So Stubborn, are you a sedevacantist?

So Stubborn, are you a sedevacantist?

Are you kidding?  Stubborn foams at the mouth in rage at the very mention of the word sedevacantist.

So Stubborn, are you a sedevacantist?

No, I pray for them.

However, I see the "recognize but resist" camp to be merely crypto-Sedevacantists.

How is that?  MOST R&R (like the SSPX variety) affirm that they consider the V2 popes to be legitimate.

Are you confusing that term with the Resistance, two of whom (Father Ringrose and Chazal) have come out with positions similar to sedeprivationism?

Thanks for the tip, Ladislaus. This is my first day here. I really don't know anybody yet but I am a Traditional Catholic who loves the Latin Mass 1,000 times more than the New Mass. I accept Pope Francis as the pope and I honestly cannot find any proof that a valid consecration does not take place during the New Mass. Therefore, I consider the New Mass valid but "barely Catholic."

However, I see the "recognize but resist" camp to be merely crypto-Sedevacantists. I don't mean to insult anyone. I attend an SSPX Chapel from time to time and regard Archbishop Lefebvre as a very good man but not a "cult figure" as many in the SSPX and Resistance, IMO, make him out to be.

It will be interesting to see who will be elected SSPX Superior General in July. Hopefully, + Fellay will not be chosen again. He may have fooled many SSPX faithful by signing Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis last year so that they think he's still fighting against Modernist Rome. If they're stupid, they'll elect him again and he'll reign till 2030 (36 years!) and that'll give that snake-oil salesman plenty of time to reconcile---oops---I mean surrender the SSPX to Modernist Rome.

IMO, + Fellay is the "Judas Goat" of the SSPX. Just because he got his excommunication lifted in 2009, He is now cooperating with Rome (the same group of people who "excommunicated" Archbishop Lefebvre ---the man who consecrated him a Bishop--- and who still refuse to lift his excommunication). Talk about stabbing your mentor in the back!

If it wasn't for the Archbishop, Fellay would be nothing. The FSSP might've betrayed Archbishop Lefebvre by disapproving of his 1988 episcopal consecrations, but THAT'S NOTHING  compared to what the Judas Goat Fellay is doing to the memory of the wonderful Archbishop. Does anyone in the SSPX really believe that Archbishop Lefebvre would even think about joining Rome in 2018?? If the SSPX is smart, they will elect a new Superior General who will refuse any reconciliation with Rome, as was the Archbishop's wishes from 1988 until his death.

You don't regard Archbishop Lefebvre with the regard of a "cult figure" but you consider Bishop Fellay to be a "Judas Goat" for seeking reconciliation with a true, reigning pontiff of the Catholic Church? 

Anyway, to consider someone a "snake-oil salesman" for seeking reconciliation with a true pope seems a bit much. Seems like you're approaching the same contradiction and inconsistency you accuse some of the SSPX of there. 

Is he a true pope (Francis) or not? If so, what is wrong with seeking to be in full communion with a true pope? Wouldn't it depend on the conditions attached? Bishop Fellay has not agreed to any conditions, so it seems you're condemning him for the effort, which, again, is simply reconciliation and full communion with someone with whom rejection of communion would be schism. 

Am I missing something as to your position? Because it seems inconsistent itself. 

The Roman Catholic Church uses the Mass of Pope St. Pius V - that is the law, that is Quo Primum.

The conciliar church uses the NOM, not the Catholic Church, the conciliar church will also self destruct at some point, the Catholic Church will stand until the end of Time, of that we are infallibly certain.

The new "mass" has proven to be an incentive to impiety almost from the first time it was ever said, and it's only gotten progressively more impious and has been the cause of the loss of faith of untold billions since then - to even suggest that Trent included or was talking about the NOM is at the very least, a gross misinterpretation of that Canon with nefarious intentions - regardless of the status of the popes.

But the "Vicars of Christ" on earth have been offering the Holy Sacrifice with the Novus Ordo rite since its promulgation, so they must be doing it separated from union with the Roman Catholic Church, according to this logic.

How is that possible?

You don't regard Archbishop Lefebvre with the regard of a "cult figure" but you consider Bishop Fellay to be a "Judas Goat" for seeking reconciliation with a true, reigning pontiff of the Catholic Church?

Anyway, to consider someone a "snake-oil salesman" for seeking reconciliation with a true pope seems a bit much. Seems like you're approaching the same contradiction and inconsistency you accuse some of the SSPX of there.

Is he a true pope (Francis) or not? If so, what is wrong with seeking to be in full communion with a true pope? Wouldn't it depend on the conditions attached? Bishop Fellay has not agreed to any conditions, so it seems you're condemning him for the effort, which, again, is simply reconciliation and full communion with someone with whom rejection of communion would be schism.

Am I missing something as to your position? Because it seems inconsistent itself.

First of all, both the SSPX leadership and faithful are actually sedevacantists (see my reasons in my previous posts) but do not have the courage to admit it so, thus, they do not consider Pope Francis a true pope. Archbishop Lefebvre was a sedevacantist himself and instructed the SSPX not to reconcile with Rome until Rome returns to the Traditional faith.

If +Fellay has not agreed to any conditions, then why has he been negotiating with Rome for most of his 2nd term as Superior General against the explicit wishes of his mentor? Rome is much worse in 2018 than it was in 1988 and to want to be welcomed into the Church now would make the SSPX (at best) a pathetic comparison to the FSSP, which has been a legitimate organization within the Church now for 30 years.

Archbishop Lefebvre had his chance to bring the SSPX into full communion with the Church on August 15, 1988 but he decided not to. Whether or not someone believes that decision to be good or bad is irrelevant. The fact is he didn't want to be a part of a 1988 Church that was "occupied by anti-Christs" yet Judas Goat Fellay is begging to be a part of a 2018 Church that is more Modernist than it has ever been. None of these people listen to the pope anyway. They trash talk pope after pope after pope yet claim that he's the "Vicar of Christ." That's not how you treat a "Vicar of Christ." That's how you would treat a false pope.  

Again, I see your position of "trash-talking" Bishop Fellay to be of similar kind under the circuмstances.

Wrong. Bishop Fellay is not the "Vicar of Christ" and therefore does not even come close to garnering such respect and reverence. At best he is a smarmy, shifty, Superior General to whom the SSPX owes no obedience. The SSPX is united under the "faith" and not under any "superior general." The Superior General is there for the SSPX faithful, not vice versa. It's a shame most SSPX people don't know this even yet. 
In that pathetic SSPX Conference from April 2013 (Resistance to What?), some poor soul actually asked the SSPX clergy if he was allowed to ask about something pertaining to his own society! A grown man asking permission like a little boy to a group of people whom he helps support! It's sad really. Hopefully, if the SSPX has any conviction or guts left in it, it will get rid of + Fellay and elect a new Superior General who will tell Rome to "go to hell" and start to do things their own way once again. :applause: