You do not get to subjectively define yourself as a Catholic any more than Ketchupboy gets to define himself as pro-American.
1. JP II excommunicated each and every one of the SSPX bishops. I accept papal judgments. You apparently do not. You are not alone in this. However, it marks you as not Catholic.
2. You attend "Society" Masses. So what? I have never claimed that you are not allowed even by the Vatican to do so. As has been hashed out here endlessly, SSPX Masses are valid and may serve to fulfill Sunday Mass obligations. The Vatican says so. You may even give money to SSPX solely to defray the expense of such Masses. That is your strawman, not mine.
3. I never said YOU were excommunicated. If you adhere to SSPX, you may well be excommunicated, according to the Vatican. I follow the Vatican. If you are an SSPX bishop, it is quite clear that you are excommunicated. The pope says so and he, not you and not Fellay or any other excommunicated bishop, makes those decisions. JP II has the keys. The schismatics and excommunicati do not and will not.
4. I lose no sleep over the disposition of the souls of Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli and I lose no sleep over the disposition of Marcel, patron whatever of the maliciously and malignantly perturbed and disturbed.
5. I cannot imagine that it is grave matter, much less mortally sinful, to agree with the pope's judgment as to the status of SSPX and its excommunicated heroes and leaders. This is well-considered judgment and not rash at all. SSPX is just another YOPIOS, YOPIOT, YOPIOF smog factory against the Faith and against John Paul II and against the papacy itself.
6. If you want to call yourself Catholic, you need to submit humbly to papal authority and reject the schism.
7. If you are in danger of ADHERING to SSPX, then the SSPX Mass is, for you, a near occasion of sin that, when you receive the sacrament of penance, you promise God you will avoid.
Proof:
A. Do you accept the fact that John Paul II is pope since the moment he was installed in 1978?
B. Did John Paul II excommunicate Marcel Lefebvre and his illicitly consecrated Econe 4 for his and their schismatic act of refusing obedience to the Holy Father whom Marcel and they swore solemnly before God, as a condition of his ordination, to obey?
C. Did John Paul II declare SSPX a schism?
D. Do you think that self-serving schismatic rationalizations are an adequate substitute for papal authority?
Game, set, match, regardless of answers. You are either Catholic or you are not and, IF you are schismatic, you are not. You may not adhere to the schism but I would be hard-pressed to prove your non-adherence. If your tastes have been offended, too bad. Grow up!
Ping post No. 176.
Pretty straightforward and outlined. Perhaps it is the fact that the confessions heard by SSPX priests are invalid keeps the lay people in their confessed sins.
This seems to me to be the most dangerous of slippery slopes to rely upon. Of course, they will claim "universal jurisdiction in a time of crisis," but I am quite certain that there are posted confession times in the Diocese of Charlotte by Catholic priests.
So only if they are in ignorance (not vincible ignorance) that these confessions are invalid, would they actually be valid.
Hmm... Perhaps lots of invalid confessions piled on top of each other over the years could explain some things...