I think there are some people who doubt +Lefebvre's Orders because of the +Lienart connection, and people have called +Thuc's Orders into doubt for various different reasons.  And then if you can't go in good consciences to NOM and/or Eastern Rite ... that would be one reason some are Home Aloners.

Now, you do have some, like the Dimonds, who basically think everyone's a heretic, but even they for a time were going to receive the Sacraments at an Eastern Rite church, making the distinction that you can go if the clergy are not "IMPOSING" heretics.

If one has arrived at the conclusion that all groups are fatally flawed, and the only "pure" alternative is to give up the public practice of religion, ought it not indicate that such a person has erred somewhere along the way (lest indefectability be a lie, and therefore our religion false)? 

And again, are not all these conclusions the result of private interpretations and judgments made by people completely unequipped to evaluate such matters?

You're imposing on them this opinion that they're fatally flawed and not "pure".  I gave some examples of where they could consider these groups Catholic but either invalid or illicit.  Perhaps they're of the opinion that we're not allowed to receive the Sacraments from those who lack the jurisdiction to offer them ... even in a Crisis, that it's a punishment from God.  There are some prophecies that the Holy Sacrifice would cease for some time.

As for "private interpretations and judgments," we're ALL making private interpretations and judgments ... unless we believe that the Conciliar Church is the the Catholic Church and submit to its authority.  Rest of us are on our own and making private judgments about everything.

Besides, I don't know of THAT many Home Aloners who don't go anywhere because they think ALL the groups are flawed ... apart from a few edge cases.  Most who are categorized as Home Aloners stay home because none of the groups within range of them are acceptable, for one reason or another.  For all these "Home Aloners" out there, I don't know of any "pure" Home Aloners, those who think they're the only Catholics left on earth.

And there's this notion that only SVs think this way, that it's a dogmatic SV problem.  But there are quite a few R&R that would consider going to an SV chapel the same as going to an Orthodox church.  Then let's say you believe, like Salza, that one cannot go to any Mass that isn't sanctioned by someone with jurisdiction ... and yet you have problems going to the NOM ... for obvious reasons.  Now you're more an R&R "Home Aloner".

Besides, I don't know of THAT many Home Aloners who don't go anywhere because they think ALL the groups are flawed ... apart from a few edge cases.  Most who are categorized as Home Aloners stay home because none of the groups within range of them are acceptable, for one reason or another.  For all these "Home Aloners" out there, I don't know of any "pure" Home Aloners, those who think they're the only Catholics left on earth.

Me either. WHICH IS WHY I'm willing to write this small minority off as stupid and/or malicious. Basically they're fringe kooks. It's not a huge stretch that such a small minority could be stupid and/or malicious. It's when you're talking about hundreds or thousands of people (like, say, "All SSPX supporters" or "All Sedevacantists") that such a summary judgment becomes QUITE problematic...

You know how some people will do ANYTHING "for the Sacraments" including compromise, take the jab, etc.? They sin by EXCESS. These Home Aloners sin by DEFECT -- they don't value the sacraments *enough*. They think it's no big deal to deprive themselves, and their children, and grandchildren, of the sacraments for 50 years. That's even more grave than the weak-kneed compromiser ("anything so I can go to Mass; I don't want to get kicked out"), since the Sacraments do bring grace. From a spiritual health standpoint, my opinion is that seeking sacraments "to excess" would be better than "not enough".

But if you boycott BOTH OF THESE? You literally think the Church is a dozen or two laymen, and this for a couple decades without the world ending?

Yeah, I'm thinking Schism AND Heresy.

You've just described Richard Ibranyi (aka RJMI).

Actually, as far back as he goes in condemning Aquinas (!) and others, he actually verges on backing his way into a kind of Western Orthodoxy.  I'm not sure how far back he goes before he finds a Pope that was to his liking.  Maybe even before AD 1054.

So one prominent case (really the only one I know of) is Gerry Matatics.  Over time he became a sedevacantist and eventually a dogmatic sedevacantist, so that he decided that he could not in good conscience assist at any una cuм Masses.  Then he was evidently won over by the line that Salza is pushing now that all Traditional groups are illicit, suspended, and do not validly confect the Sacraments that generally require jurisdiction.  So it's a combination of Salza-ism with dogmatic anti-una-cuм-ism that pretty much puts him in that situation.  We should pray for Gerry because he's in a tough spot right now.  So, Salza is not "Home Alone" because he has no issues cozying up with the Conciliar Church, but if he did, he'd have to become a Home Aloner as well.  Salza does a lot of damage with his absurd legalism and canonicalism.  We warned about Salza's misguided views, where he reduces everything to legalities (almost as the Pharisees did), but the SSPX endorsed and practically produced and sponsored his book anyway, and now Salza has turned on them and on all Traditional Catholics ... because his views are tragically flawed, as we said they were.

So it was just about a year ago that Salza published his latest absurd attack on sedevacantists about lacking jurisdiction and mission, and while the article was explicitly directed as sedevacantists, the principles therein actually condemn all Traditional Catholics that don't adhere to one of the "official" "Trad" groups like FSSP, ICKP, or Motarian.  I wonder what'll happen if Salza's bishop thee decided to outlaw the Motu.  Eventually this will end up with Salza being a lay eucharistic minister, lector, and perhaps even liturgical dancer / clown.

The position taken at this site is definitely and adamamtly against sede vacantism.  At the same time they promote a home alone position unless access to an "uncompromising" priest is available.  Just what criteria they put forth in terms of what constitutes an "uncompromising" priest in  their view is elaborated at their site.  See, for example: https://catholiccandle.org/category/resources-for-faith-and-practice/the-conciliar-mass-and-sacraments/on-refusal-to-take-part-in-false-worship/

I personally do not adhere to such a strict position as the one taken at the site, but I do appreciate being on their mailing list since much of the material put out on the site is quite solid.

Agreed 100%

Lol 5 down votes. You all need to actually utilize Catholic distinctions about schismatics and heretics and not be afraid to USE them. Yes, there's a Crisis, but that still doesn't excuse the plain facts of heresy and schism. You're no better than the Novus Ordo if you don't use them when appropriate.

Me.

St. Paul wasn't afraid to reprimand early Catholics for schism. He even called it out in 1 Corinthians:
"Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ. [13] Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" [1 Cor. 1:12-13]

Are you Catholics in the name of Sanborn? Or Dimond? Or Williamson? Or Lefebvre? Or yourself? No. To have such an attitude is to be schismatic. It doesn't excuse the above-mentioned groups, and it doesn't excuse home aloners either.