If I am incorrect, I don’t mind raising my hand up and saying I am incorrect if proven otherwise. I gave you the example of cardinal Manning. How did he became cardinal when he was previously an anglican? You will skip this, I can see it already.

It’s unfortunate that your confusion is coming from listening too much Fr Hesse and not going to pre-V2 manuals. 


I repeat, there is not a single catholic in authority that interprets that erroneously as you do. If there is, cite one please. There is no force in the world which could stop the sacrament being conferred (namely in this case- bishop becoming a bishop) if terms are met (with or without papal approval). And also there is absolute no position in hierarchy that very same bishop can hold without the approval of pope (as per ex cuм). Those 2 are separate and distinct things.

Based on your logic, why did pope Leo XIII establish a commission to check if anglicans had VALID orders, since they were not catholic for more than 300 years at that point? All he should have done is consult ex cuм, right? Of course not.
Do you not see how stubbornly you persist in your erroneous views? 

I don't think may sedevacantist hold a position based on ONE SOLE docuмent alone. That would be very imprudent. Firstly, this position has been elaborated on by many Church Fathers, including the doctor on papacy, saint Bellarmine. It is rooted in basic catholic principles that a non catholic cannot be a pope. It is rooted in teachings of Vatican I. It is also rooted in principles of Church’s indefectibility as this is what separates true Church from all societies. 
You don’t hold the same faith, sacraments (I hope) nor do you submit to your so called pope (I hope) therefore you have no pope (except in the lip service which is irrelevant).

1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, in its treatment of the indefectibility of the Church, explains:
“The gift of indefectibility plainly does not guarantee each several part of the Church against heresy or apostasy. The promise is made to the corporate body. Individual Churches may become corrupt in morals, may fall into heresy, may even apostatize”



It still holds that most people in R&R camp (kudos to few exceptions) DO NOT CARE if they are getting sacraments from a trad (aka catholic) priest or conciliar priest and therefore are GAMBLING with their eternity. 
Maybe this confession was valid, maybe it wasn’t.. I am not too bothered is their stance. Substitute Swiss magisterium speaks, and the matter is finished for them. Priests need conditional ordinations, sure. Priests don't need conditional ordinations, sure. It varies how they "feel". It is very modernist and "fluid". 

That is not a catholic stance. See Denzinger 1151. 

I don't think may sedevacantist hold a position based on ONE SOLE docuмent alone. That would be very imprudent. Firstly, this position has been elaborated on by many Church Fathers, including the doctor on papacy, saint Bellarmine. It is rooted in basic catholic principles that a non catholic cannot be a pope. It is rooted in teachings of Vatican I. It is also rooted in principles of Church’s indefectibility as this is what separates true Church from all societies. 
You don’t hold the same faith, sacraments (I hope) nor do you  submit to your so called pope (I hope) therefore you have no pope (except in the lip service which is irrelevant).

The point is that the sedes have referenced cuм ex as a bulwark to their "opinion-turned-de fide-doctrine"  that popes are not popes, while conveniently ignoring the fact that it actually condemns the sede hierarchy and in some instances, the sede laity themselves. That's the point.   

As for me, I remain the pope's good subject, but God's first. I submit to the pope unless he commands us (which far as I know, he has never done) to do something that offends God. This is essentially what PPV said to do in cuм ex that I quoted.

1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, in its treatment of the indefectibility of the Church, explains:
“The gift of indefectibility plainly does not guarantee each several part of the Church against heresy or apostasy. The promise is made to the corporate body. Individual Churches may become corrupt in morals, may fall into heresy, may even apostatize”



It still holds that most people in R&R camp (kudos to few exceptions) DO NOT CARE if they are getting sacraments from a trad (aka catholic) priest or conciliar priest and therefore are GAMBLING with their eternity. 
Maybe this confession was valid, maybe it wasn’t.. I am not too bothered is their stance. Substitute Swiss magisterium speaks, and the matter is finished for them. Priests need conditional ordinations, sure. Priests don't need conditional ordinations, sure. It varies how they "feel". It is very modernist and "fluid".

That is not a catholic stance. See Denzinger 1151.

What unknowing trads accept or do not accept as valid priests/sacraments is irrelevant. If you were NO before tradition, then you were in that camp. If they do not care enough to find out then they will answer for it.

The Church's indefectibility is foundational to our faith, we never need to concern ourselves with it - a million heretical popes and hierarchy will never succeed in destroying the Church - it takes faith in this doctrine to believe it, but we believe it - the heretics are the ones who do not believe it, which explains why they keep trying to destroy it.
 

You are paying a lip service. You probably have not followed your so called pope single command in decades. There is not much subjecting there. Papacy has not been created so every catholic has to have a degree in moral theology to know if they should follow him or not. Nor is the esence of papacy a sign of contradition and reason for avoidance. How absurd would that be.

What have any of the conciliar popes commanded that I was supposed to follow that did not offend God? Zero. You want be hypocritical and portray us as if we have no idea what offends God and what doesn't.

You are unwillingly one of the helpers and destroyers of the office of the pope.

The office of the papacy will last until the end of time, see V1. You should never think it is even remotely possible to be destroyed, only the Church's enemies believe it.

“Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. (Humani Generis 20)

The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. (Syllabus, Condemned Error No. 22)

This is absolutely true, "But.... though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." Here again, sedes, being hypocritical, like to insist we are incapable of knowing truth from error - yet St. Paul told us that we will know the difference - and to let them be anathema.

But to the more burning point, I do not think you get it. Let me be more direct. SSPX (aka Swiss substitute magisterium) knows very well what is a catholic sacrament. Despite that they let novus ordo priests roam through their ranks conferring doubtful sacraments. Same with the so called “bishop” Huonder and the scandalous oils they were using. They can pay lip service to pope all they want (as you do) and pretend they have one (as you do), but please do not gaslight people thinking that safer course is to engage in that then to be certain (as in the very words of their founder) that ALL SACRAMENTS FROM MODERNISTS ARE DOUBTFUL and therefore one should not engage with such. (See Denzinger 1151.)

Again, it is irrelevant to me that the SSPX or any trad group uses NO ordained priests, I have no issue with it personally because me and mine do not, have not, and will never go to those priests. Period.

I think the SSPX is terribly wrong for doing that but there is nothing I can do about it, so I do not concern myself with it, anymore than I concern myself with the status of the conciliar popes. If pope Francis were to ever say anything Catholic, I am sure the trads, probably the sedes louder than anyone, will sound the alert on all the forums, beyond that I pay very little-to-no attention to what goes on with the NO.

As I said earlier, for the eternal sake of the sedes, I sincerely hope that they've judged correctly, I really and truly do hope that. For me, the Catholic thing to do is to remain the pope's good subject, but God's first. It's the only way for it to be impossible to be wrong. The price of being wrong in this matter is simply way, way too high for me, because......

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." - Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII

What have any of the conciliar popes commanded that I was supposed to follow that did not offend God? Zero. You want be hypocritical and portray us as if we have no idea what offends God and what doesn't. The office of the papacy will last until the end of time, see V1. You should never think it is even remotely possible to be destroyed, only the Church's enemies believe it. This is absolutely true, "But.... though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." Here again, sedes, being hypocritical, like to insist we are incapable of knowing truth from error - yet St. Paul told us that we will know the difference - and to let them be anathema. Again, it is irrelevant to me that the SSPX or any trad group uses NO ordained priests, I have no issue with it personally because me and mine do not, have not, and will never go to those priests. Period.

I think the SSPX is terribly wrong for doing that but there is nothing I can do about it, so I do not concern myself with it, anymore than I concern myself with the status of the conciliar popes. If pope Francis were to ever say anything Catholic, I am sure the trads, probably the sedes louder than anyone, will sound the alert on all the forums, beyond that I pay very little-to-no attention to what goes on with the NO.

As I said earlier, for the eternal sake of the sedes, I sincerely hope that they've judged correctly, I really and truly do hope that. For me, the Catholic thing to do is to remain the pope's good subject, but God's first. It's the only way for it to be impossible to be wrong. The price of being wrong in this matter is simply way, way too high for me, because......

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." - Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII

You confuse me greatly.

What is your justification for attending SSPX masses? Why don't you just attend the FSSP?

You are technically in the same boat with the Sedes, because you choose to do something the Pope doesn't want you to do. Maybe you are more upset because it looks like the Sedes just don't fight anymore, which makes more work for the R and R types. I don't know. I am just throwing my thoughts out there.

You confuse me greatly.

What is your justification for attending SSPX masses? Why don't you just attend the FSSP?

You are technically in the same boat with the Sedes, because you choose to do something the Pope doesn't want you to do. Maybe you are more upset because it looks like the Sedes just don't fight anymore, which makes more work for the R and R types. I don't know. I am just throwing my thoughts out there.

I use the SSPX for the Mass and the sacraments. That's what I use them for. Unlike the FSSP, the SSPX I go to have always had and still have valid priests and have never preached anything but the Catholic faith.

I have already presented my side of the argument, in a nutshell, we do not need to be concerned about the status of popes, never have. What we do need is true priests who celebrate the true Mass for us and administer the sacraments to us in this crisis. 

The dogma states that in order to get to heaven, we must be subjects of the pope, iow, otherwise we will go to hell. If that means we should all be NO to you, then you have not read my posts and have no idea what being the pope's good subject, but God's first, means.  

Ahhh, the mind of a sede is stuck on blindly obeying popes, even if it means offending God.

As I have said, what I've posted is not the least bit complicated, it is basic Catholicism, stop complicating it.

My problem is with these people who won't give you the sacraments because they heard that you went to an una cuм or to a non una cuм mass.

Yeah, ridiculous!