How do you know?

[QuisUtDeus]

Some people feel uncomfortable attending it because it may show support for a position they don't agree with, and they may disagree strenuously.

 

Many sedevacantists won't attend an SSPX or Indult for the same reason.

 

Part of the world we have to live in right now.

[Vincentius]

Why is that you don't want to hear Mass a sedevacantist chapel? Do you worry about the validity of the Sacraments?  

I have a nagging problem when sedes bewail about the tampering of the Canon of the Mass (the inclusion of St. Joseph) when they themselves are doing it.  I'm as sure that there is something invalid when the "una cum" is set aside in the Canon just as the sedes are cocksure that there is no pope.  I'm not even certain the sedes claim extraordinary jurisdiction because of the state of necessity, certainly not in the same breadth as what the SSPX, and other independent priests who are not sedes.   To make the claim that there is no pope is tantamount to saying you are running a parallel church.  For what it is worth, there's no doubt about their valid orders (except in a few cases) but their priestly faculties may be in suspended animation, although the principle of common error may be invoked which could make their Sacrament valid (and licit) in an emergency.  Anyway, this is not the forum to debate sedevacantism.  It's a banned topic.

[CaroleK]

Why is that you don't want to hear Mass a sedevacantist chapel? Do you worry about the validity of the Sacraments?  

 
  I am relatively new to traditionalism (as compared to many).  At  this point I am not sure that I can agree with the sedevacantist  view.  It seems to me to be not far removed from Orthodoxy and  Protestantism in that I have read views from several different  sedevacantist adherents and they each stated a different time at which  the validly elected line of popes ceased.  There is inconsitancy  in the position that I am not personally comfortable with (though I can  see why others would embrace that position).
 
  While I do not necessarily fear that the Sacraments are invalid I am  not certain that I feel comfortable appearing to support the  sedevacantist position.
 
  That could change. I mean 3 years ago when I became a member of the  Catholic Church I could not have envisioned supporting the  traditionalist Catholic view.  Things, people and opinions change  as one grows and acquires information.
 
  But for now we (both my husband and I) are not comfortable adopting,  supporting or appearing to support a view point which we are at odds  with.
 

[CaroleK]

Why is that you don't want to hear Mass a sedevacantist chapel? Do you worry about the validity of the Sacraments?  

 
  Wow.  I really don't want to engage in a debate on sedevacantism,  as I know that the board owners (of whom I am a guest) have requested  the topic not be discussed.  Yet I do not want to give the  appearance of ignoring your question.
 
 I am relatively new to  traditionalism (as compared to many). At this point I am not sure that  I can agree with the sedevacantist view. It seems to me to be not far  removed from Orthodoxy and Protestantism in that I have read views from  several different sedevacantist adherents and they each stated a  different time at which the validly elected line of popes ceased. There  is inconsitancy in the position that I am not personally comfortable  with (though I can see why others would embrace that position).
 
  While I do not necessarily fear that the Sacraments are invalid I am  not certain that I feel comfortable appearing to support the  sedevacantist position.
 
 That could change. I mean 3 years ago  when I became a member of the Catholic Church I could not have  envisioned supporting the traditionalist Catholic view. Things, people  and opinions change as one grows and acquires information.
 
  But for now we (both my husband and I) are not comfortable adopting,  supporting or appearing to support a view point which we are at odds  with.