For you, put down the dictionary. You can't take it with you.

Still upset that I did what you asked, read your source, and then dared to notice that it didn't say what you claimed?
You're not a very convincing prophet.

Most Trads that I have run into couldn't care less who the current Pope is.

You just proved my point.  The "danger" of Francis leading Trads into some new-age, antichrist abyss is not as likely as you make it seem.

  I tell novus ordo Catholics and indulters all the time that new-rome is lying to them.  Trads have been saying this since 1970.  What else do you want us to do?

Sheep will be sheep.  Some sheep won’t recognize the wolf until he’s biting their neck.  Can’t change human nature.  

What good would it do for them to talk about the Pope with you, when you would just tell them, as you told me, that they must obey and be one in heart and mind with the Pope? I'm pretty sure that that wouldn't go over very well at most trad chapels, even SSPX.

It's true that some (maybe a lot?) of SSPX priests don't tell the truth about what is really happening in the Church, since the leadership of the SSPX doesn't really say much about Modernism or the Council anymore, and this indifference has trickled down to the priests and laity. But, I don't think that telling trads at SSPX chapels that Francis is THE Antichrist is going to wake them up.

Meg, I simply told you what the Catechism of Pope Pius X said, which was:

IF the person is actually "the Pope," THEN a Catholic needs to be "one in heart and mind" with that person.

On the other hand,

IF the person is an Antipope," THEN a Catholic should not be "one in heart and mind" with that person.

Bergoglio is an Antipope, Meg. So any real Catholic should not be "one in heart and mind" with Bergoglio.

Also, being "one in heart and mind" does not mean you must obey, even a real Pope, if he told you to sin. Clearly Pope Pius X did not mean that. It means that you treat the real Pope with respect and consider with docility what he teaches, and do what he commands you to do (except if what he commands would cause you to sin). 

Good for you. Do you tell SSPXers all the time that the SSPX is lying to them? If not, that's what you need to do.

Lying about what specifically, you might ask? About the validity of the Novus Ordo Episcopal Ordinations, Novus Ordo Priestly Ordinations, Novus Ordo Consecration of the Wine. And the elephant-in-the-room, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is "the Holy Father" and that the SSPX faithful should sing praises to him ("Francisco") on First Saturdays.

Lies, lies, and lies. And as we know, all lies comes from Satan.

You make no mention above about the Crisis in the Church, or about Modernism. As if they are not a factor. That's fairly typical of hardline sedevacantists. 

Meg, could you define "hardline sedevacantists?" If you are labelling me as such, I'd like to know what it means. Thanks.

You expect traditional Catholics at SSPX chapels to accept sedevacantist positions, as you stated in your post #82 on this thread. The SSPX has never been sedevacantist, and shouldn't be expected to be. Just as it wouldn't be proper for a dogmatic R&R to go to a sedevacantist chapel and tell them that they must believe that Francis is the Pope.

When the SSPX chapel that you attended began singing praises to pope Francis (which I agree is dreadful) did you complain to the priest? You probably did. But do you really believe that this practice is done at all SSPX chapels? I've never seen it done. Do you to think that the SSPX has believe that Francis is THE Antichrist in order to counter that situation?

Meg, I expect all Catholics to examine the law and the facts concerning who the legitimate Pope is. It is the duty of Catholics to be in communion with the real Pope (except when the See is vacant) and reject Antipopes.

The SSPX has a duty to tell the Truth. If they are not certain who the Pope is, then they should say that, rather than call Bergoglio, the "the Holy Father" and "Peter." But we both know why the do it, don't we? Just a pinch of incense, eh?

What you "expect" is not actually required from those of us who have been trads for quite awhile. As has already been pointed out on this thread, we are not new to the Crisis in the Church. Some here believe as you do, and some of us do not. If you insist that others should be expected to believe as you do, then you are dogmatic. 

I'm pretty sure that the SSPX is certain who the Pope is. They've not ever said anything else. Unfortunately, the neo-SSPX doesn't explain the issues with the Crisis or Modernism or jurisdiction. They seem to think that all they need to do is provide the faithful with the Traditional mass, sacraments, and pre-Vll doctrine without actually saying much about the Crisis or Modernism. But they still provide the Traditional sacraments. Otherwise, what are we left with? Going to the Novus Ordo for the sacraments? 

I am so confused.  What exactly is Angelus' position?  Sometimes he seems sedevacantist; other times not.

As I have stated elsewhere, I am certain that Bergoglio is an Antipope for two reasons: 1) he was not canonically-elected and 2) he is a manifest, obstinate heretic. My first position is that he was never Pope. He did not lose an office that he never had. However, some people cannot understand the canonical argument, so the fall-back is that he is a manifest, obstinate heretic. In either case, he is an Antipope. And he is the only papal claimant who is currently alive. He is the only one that really matters from the perspective of me being obedient to legitimate Catholic authority.

Moving now to papal history, which "sedevacantists" are obsessed with. I believe (because I have not seen convincing evidence to the contrary) that John XXIII through Benedict XVI were all canonically-elected. I am open to further evidence that those elections did not follow the law in place at the time. But I have not seen convincing evidence yet. And I haven't seen convincing evidence that any of those Popes automatically lost their office because of manifest, obstinate heresy. I agree with Fr. Paul Kramer on this.

At the very least, counterfeit doctrines and counterfeit sacraments have been promoted by the infiltrators in the Vatican since VII. I just don't take a position that the Pope was the cause of this. I think it is more likely that the Popes were either unwilling or unable to rein in the ecclesiastical Freemasons who were actually in control of the Vatican. I do not want to rashly judge men when I don't know the full story. Therefore, I accept those men as valid Popes until proven otherwise. To me it is a historical question with a lot of unknowns.

However, even if those men were authoritative Popes, I don't believe that they authoritatively commanded that we believe any new false teachings. I don't believe that they authoritatively commanded that we use the new counterfeit sacraments. And if they had authoritatively commanded that I would disobey because I believe that I would be sinning to believe or do hold false beliefs and receive false sacraments.

Many of the Catholics who have accepted those new counterfeit beliefs and new counterfeit sacraments did not have a gun to their head. They voluntarily chose to take that counterfeit path. They chose this out of human respect in some cases. Out of spiritual sloth in some cases. Out of a desire to sin in some cases. And therein lies their culpability. God allowed this whole "Crisis in the Church" precisely to allow a self-separation of the Wheat from the Chaff.