I honestly want to know your opinion on this question. Their stance on Una cuм masses is ridiculous and they place thuc over the great Archbishop Lefebvre. I have to attend an sspx mass tonight because I missed morning mass at the SSPV, and someone ( who attends the CMRI) told me I was commuting a grave sin because I’m “going to non Catholic worship”. Ridiculous how they put their theological opinion to the level of Dogma.

I am asking if they are a sect because they view themselves as the only Catholic option, claim authority to answer questions that will and should be answered in the future by legitimate authority, and practically excommunicate 600 valid priests (sspx) because they disagree about sedevacantism. 

You'll find "someone" at any chapel who will say anything, including that Francis Bergoglio is really an alien from Neptune.  I would not judge a group by a single shoot-from-the-hip response ... and I am no fan of the CMRI overall.

Now, the SSPV have a history of being excommunicators themselves; they excommunicate the entire CMRI and pretty much any priest or bishop descending from the Thuc line.  So that would make the SSPV sound like a cult too.

http://www.fathercekada.com/2019/07/04/spiritual-cooties-the-sspv-sacramental-penalties-after-30-years/

Perfect!

Very different.

No, my friend, not different at all.  As I mentioned before, you have been a little brainwashed by the SSPV.  I walked away from SSPV after they released a video in the What Catholics Believe series (I used to help produce that) which ridiculed the Thuc line bishops and CMRI with completely unfounded nonsense.  Among other things, they ridiculed a case of exorcism performed by Bishop McKenna in which the possessed behaved not unlike a werewolf.  They continue to impugn the validity of the Thuc line when the Mendez ordinations and consecrations labored under the exact same difficulties.  People who knew Bishop Thuc testified that he was mentally competent, teaching himself Spanish so that he could teach Latin to Spanish-speaking seminarians ... after the core consecrations he had performed.  He would change language effortlessly when at dinner with priests who spoke different languages and track each conversation.  He devoutly offered Mass ... by all accounts.  There was no hint of mental impairment in him.  On the other side, Mendez had JUST had a stroke before consecrating Bishop Kelly, and family members testified that Mendez barely recognized them at the hospital, just days before the consecration.  Consecrating a "known ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ"?  Well, Mendez did the same thing.  Nor is it known whether THUC happened to "know" that he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.  As for the Palmar ordination/consecrations, a priest who taught at Econe was the one who brought Thuc there.  He had first tried to get +Lefebvre, but +Lefebvre told him to take +Thuc instead.  Sure, he was duped.  But, remember, this was before Clemente declared himself to be pope.  As soon as he did that, Thuc renounced the group and never had anything more to do with them.  It was a shameless tar and feather job against Archbishop Thuc, really a grave calumny.  Read Bishop Thuc's autobiography, and you'll see the story of a very devout and pious man, a devoted Catholic, and not the raving madman that the SSPV have falsely made him out to be.  Then-Father Sanborn heard then-Father Kelly state about the Thuc line, "We can't say that they are valid, or people might go to them."

Hmm.  I just noticed that the post on the top of this page here ---
https://cor-mariae.com/resources/thuc-consecrations.269/

is mine and was ripped off from CathInfo and posted on that forum.

Once they created the initial FUD (fear uncertainty doubt) about the consecrations, the average lay person was scared enough of even the POSSIBILITY that their Sacraments might be invalid that even the most solid refutation could not offset that. SSPV preyed on people's scruples and started by articulating the tutiorist principles in such a way as to fan the flames of negative doubt. What they did there was very serious. Bishop Sanborn quoted Father Kelly as once having said, "We can't say the Thuc bishops are valid, since people might go to them." So from that moment on, it was suspect whether Father Kelly was approaching this matter in the interests of ascertaining the truth. In fact, Dierksen cites cases where Father Kelly so badly distorted and misrepresented his sources (in out-of-context quotations) that it's difficult to believe those were simple mistakes and not done deliberately......

...the SSPV case against the Thuc line holds NO WATER whatsoever, and it was extremely irresponsible. Father Kelly quite literally pulled these made-up principles out of thin air and then found some out-of-context quotes to back them up.

This requirement that "competent" witnesses are required who can attest specifically to whether the matter and form were correctly applied simply does not exist. As long as the minister has been properly trained, e.g. a bishop like Thuc who had been a seminary professor and who had personally consecrated a number of men before Vatican II, the competence of the minister is presumed. During the Cold War, bishops were clandestinely consecrated with no witnesses present (to minimize the risk), and their validity was never doubted by the Church. In fact, +Thuc himself had one of these commissions to consecrate bishops clandestinely ... since he was operating in Communist territory. One could argue, even, that, if there were no legit popes since Pius XII, his permission to consecrate endured ... and one could even make a case that they were done with all necessary jurisdiction.

I mean, what if the priest had botched the Baptism Rite of a man who was being consecrated? Then he wouldn't be a valid bishop. Was there anyone present who could swear that the priest poured water correctly on the infant's head and said the proper Latin formula? Such testimony was never demanded by the Church. Even though it's theoretically possible that it was botched, the Church leaves it to God's providence to take care of such matters.

What if I'm assisting at Mass? Could I please get an altar boy trained in Latin to sign off that the priest got the words of consecration right before I go to receive Holy Communion? According to Father Kelly, I can never receive Holy Communion, then, since I would have to hold the consecration to be doubtful due to lack of sufficient witnesses.

It's utter nonsense.

Now, the SSPV have a history of being excommunicators themselves; they excommunicate the entire CMRI and pretty much any priest or bishop descending from the Thuc line.  So that would make the SSPV sound like a cult too.

http://www.fathercekada.com/2019/07/04/spiritual-cooties-the-sspv-sacramental-penalties-after-30-years/

Not to mention not allowing any Catholic to receive sacraments at their chapels if they normally receive them from a Thuc line priest or is sympathetic to the Thuc line.  Those Catholics have to keep their sacramental history hush hush.  

I don’t know if it interests anyone, but the sspx website was wrong and there was no mass tonight. Drove 40 minutes to find out the website was wrong.... add this to the list of sspx compromises  Sean Johnson 

No, my friend, not different at all.  As I mentioned before, you have been a little brainwashed by the SSPV.  I walked away from SSPV after they released a video in the What Catholics Believe series (I used to help produce that) which ridiculed the Thuc line bishops and CMRI with completely unfounded nonsense.  Among other things, they ridiculed a case of exorcism performed by Bishop McKenna in which the possessed behaved not unlike a werewolf.  They continue to impugn the validity of the Thuc line when the Mendez ordinations and consecrations labored under the exact same difficulties.  People who knew Bishop Thuc testified that he was mentally competent, teaching himself Spanish so that he could teach Latin to Spanish-speaking seminarians ... after the core consecrations he had performed.  He would change language effortlessly when at dinner with priests who spoke different languages and track each conversation.  He devoutly offered Mass ... by all accounts.  There was no hint of mental impairment in him.  On the other side, Mendez had JUST had a stroke before consecrating Bishop Kelly, and family members testified that Mendez barely recognized them at the hospital, just days before the consecration.  Consecrating a "known ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ"?  Well, Mendez did the same thing.  Nor is it known whether THUC happened to "know" that he was a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ.  As for the Palmar ordination/consecrations, a priest who taught at Econe was the one who brought Thuc there.  He had first tried to get +Lefebvre, but +Lefebvre told him to take +Thuc instead.  Sure, he was duped.  But, remember, this was before Clemente declared himself to be pope.  As soon as he did that, Thuc renounced the group and never had anything more to do with them.  It was a shameless tar and feather job against Archbishop Thuc, really a grave calumny.  Read Bishop Thuc's autobiography, and you'll see the story of a very devout and pious man, a devoted Catholic, and not the raving madman that the SSPV have falsely made him out to be.  Then-Father Sanborn heard then-Father Kelly state about the Thuc line, "We can't say that they are valid, or people might go to them."

I will respond to this by A. Numbering your statements and then B. Replying to each number because I don’t know how to break up a quote on this website like other users do. 
1. I have been brainwashed by the sspv 
        - not once have I spoken to an      sspv priest about this issue
2. “ People who knew Bishop Thuc testified that he was mentally competent, teaching himself Spanish so that he could teach Latin to Spanish-speaking seminarians ... after the core consecrations he had performed.  He would change language effortlessly when at dinner with priests who spoke different languages and track each conversation.  He devoutly offered Mass ... by all accounts.  There was no hint of mental impairment in him.”
      - This mentally competent man (proof is in Des lauriers memoir of thuc) only a few weeks after denouncing JPII inserted his name into the consecration many times and des lauriers has to tell him he couldn’t do that. This mentally competent man offered mass with cats around him and the altar (in the testimony of Dr. hiller and heller). This to me is atleast puts a small doubt on his mental stability. He may have been good at speaking languages but that has nothing to do with his intent to consecrate a bishop. 

3. On the other side, Mendez had JUST had a stroke before consecrating Bishop Kelly, and family members testified that Mendez barely recognized them at the hospital, just days before the consecration. Consecrating a "known ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ"?  Well, Mendez did the same thing. 
        - All the points you argue here are responded to in the sacred and the profane. Sanborn wrote a letter saying what you said and more about Bishop Mendez and Bp Kelly resounded paragraph by paragraph to it from page 132 til the end of the book with docuмent proof and sources cited. http://www.congregationofstpiusv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SacredandProfane.pdf
4. As for the Palmar ordination/consecrations, a priest who taught at Econe was the one who brought Thuc there.  He had first tried to get +Lefebvre, but +Lefebvre told him to take +Thuc instead.  Sure, he was duped.  But, remember, this was before Clemente declared himself to be pope.  As soon as he did that, Thuc renounced the group and never had anything more to do with them.  It was a shameless tar and feather job against Archbishop Thuc, really a grave calumny.  
      - Thuc later said he withheld intention in these consecrations, and he also said he withheld intention at the novus ordo mass. He said these things because either A. It was a convenient way to get out of trouble or B. Because he actually did these sacrileges. If he actually withheld intention, it is clearly invalid. If he is lying about withholding the intention, it shows the type of man he was. Since he admitted to withholding intention on 2 separate occasions, one can reasonably doubt this intention on his later consecrations because the situations are similar. He later in life denounced the palmarians, yes. He denounced the novus ordo, yes. He also denounced sedevacantism toward the end of his life. You see where I’m going with this?


5. Read Bishop Thuc's autobiography, and you'll see the story of a very devout and pious man, a devoted Catholic, and not the raving madman that the SSPV have falsely made him out to be. 
       - Everything the sspv stayed about thuc is a fact and not a lie. They may be facts which are irrelevant in some people’s opinion, but they aren’t lies. Fr. Jenkins correctly pointed out the strategy to paint thuc as a saint. Fr. Sanborn used this tactic when he said that “the scandals of Ab. Thuc pale in comparison to those of ab lefebvre”

6. Then-Father Sanborn heard then-Father Kelly state about the Thuc line, "We can't say that they are valid, or people might go to them."
       - that’s hearsay.