Which is complete stupidity.
Just because you say it is? If there's a "red light" on the SSPX, then why is it that so many Resistance types continue to attend SSPX chapels, including yourself?
Both groups agree that the V2 papal claimants are legitimate Popes of the Catholic Church. Check.
Both reject the same errors of Vatican II (religous liberty, ecuŠ¼enism, collegiality, ecclesiology). Check.
Both agree that sedevacantism is bad (although of late both Avrille and Bishop Williamson have said that it's understandable): Check.
So both groups have the same basic theological orientation, but disagree regarding its implications, i.e. whether the Catholic parts of V2 can be accepted or whether the non-Catholic parts vitiate the entire thing. One group thinks that it's OK to seek / have legal recognition before Rome fully "converts", and in fact that Catholics have an obligation to seek communion with the Catholic hierarcy to the extent possible, while the other group thinks that they should have nothing to do with the Modernist V2 "Popes" until they fully "convert" (i.e. come around). This is just the natural tension that arises from holding that the V2 Popes are Catholic and not Catholic at the same time, that they're partly Catholic and partly non-Catholic. It's a matter glass half full vs. glass half empty, no?
I understand that this then leads to different practical situations, i.e. accepting NO presbyters witnessing SSPX marriages, and things like that, perhaps a greater willingness to accept NO presbyters who have not been conditionally ordained (though I don't see any categorical rejection thereof by The Resistance, and Bishop Williamson in the past was the enforcer of the Mr. Stark situation).
Then, since the Archbisihop, in the late 1970s and early 1980s actually adopted the same attitude that neo-SSX have now (allow us to make the "experiment of Tradition", accepting Vatican II "in light of Tradition", etc. etc.), but then adopted more of The Resistance mindset from about the time of Assissi on, there's this tug-o-war with the legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre between the two groups. Certainly the Archbishop ended his life with the Resistance mndset, even if quotes could be found from the early 1980s when he was excessively hopeful about a practical agreement.
But that's not the point. Point is that both groups have the same fundamental theological approach to the crisis, the R&R position that rejects mostly the same errors of Vatican II. I'm not seeing which point of the neo-SSPX position would constitute a "red light" of conscience that would prevent a young many from entering their seminary. Many Resistance types still attend SSPX chapels precisely because no such "red light" has emerged, including yourself. If there's a "red light", then why is it that you can in good conscience continue attending SSPX chapels?
Sure, if I'm R&R, I wouldn't be able to attend a sedevacantist seminary in good conscience. If I'm Motarian, I couldn't attend an SV or an SSPX seminary in good conscience. But if I'm R&R who judge that we should have nothing to do with the Catholic hierarchy until they become fully Traditional, I would consider it more of a lower-level disgreement if others thought that we had an obligation to submit to Rome as much as is possible.
Even with the COVID jab, I don't see a definition by the Church regarding the matter. As you admitted, one could ... without somehow ceasing to be Catholic ... argue from the "remote material cooperation" perspective that the jab is acceptable. That's a question of not agreeing with someone, but it doesn't arise to the level of making them non-Catholics. There are a few SV priests and bishops who felt that the jab could be acceptable, but I don't say that anyone who believes this is not Catholic somehow. I would say that I strongly disagree. I would say that they're wrong, dead wrong ... but not Catholic?
Topic: Looking for +Sanborn Criticism of +Williamson Lack of Structure (Read 3420 times)