The sense I get is that they are 'de facto' non una cuм now, and that is probably how it will stay. There are no non-sedevacantist priests in the CSPV of whom I am aware. I do not know any more.

The title of this thread reminds me of a Brittney Spears song.

Oh dear! We men are taught never to hit a lady. But if she ain’t a lady?
lots of Karen’s out there just begging to get paddled with a cricket bat.

Then there is that song “Dude looks like a lady”

The metaphors for theological differences between Mass groups is plentiful.

Am I correct in understanding that the only difference between the SSPV and the Resistance is the "una cuм?"

That the SSPV is not officially sedevacantist (even if all their priests are non-una cuм)?

Are there both sede and non-sede priests in the SSPV?

Would una cuм priests be welcome within the SSPV?

Has the SSPV written anything about the Resistance?

I found this on Wikipedia:

"Almost immediately, these priests, with Kelly as their leader, formed the Society of Saint Pius V^[3] (SSPV), which held that it is at least a debatable question whether the popes since 1958 have in fact been legitimate Roman Pontiffs.^[3] The Society does not believe that it has the right to decide the question of sedevacantism definitively, but believes that "those who presently are thought to be occupying hierarchical positions in the Catholic Church are acting, for the most part, as though they do not have the Faith, according to all human means of judging".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Kelly

From what you have told me, while Sspx resistance  might strongly disapprove attending NO or Indult parishes, they still consider those who do attend to be Catholics and thus will give them communion

whereas sspv says NO and indult are “different religions” and so refuses to commune with those who go there.  They also break communion with thuc line priests chapels 

I know they do not refuse Communion to those who assist at una cuм Masses.

But the SSPV does refuse Communion to anyone whom they know to be a Feeneyite.

But the SSPV does refuse Communion to anyone whom they know to be a Feeneyite.

I heard a story directly from one of "The Nine" that a prominent priest among them refused Sacraments to a "Feeneyite" on his deathbed.

I don’t like the feeneyite position at all but… my gosh.. even if you think it’s objectively heresy (which I’m not claiming), how could you presume culpability with such high stakes when you don’t know?

Dunno but it really makes me think what is wrong with these priests. Even the sspx wouldn't do that...

Dunno but it really makes me think what is wrong with these priests. Even the sspx wouldn't do that...

No, the SSPX wouldn't refuse Sacrament to "Feeneyites".  So, the reason that the greatest hostility against the position comes from sedevacantist priests and bishops is because of their exaggerated notion of infallibility.  Even if you read Trent the way BoDers do, the passage could easily be understood as stating that you must hold that the Sacrament of Baptism is required at least in desire, not that you must positively hold that desire alone suffices for salvation.  There's no intent to define there, and there's no Canon in Trent along those lines to reinforce any kind of definition.  It's in the Canons of Trent that you find that which Trent meant to define vs. the longer explanatory / expository sections.

There's also a serious problem with St. Alphonsus' appeal to a letter from Pope Innocent as evidence for it being de fide.  There's another letter from another Pope Innocent that explicitly states that those who are saved by desire rush to heaven without delay, i.e. rejecting St. Alphonsus' theory that temporal punishment can remain after initial justification by BoD.  In fact, by simple (and irrefutable) syllogism from Trent's teaching, initial justification requires rebirth, and Trent defines rebirth as removing all punishment due to sin.  So by St. Alphonsus' own criteria, his own position would be heretical.