What is the SSPX position on Novus Ordo annulments? Do they accept them all as legitimate? Do they reject them all as bogus? Or do they look at them individually and accept some as legitimate and reject others as bogus?

The collective answer to your questions is "yes," an example of ambiguity plaguing the SSPX.  It is the same situation with conditionally ordaining priests from the novus ordo.  It's a problem, proof of lack of unity.

The "recognize and resist" position isn't simple, comfortable, or clear-cut though. One should realize that.

Is the Pope the Pope? Does the Pope seem to be a heretic? Should he be disobeyed? Should one avoid the Novus Ordo, even if there is no other option? Is the Novus Ordo Mass valid? Is the Church infallible? Has the Catholic Church taught dangerous doctrine -- mortally dangerous for souls -- after Vatican II?

"Yes".

"To which question?"

"All of them."


Speaking of "recognize-and-resist", and the critics of that stance...

I can see the appeal, humanly speaking, of Sedevacantism. Much more comfortable. Everything wrapped up with a nice little bow.

I don't see that it's my place to declare the See vacant, however, plus the movement solves nothing. It's like solving one problem, only to create another ("How can Christ let the Church fail?) which leads to a bunch of random theories as to how it will be resolved. Everything from the Siri thesis ("A pope WAS elected, dummy! Just in secret, that's all!") to "St. Michael" to the "Three Days of Darkness" to "my group of sede Catholics electing a pope" (conclavism).

Furthermore, I doubt that the Church could be in a 50 year interregnum, without saying that the Church has completely, utterly failed (you know, in direct opposition to Christ's promise that the gates of hell wouldn't prevail over the Church)

Because after all, it's not about the SEAT OF PETER being vacant, but about the CHURCH being vacant. The term Sedevacantist is therefore quite misleading. If only it were just a question of the Pope.



The strange thing is, when someone decides to "become a Sedevacantist", I know very little about what they believe. There are almost as many flavors of Sedevacantist as there are Sedevacantists:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/So-You-Decided-To-Become-A-Sedevacantist

:confused1:I am not a sedevacantist!  I am merely pointing out a controversy WITHIN THE SSPX because Matto asked.  The answer is not entirely mine.  Yesterday, I was one of four persons who discussed this very topic with Fr. Pfeiffer.  He is not a sedevacantist, either!

I never said you were.

If you read more of my posts here on CathInfo, you'd know that my accusing you of sedevacantism would look something like:

"Francis, you are a sedevacantist."

My posts are that clear.  


If I'm getting personal about something, or applying something to an individual, all doubt will be removed.

:confused1:I am not a sedevacantist!  I am merely pointing out a controversy WITHIN THE SSPX because Matto asked.  The answer is not entirely mine.  Yesterday, I was one of four persons who discussed this very topic with Fr. Pfeiffer.  He is not a sedevacantist, either!

I've heard Fr. P discuss annulments.   He accepts them in theory but would consider each case separately is what I think he said.  

Is that what you heard Frances?