CathInfo.com

Quote from: Stubborn on Today at 05:31:10 AM

    The pioneer Catholics who kept the faith in the 60s never concluded such a thing, because prior to V2, that was not the Catholic thing to do, Catholics back then never even considered such a thing. Deciding the pope to be illegitimate was authored by a priest, Fr. (now bishop) Sanborn, and that idea did not really surface till around the mid 70s, it really only started to grow in popularity in the mid 80s.

    But prior to that, Catholic sensibility during the infancy of the revolution was to keep and stay true to the only faith they ever knew, and that the happenings within the Church contrary to that faith were to be avoided. The Catholic sensibilities said that worrying about the pope's legitimacy would have only unnecessarily been, and still is, cause for greater confusion and division among those striving to keep the faith. How very right they were - and still are.

    But understand if you can that Catholic sensibility does not now, nor has it ever drawn any priest or lay person toward concluding that they are illegitimate, rather, I would say like the pioneering Catholics, that venturing into that arena is due to a lack of Catholic sensibility. It may be some other sensibility, but it's not Catholic sensibility.

This is at least a terribly inaccurate summary of the history of the traditional Catholic movement.  Francis Shuckhardt and all the people with him were already sede in 1967.  Fr Gerard des Lauriers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel-Louis_Gu%C3%A9rard_des_Lauriers) was already expelled from Econe in 1977 for his sede privationist views.  Fr. Sanborn would eventually take that position also but it wasn't until after he was expelled from the SSPX in 1983 that he did so publicly.  It's dishonest to try to claim there was ever some kind of "pure" traditionalist movement that was free of sede "impurities".  Archbishop Lefebvre himself admitted publicly that the sedes might be right.  I'm sorry that so many of you were deformed by the SSPX over-reaction to what they perceived as a threat to their hegemony.  In their zeal to neutralize it, they trampled Catholic principles.  Just like they trampled dissidents in 2012.  If you want to know about the true history of traditional Catholicism, read Griff Ruby's book, The Resurrection of the Catholic Church (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0595250181/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0595250181&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20 His account is sympathetic to Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX despite the fact that he himself is a sede.

I know of multiple Trad families, all of whom have 12+ children, who were Trad-raised from the 70s, who have access to various priests (Independent, SSPX and Sede chapels)...but who have recently gone indult.  
.
I don't understand the confusion among these people, but the more stories you hear, this is not an isolated incident.  So many people are losing their minds (and maybe their souls).

And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying:
~ 2 Thessalonians 2:10

All of you arguing about R&R vs Sedevacantism are missing the point.  Just as no Catholic leaves the Church for Protestantism/atheism because of doctrine or theology (99% of the time it's because they want to escape Catholic morality), nobody leaves Traditionalism for the indult because of theology/doctrine (i.e. R&R vs Sedevacantism).  The reason Trads leave the True Faith for the fake 'indult faith' is because of the 3 dangers we all must face - the world, flesh and the devil.
.
So the usual temptations that Trads face are
1) Being considered "extreme" or rigorist (i.e. peer/social/family pressures...temptations of the world)
2) Dating/morality/marriage temptations (i.e. temptations of the flesh).
3) Temptations to despair, feeling alone in your Fauth, feeling abandoned by God/Church, etc  (temptations from the devil)

I believe this is quite true for your average lay Traditional Catholic ... but not for a Salza and not for most priests.  I myself went through the same process in seminary that many priests and seminarians did.  You start off as a Traditional Catholic mostly by recognizing how contrary Conciliar Catholicism is to Tradition.  You tend not to go too deep into it.  Stubborn is still at this phase.  But then you start studying Traditional Catholic theology, in particular ecclesiology, and it hits you in the face how contrary to Tradition R&R really is.  Then you’re faced with a choice to resolve this somehow.  Those who did not experience such an intellectual process were, quite frankly, either somewhat dull-witted, or just didn’t care much about “theology”, writing it off as irrelevant compared to learning how to say Mass or give sermons or hear Confessions.  You’ll notice that sedevacantists tend to be the brightest seminarians and priests.