Between Ex-FSSPX-ers

I'm one, and taking a look at the other one interviewed by Michael Lofton, namely Andrew Bartel:

Why I Left the SSPX with Andrew Bartel
Reason & Theology | 29 July 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_YA-mJj9Ks

5:37 He was confirmed by Mgr Fellay - was this after Mgr Williamson was already out?

8:36 No, [I] was wrong.

I'm a fan of the Eleison comments too, back when they were a public blog.

I was sad when denied access to them over not being an invited reader.

12:37 This is where SSPX is inconsistent.

When in 2000 - 2001 for a year I went to a Novus Ordo parish (with a conservative priest who certainly had the intention to bring forth the sacrifice of the mass), I was acting on the counsel "we don't recommend anyone to attend to Novus Ordo," and "some masses are certainly invalid, due to new rite shifting then intentions" and "Novus Ordo is a danger to your faith" (I considered I had a very solid one, so I thought "I can handle").

Furthermore, part of the case against Novus Ordo was due to translations like "for all" - Swedish and Polish both had "for you and for the many" ... (Swedish has "the" in the translation, while Polish like Latin is without the feature "article").

This has probably got me regarded as "confused as to their doctrinal position" ... which I was only in so far that I refuse to develop a radar for unstated "statements" and act on those even more than on what is stated by someone I consider as legitimate.

It can be added that before 2006, I had also had very little occasion to "develop a radar" since my contact with the FSSPX had been very occasional.

Mitteilungsblatt, yes, some correspondence with the priest who baptised me sub conditione, yes, but not a weekly personal contact with people. Advent 2004 to 2nd Jan 2005 and for five weeks in 2005, I was hosted by FSSPX priests, and me being already homeless, they were not concerned with discussing theology with me, more with getting me manual work. I had quit Swedish University over administrational mixup, not over Academic failure, and I was partly amused, partly somewhat starting to feel ill treated by them over that.

But back then I was way more charitable over this, and they were polite, so we were not in open conflict.

13:58 The "Open Letter to Confused Catholics" specifically doesn't deal with what happens if Latin, Swedish, Polish texts are far better than French or English back in his day translations on "for all" instead of the actual formula. He seemed unaware that this existed.

16:30 I would say this is where Sedevacantism and Orthopapism are way more consistent.

If Novus Ordo is a banned liturgy (and especially if it is invalid), this means that Montini was not Pope.

If Montini was not Pope, neither was Wojtyla, and if Wojtyla was not Pope, in 1988, there would have been 30 years since there was a Pope, and that would signal a duty to get a Pope elected.

David Bawden acted on that duty, as he saw it, and got elected.

17:46 "you don't disagree with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre"

From the end of my times at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, this rings so true.

"Sedevacantism is not held by" her* words in French were "théologiens de qualité"

Not sure if it was theologians, people, priests, but the words "de qualité" have remained.

It is to a pretty big degree "we are right, because we are posh" ... or "oh, you disagree, but you can't point to anyone as posh as our clergy to substantiate your position" ...

Their defense of "una cum" not making a mass illicit even if Ratzinger or Bergoglio is heretical was so off the mark historically.

"Well, Popes approved English province missals with 'una cum papa nostro NN et rege nostro NN' and the rulers of England were Protestant heretics"

Misses the point that Stuart claimants from 1688 to I think 1830 or so (see Henry Edward, Cardinal Stuart) were supported by the Catholic Church. And as (usually) Catholics were people that Catholics could (usually) pray with.

* Those of a woman I talked to after ceasing to assist masses but while still begging outside.

18:13 Answering in parallel with Bartel.

I came back to Catholicism in 2009. Neohimerites were hopelessly modernist (one had criticised "Pope Benedict's" condoms are not a complete solution as "uncharitable" and after that Pentecost I didn't get back to Divine Liturgy with Neohimerites), and Paleohimerites were (at least mostly) too Anti-Catholic.

I had an an Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology and a Roman Catholic theology on other subjects.

I was more than once preached to without being nominatim preached to, a habit Novus Ordo's seem to have in common with FSSPX, since then, and made my avowals of Orthodoxy. Yes, the Blessed Virgin was free from Original sin from the very moment of Her conception, not just five minutes afterwards, after She had prayed to be delivered from it (or two seconds).

When it came to "yes, the successors of Peter are the Popes and not the Bishops" - I had to quit. The FSSPX confesses that with their mouth, but they act as if EO ecclesiology were true.

A thing like "obedience was good, when the Popes were good" (Mgr Lefebvre) is so "yeah, we could sign Pope Hormisdas' formula when Pope Hormisdas was Orthodox" - all the while Neohimerites state that the Modernists and Latins in Rome actually are canonically Popes. On this ground taking a huge distance from Sedevacantism.

So, the deal breaker was finally, I could not consider a sell-out to psychiatry like "Benedict XVI" as Pope if I really took the RC view on papacy seriously. Hence, Sede or Orthopapist.

The remaining time up to the "abdication" (of someone who had no papacy to begin with), I was Sede, a bit into 2013 after the "election" I was three ways ... Bergoglio, Greijo or Bawden, and from late 2013 to early 2014 on to present, Pope Michael (Bawden). He had been consecrated bishop already in 2011, Gaudete Sunday.

20:24 Full communion with the Church.
Well said - was the incumbent bishop of Rome on August 1st in Rome or in Kansas?

So, the choice was Bergoglio or Pope Michael.

Pope Michael being about having trad positions in certain areas (he's not an avid defender of clerical celibacy requirement, his first ordained priest is a married man, and he allows the TLM to be said in English and presumably also Spanish) and being "in full communion with the Church" and one counting to have a Pope on the day when Christ arrives to Armageddon.

40:24 For those who do accept Vatican II, how come adherring to your last three "Popes" starting with the "saint" (whom I admired at conversion), involves a conflict against § 3 of Dei Verbum, which is clearly affirming Biblical chronology from Creation of Adam on?

God, who through the Word creates all things (see John 1:3) and keeps them in existence, gives men an enduring witness to Himself in created realities (see Rom. 1:19-20).

This is less concerned with Biblical chronology than with Geocentrism or Irreducible complexity, but wait ...

Planning to make known the way of heavenly salvation, He went further and from the start manifested Himself to our first parents.

Stating that Adam and Eve are "mythology, but divinely inspired of that genre" is therefore against this paragraph. It clearly involves "our first parents"

Then after their fall His promise of redemption aroused in them the hope of being saved (see Gen. 3:15) and from that time on He ceaselessly kept the human race in His care,

Ceaselessly is not consistent with allowing them to so neglect history that Genesis 5 and 11 (clearly after the first parents and after Genesis 3:15) become less "Swiss cheese genealogies" than such with more holes than cheese or generations actually recorded. And especially not with so many generations of oral only tradition that Genesis 3:15 becomes iffy as historical memory.

to give eternal life to those who perseveringly do good in search of salvation (see Rom. 2:6-7). Then, at the time He had appointed He called Abraham in order to make of him a great nation (see Gen. 12:2).

Some Catholics think "Genesis 1 to 11 is against science, but from Abraham on, we need to accept historicity" - well, this paragraph certainly does tell you to accept the historicity of Abraham, but with Genesis 14, you can't unless you have reed mats with evacuated temple treasure from En Geddi misdated by 1500 years.

But this is only possible if the Earth was still young, its atmosphere still young and carbon 14 had not reached its present level yet.

Through the patriarchs, and after them through Moses and the prophets, He taught this people to acknowledge Himself the one living and true God, provident father and just judge, and to wait for the Savior promised by Him, and in this manner prepared the way for the Gospel down through the centuries.

The traditional view of these patriarchs being, it's not just the five generations in the main action of Genesis (Abraham to sons of Joseph), but all the way from the time when Seth replaced Abel as patriarch of the just. I think your first eucharistic prayer (if you consider it valid) still mentions "Abel" ... as part of how God collects His people.

So, given you wish to uphold Vatican II and the New Liturgy, you come into conflict with your "last three Popes"

Please note, this translation into English misses the exclusion or Old Earth Compromise of even the Fundie type, namely before creation of mankind:
"He went further and from the start manifested Himself to our first parents."

From the start doesn't sound very catchy ... and doesn't sound very Biblical. Check the Latin:
"insuper protoparentibus inde ab initio Semetipsum manifestavit"

Ooops ... "ab initio" suddenly sounds very Biblical and Mark 10:6 ...

Montini, who wasn't living for decades in a Commie occupied country never towted Old Earth or Evolution.

You know that the Palmarians actually canonised him? Wouldn't have happened, if "Paul VI, Pope and Martyr, Prisoner of the Vatican" (as I used to call him) had signed documents denying Adam and Eve were created within humanly easily overseeable time from when God created heaven and earth.

Here is the first roughly half, not sure if I will make an update post with the second half, but here is the first half.