Why not keep attending SSPX chapels? If you're attending Masses celebrated by "independent" priests, then why not do SSPV, SMRI, or SGG? Do you guys also attend ICKSP or FSSP?

Why not keep attending SSPX chapels? If you're attending Masses celebrated by "independent" priests, then why not do SSPV, SMRI, or SGG? Do you guys also attend ICKSP or FSSP?

Many here do attend SSPX chapels. And the “Resistance” doesn’t force you to stop. The “Resistance” is also under bishops, so they are not independent per se.
Most here don’t recommend attending at the diocese and I agree. But I think I would do it if it was my only choice...but that’s just me. I hope to God I never have to make that choice.

I *think* what the OP is asking is "why would anyone refuse to attend *anywhere except* a Resistance chapel?

Does anyone even take this position?

I feel like all the people who go to Resistance chapels would also go at least some other places, either SSPX or Sede or both. 

(And when I say "would" I mean on principle)

Why not keep attending SSPX chapels? If you're attending Masses celebrated by "independent" priests, then why not do SSPV, SMRI, or SGG? Do you guys also attend ICKSP or FSSP?

You should not keep attending SSPX Masses because you are in schism with the man you believe is the Vicar of Jesus Christ. 

Oh just stop. Can’t you let one thread go without derailing it with sedevacantism? He asked about R&R, not sedevacantism.
Some of you sedevacantists are one trick pony’s. And we are not impressed with the trick. Certainly not, when you basically troll this forum with it.

I answered the original poster’s question.

The original post asked why one would/would not attend SSPV/CMRI/SGG. I didn’t derail the thread.

Well, if it’s a “trick”, you should have no problem refuting it and proving to a deluded sede how you are in fact subject to your Pope.

You should not keep attending SSPX Masses because you are in schism with the man you believe is the Vicar of Jesus Christ.

If you come at it from the obedience perspective, New Rome simply dislikes attendance at SSPX chapels.  She doesn't actually condemn it, and in fact has said that Catholics can attend there.  While I get that that *in and of itself* is not sufficient reason to prefer an SSPX chapel over an Indult, its not schism.  Rome doesn't even consider it to be schism.

On the other hand, if you come at it from the Sedevacantist perspective, you have to assume una cuм is actually some kind of sacrilege or schismatic act rather than merely an error of fact, which seems hard to substantiate.

I think what you really take issue with (logically anyway) is moreso the R and R *position* than the specific act of attending a mass offered by SSPX priests.  But the problem is "R and R" is more than one position, and there are different nuances to each.