All of the traditional groups have priests  that are validly ordained.  BTW, ALL of the independent priests and the trad group priests hold a sedevacantist position.

Are the sedevacantists even Catholic? I always thought they were more Protestant or Old Catholic. I think it would definitely be a mortal sin to go to one of their Masses (even if it's valid, since you would be publically joining schism). Just as it would be a mortal sin to go to a novus ordo or a Mass said by an Orthodox (as in Greek, Russian etc.) priest.

Independent priests are generally alright, I have know some very good ones. But I am really uncomfortable with the idea of switching around between chapels/priests simply because of likes or dislikes.

I will continue to support SSPX, whatever happens.

Quote

Are the sedevacantists even Catholic? I always thought they were more Protestant or Old Catholic.

"but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."


What part of that don't you understand?

It's ridiculous that the indoctrinated do not scruple to use the very same arguments that Novus Ordites use against them against sedes.

Apparently the same part you dont understand.

For an explaanation of what ABL meant by those words, please see other thread.

Oh wait, I forgot: That would threaten your position, so you will have to just keep repeating these same words to yourself like a Buddhist mantra to drown out the temptation to consider my point.

"but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."


 What part of that don't you understand?

 It's ridiculous that the indoctrinated do not scruple to use the very same arguments that Novus Ordites use against them against sedes.

ABL expelled public sedevacantists. Bishop Williamson expelled the nine.

I will take them over you any day of year, including leap days, thank you very much.

What about that conference Seraphim is talking about, where sedevacantists are very clearly called schismatic?

Afraid it might burst your bubble?

What about that conference Seraphim is talking about, where sedevacantists are very clearly called schismatic?

Calling a group of sedevacantists schismatic does not make the position schismatic.  If the position were schismatic, he would say it is not permissible to say it.  He would not say what he said.

Did Archbishop Lefebvre say Protestantism, Old Catholicism could be true?  Yet you compare sedevacantism, something he did say could be true, to those positions, because you are in a cult bubble.

Afraid it might burst your bubble?

If the Archbishop believed certain sedes were schismatic, or even if he were inconsistent, it wouldn't change the fact he tolerated sedevacantism as something that could be true.  That he didn't say one couldn't say it.  

If a position is schismatic, one must not say it's possibly true.  That is simple logic.  Try using it.

9?

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote

Are the sedevacantists even Catholic? I always thought they were more Protestant or Old Catholic.

"but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope."


What part of that don't you understand?

It's ridiculous that the indoctrinated do not scruple to use the very same arguments that Novus Ordites use against them against sedes.

You remind me of a Feenyite, pointing to John 3:5, and saying, "What part of that don't you understand?!?"

You need to look in the mirror.

The comparison is a very good one. There are some people here where using logic in discussion with them somehow makes you illogical. Tele is one of these people, as are the Feeneyites. Sadly, the comparison will be lost on him for sure.

You remind me of a Feenyite, pointing to John 3:5, and saying, "What part of that don't you understand?!?"

Completely different topics Seraphim. False analogy is another favorite of those indoctrinated by the SSPX.

You have simply evaded the issue over and over again: why did Archbishop Lefebvre say "I do not say either one cannot say the Pope is not the Pope" if the position is schismatic?  If the position is schismatic he would have said: you cannot say the pope is not the Pope, that is schism.  

He would not have said that the sedvacantist position is possible, he would not have said someday they might have to accept the sedevacantist position.  He would not have accepted sedevacantist seminarians.  He would have simply said: such a position is schismatic and unacceptable.

But ultimately, it's patently ridiculous to say the Pope has lost the Faith, to say Rome is in apostasy, to say they have quit the Church and to simultaneously say that no one can be a sede without being schismatic.  It's patently absurd, and of course, it was not his position.

You need to look in the mirror.

You need to get out of the SSPX funhouse.  It distorts everything because it tries to hold mutually contradictory positions.

In the Opus Fellay funhouse you can accept Vatican II as tradition, accept 95% of Vatican II, etc, then say you're following the legacy of Archbishop Lefebvre.

If you commit yourself to making apologies for modernists saying they can't be pinned down you eventually deny the possibility of objective judgments, becoming in some respects a kind modernist yourself.