CathInfo.com

Centro if you don't mind me asking, I just read the footer in all your posts. 

We conclude logically that religion can give an efficacious and truly realistic answer to the great modern problems only if it is a religion that is profoundly lived, not simply a superficial and cheap religion made up of some vocal prayers and some ceremonies...

You have not identified which religion you mean.  You actually left it open to mean any religion, like buddist monks or devote jews that can be profoundly lived they way they see it.  You left a very subjective standard.  Just saying.

I, for one, would have nothing to blush for -- not even at God's judgment seat -- whether I'm right or wrong about the Pope question. I don't waste much time on it, I am charitable even towards those I disagree with, I don't call the Pope names or disrespect his person. But at the same time I don't let him cost me my Faith -- and all that seems like a safe position to be in!

That's why I like the old SSPX R&R position. It's prudent, it gets all the benefits of sedevacantism (keeping aloof from the Novus Ordo contagion, keeping the Faith) but none of the "excesses" (personally declaring the Pope deposed, which isn't really for laymen to decide, or editing the Pope's name out of the Canon, which is called for in the Roman Missale, or obsessing over the Pope, trying to convert others to sedevacantism, slipping into dogmatic/schismatic sedevacantism, schismatically cutting oneself off from various groups of Catholics, etc.)

I actually agree with you here. I, too, like the old classic SSPX R&R position. I would stick by it as entirely prudent in the face of CMRI or SSPV of whom I sympathize with in their official position. You will notice that the CMRI is classic SSPX up until the pope question where they claim that it follows as a logical conclusion (opinion) that the post-conciliar popes are not popes.

Here is my issue.

Many laity of the Resistance have deformed the classical SSPX position on the crisis and even modified it according to the papal claimant. You see, for many years (especially during the JP2 days) the official SSPX (and also Fr. Hesse) position was that JP2 was probably a valid pope because he was only a material heretic. JP2 said that he was doing things in the name of Tradition, he just had a distorted idea of Tradition. This argument even worked with Ratzinger. He was only a material heretic who believed himself Catholic. Then Bergoglio hits the scene claiming there is no Catholic God and many more obvious formal heresies. Suddenly, the lay arguers of the so-called Resistance in more than one language and more than one country scrap and scoot under the rug the material vs. formal heretic argument of Fr. Hesse and the classical SSPX. You don't hear that any more. Ironically, Bishop Fellay has publicly called into doubt the validity of the papacy of Bergoglio, meanwhile laity of the so-called Resistance have written entire books on why it is possible for obstinate heretics, formal heretics and non-Catholics to be legitimate popes, while claiming to be the true followers of Archbishop Lefebvre. That is disgraceful in many ways, to say the least. It reeks of masonic religious indifferentism, to be honest. I hate to say this cause I believe in the resistance priests original mission but the laity are all over the place with their dogmatic hatred of sede vacantists. The resistance laity are about the only laity these days, EVEN AMONG ECCLESIA DEI CATHOLICS, who do not doubt the papacy of Francis and turn it almost into a dogma that defines Catholics, in fact, they do do that.

I actually agree with you here. I, too, like the old classic SSPX R&R position. I would stick by it as entirely prudent in the face of CMRI or SSPV of whom I sympathize with in their official position. You will notice that the CMRI is classic SSPX up until the pope question where they claim that it follows as a logical conclusion (opinion) that the post-conciliar popes are not popes.

Here is my issue.

Many laity of the Resistance have deformed the classical SSPX position on the crisis and even modified it according to the papal claimant. You see, for many years (especially during the JP2 days) the official SSPX (and also Fr. Hesse) position was that JP2 was probably a valid pope because he was only a material heretic. JP2 said that he was doing things in the name of Tradition, he just had a distorted idea of Tradition. This argument even worked with Ratzinger. He was only a material heretic who believed himself Catholic. Then Bergoglio hits the scene claiming there is no Catholic God and many more obvious formal heresies. Suddenly, the lay arguers of the so-called Resistance in more than one language and more than one country scrap and scoot under the rug the material vs. formal heretic argument of Fr. Hesse and the classical SSPX. You don't hear that any more. Ironically, Bishop Fellay has publicly called into doubt the validity of the papacy of Bergoglio, meanwhile laity of the so-called Resistance have written entire books on why it is possible for obstinate heretics, formal heretics and non-Catholics to be legitimate popes, while claiming to be the true followers of Archbishop Lefebvre. That is disgraceful in many ways, to say the least. It reeks of masonic religious indifferentism, to be honest. I hate to say this cause I believe in the resistance priests original mission but the laity are all over the place with their dogmatic hatred of sede vacantists. The resistance laity are about the only laity these days, EVEN AMONG ECCLESIA DEI CATHOLICS, who do not doubt the papacy of Francis and turn it almost into a dogma that defines Catholics, in fact, they do do that.

You say you believe in the classical sspx.  But aren't you jumping ship when you say you believe it, then judge the pope yourself, and hack at everyone else who don't believe your new non-classical thesis?

I was told the pfeiffer group still keeps the classical sspx and is heavily attacked for it.  Think your right on the laity stuff.  The laity are all over the board.  No Shepherd.