So you really don't want all trads to be sedevacantists? Or at least your brand of sedeism - sedeprivationism? That surprises me.
Just stop with the "sedeism". You're a "sedeist", a sedeplenist.
As for wanting all Trads to be sedevacatists. Nonsense. I have no problem with Father Chazal's position, nor with that of Archbishop Lefebvre. I only want that people stop undermining the Holiness and indefectibility of the Church. If you want to believe that Montini was replaced by a double, more power to you. I've explained multiple times that I'm not a dogmatic sedevacantist, just a dogmatic indefectibilist. Archbishop Lefebvre upheld the principle that this degree of corruption through the Papacy is not possible, since the Papacy is guided by the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, later generations of R&R jettisoned this principle. +Lefebvre simply felt that the SOLUTION to this dilemma was not completely certain. In listing some possible explanations, he did examine and reject some of the theories (drugged Paul VI, etc.). He did not go into blackmailed Paul VI, which is also theoretically possible, given the credible reports out there that he was a sodomite. Archbishop Lefebvre said that SVism was possible, but he did not have the degree of certainty about that particular solution to the problem (given other theoretical possibilities), and so never came out as SV, but at no point did he jettison the notion that a corruption of the Church through legitimate papal authority was not possible.
I actually do NOT hold the opinion that the Holy See was vacant from 1958-1989, but that Pope Gregory XVII (Cardinal Siri, not Clemente Dominguez) was the rightful pope during that time, and that since then the status of the Holy See is unknown.
Whatever the solution, it simply cannot be the Old Catholic variation of R&R that's held by more and more people.
Topic: Why the Neo-SSPX position on the Crisis is untenable (Read 30517 times)