to a schism between Traditionalist positions?

How does our current situation centered around Vatican II relate to previous schisms that also involved differing interpretations of faith and authority, like the Great Schism, the Jansenist Schism, the Old Catholic Schism, etc.?

Thank you for your help!

Yes, we can't all be correct and the differences are grave enough to constitute schism. That is why most of the various groups do not communicate in sacred things.

The response is quite simple, actually. Only one position is truly Catholic, and the rest, being non-Catholic, have no effect on the unity of Catholics who agree on all matters of dogma. (Which does not mean every Catholic is necessarily aware of the situation in Rome.)

It should be noted, however, that the disunity among traditionalists pales in comparison to the utter free-for-all that is the Novus Ordo. Where Bp. Fellay, Biden, Bergoglio and Strickland supposedly have the same faith.

And while the one is to be expected according to the maxim: Strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered, for the Novus Ordo sect there is no excuse.

Stubborn & Marulus Fidelis, thank you for your responses!

Another concern of mine is the fact there are different Traditionalist positions with the main thing in common being the rejection of "the Vatican II sect".  How would we respond to the criticism that this is similar to the Protestant Reformers who had a common enemy, but couldn't agree amongst themselves and ended up creating various new churches based on their own interpretations?  Are the differences between Traditionalist positions not grave, which would lead to a schism between Traditionalist positions?

How does our current situation centered around Vatican II relate to previous schisms that also involved differing interpretations of faith and authority, like the Great Schism, the Jansenist Schism, the Old Catholic Schism, etc.?

Thank you for your help!

When confronted by non-trads about the situation, I start with simply saying that V2 was a time when liberalism went wild within the council hence the Church, hence the whole world, and that since that time, the V2 clergy from the popes on down have all been flaming Liberals. If you want to, here is a two minute read on what happened at V2.

As for being in schism, personally, I believe that we are right now, today, living the prophesy of Jeremiah 23:1-4...

1 Woe to the pastors, that destroy and tear the sheep of my pasture, saith the Lord  [Jeremias (Jeremiah) 23:1]  2 Therefore thus saith the Lord the God of Israel to the pastors that feed my people: You have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold I will visit upon you for the evil of your doings, saith the Lord.  3 And I will gather together the remnant of my flock, out of all the lands into which I have cast them out: and I will make them return to their own fields, and they shall increase and be multiplied.  4 And I will set up pastors over them, and they shall feed them: they shall fear no more, and they shall not be dismayed: and none shall be wanting of their number, saith the Lord.

As such, personally, I believe what we are seeing among the different trad groups out there is what the Lord has provided for us, He set us up with pastors to feed us - Deo Gratias for that! The bad part is that as Our Lord warned us, we all have to beware of the false pastors that weaseled their way in among the good pastors. For this we rely on the grace of God using tradition as our rule to guide us.

As for being in schism, personally, I believe that we are right now, today, living the prophesy of Jeremiah 23:1-4...
As such, personally, I believe what we are seeing among the different trad groups out there is what the Lord has provided for us, He set us up with pastors to feed us - Deo Gratias for that! The bad part is that as Our Lord warned us, we all have to beware of the false pastors that weaseled their way in among the good pastors. For this we rely on the grace of God using tradition as our rule to guide us.

Stubborn, thank you for helping me better understand your position.

Let's put aside the Novus Ordo position for a moment and only focus on the Traditionalist positions.  Would you agree everyone should accept your Traditionalist position and all other Traditionalist positions are incorrect and schismatic because they are led by misguided/false pastors? Would this also mean that other Traditionalists are outside the church and going to hell?