CathInfo.com

Yes but if there is a need, then WHY is that? WHY?
The problem is the SSPX are such fαɢɢօts that they wont name it. Call it modernism. Call it what it is already.

Saint Augustine, Sermon 82  :

« If you are silent, you are worse than he. He has done injury by insult, you cure not the wounded. He has sinned and by sinning has wounded himself grievously; do you despise your brother's wound? »

Are you aware that by calling SSPX fαɢɢօts you are guaranteeing going to hell? You are aware of the meaning of the word "fαɢɢօt".

This is a mortal sin.

How long will this lunatic be allowed to pollute the forum with his nonsensical ramblings?

So ... I hope that people see through Kimmage's "divide and conquer" technique, which is reminiscent of Salza's and Siscoe's tactics when they showed up here to troll.

After deriding "dogmatic SVs" at every turn, he now praises them (I'd say "us" except that I reject his attempts to label me as such, when he was trolling against those who uphold the validity of the +Thuc line), so he now praises "dogmatic SVs" (though, I gues not just regular run-of-the-mill moderate SVs and sedeprivationists?) ... hoping that the SVs would then join him in dogpiling on to of the SSPXers.

Ironically, I'm an SV ... and I have no issues assisting at SSPX Masses, nor do I believe your doctrine that there's "no salvation outside Williamson", nor would he, since I knew His Excellency very well, having gone on many hours of walks with him at STAS, just he and I conversing about various subjects.

Here's the thing, eh? ... the faithful have a right to receive the Sacraments, and each of us has to apply prudence, which is called the queen of virtues not without reason, to weigh the pros and the cons of assisting at SSPX Masses.  95% of the time anymore, the sermons are rather "vanilla", and if you don't mix with the laity there who might be of the Modernist mindset ... and of course you avoid the doubtfully-ordained Novus Ordo presbyters (and keep track to make sure one of them hadn't "consecrated" the ciborium the week prior), then you're far better assisting at those Masses than staying home alone.

As with the other issues, your taking much responsibility on yourself attempting people to refrain from receiving the Sacraments.  There's no such obligation.

In the 1950s already, probably 75% of the US bishops were flaming Modernists, and just "flamers" in general ... as were a majortiy of the priests.  So, then, you'd be excused from your Sunday obligation if your bishop was a Modernist or your priest was?

You have an extremely imbalanced mind here, and I'm hoping that no SVs take the bait you're putting you put out there to dogpile on SSPXers.

Among them there are very Traditional ones, and some liberal and even Modernist ones.  Our Lord Himself said in the parable about the cockle that He lets them co-exist, and then the crops that survive intermingling with the cockle will be harvested.  But it's not for any of us to sort them out.  I'm sure that many of the more "liberal" ones are far holier than we are and put us to shame in terms of their practice of virtue and the extent to which they please God, even if they're in material error due to a weakness of intellect or some other related debility.

I'm not going to blanket condemn anyone INCLUDING those on the Conciliar Church, and some of the ACTUAL "dogmatic sedes" regularly attack me for this.  See, very many of those in the Conciliar Church still formally have the faith and profess it, even if they are in material error regarding the details ... as they have the correct formal motive of faith.  Just because, in the confusion, they attempt desperately to apply some (albeit tortured) "hermeneutic of continuity" to make V2 "compatible" with Tradition somehow, just because these efforts are an epic fail does not mean that they do not have the Faith.

St. Augustine first laid down the groundwork for the distinction between formal and material heresy, where he indicated that a litmus test for discerning between the two would be whether or not an individual who's sufficiently corrected would immediately change their view on any given matter, apologetically.

So, attempt to apply this "thought experiment".  Imagine that a Traditional Pius XIII is elected, and he ... declares Vatican II and the NOM null and void, rolls back all the Modernist changes, and even appears to be a saint, like a St. Pius X.  Now, would these people accept this Pius XIII and submit to him?  If the answer is yes, which it undoubtedly would be for nearly all Traditional Catholics and many millions of Conciliar Catholics, despite the apostasy ... if the answer is yet, then they remain formally Catholic.  Those who desperately attempt to apply a "hermeneutic" to reconcile V2 with Tradition, by the very fact that they attempt to do so and feel the need to do so, that's "prima facie" evidence that they realizes that all teaching must be reconciled with Tradition (unlike the Modernists who think it's perfectly OK that the teaching change and that there be a rupture).

Funny isn't it that I, being such an allegedly "dogmatic" sedevacantists, defend not only sedevacantists, but also the SSPX (meaning, the priests and faithful aligned with it, not their official "positions", which are reprehensible), and even the Conciliar Catholics who still have the faith.

Since we're so smug about being Traddie ... and pat ourselves on the back for the unmerited grace of having become Traditional Catholics, and being Traditional, some of us, for many decades now ... where are our Trad saints?  Where's our Trad Padre Pio?  Tradism should yield holiness, and the fact that we are not becoming saints despite God having keps us in the truth, we will be judged more harshly than the Novus Ordites who have not received this same grace.