Here's one possible motive: $$$

How would there be monetary profit in that?  I’d think the opposite!  Are Sedevacantists very wealthy compared with other traditional Catholics?  And generous? 

If una cuм masses are mortally sinful and you just so happen to be the only non-una cuм chapel within a reasonable driving distance, then you have a monopoly on the faithful's checkbooks

No, you can't just pick or choose which of his commands to obey because he's a material-only pope.

What you can do is consider him a papa dubius where, as a result, for all intents and purposes he lacks authority (per all the theologians), but then "hedge your bets" a bit by obeying him where you can ... just in case you're wrong (Bishop Sanborn's condemnation of Opninionism, as he called it, was 100% erroneous).

You need to at least have a papa dubius position in order to legitimately refuse submission and communion to the extent that Trads do.  Without at least a well founded doubt, the R&R position is schismatic and implicitly heretical.

R&R needs to become D&R = "Doubt & Resist".  Doubt suffices for Resistance.  Recognition does not ... that makes you a schismatic.

Newsflash:  Contrary to popular belief and R&R mythology, neither Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson, nor Bishop Tissier were sedeplenists.  +Galaretta I know nothing about since I don't think I've seen 3 words either spoken or written by that man, who appears to be on perpetual siesta somewhere.

Here's why ...

Theologians generally hold the legitimacy of a Pope to be a DOGMATIC FACT.  That means it must be certain with the certainty of faith, i.e that you must be as certain that, say, Bergoglio is Pope as that God is Three Persons in One God.  If you aren't, then you're a sede-doubtist (a term I coined years ago here tongue-in-cheek), i.e. you hold that he's a papa dubius, which means that, for all intents and purposes, a papa nullus, and therefore he may be resisted.

Now, as you should know, it is heretical not only to deny but even to doubt a dogma, and a dogmatic fact is in this same category.

Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Williamson, and Bishop Tissier have all in fact said on multiple occasions, and in fact quite consistently, that it's POSSIBLE that these men have not been popes.  That means they are NOT sedeplenists, but sede-doubtists.  Sorry to bust the bubble of the R&R who hide behind their false caricature of +Lefebvre.

In the early days, the explanation proferred by SSPX higher ups was that melior est conditio possidentis, which basically means that you have to give the office-holder the benefit of the doubt.  So that tacitly admits doubt.  Unfortunately, the maxim is misapplied, since the benefit goes AGAINST a doubtful pope, papa dubius papa nullus.  There is no "possession is nine tenths of the law" where it comes to papal legitimacy.  Why?  That's because if you can only be 95% certain that a certain man is the Pope, then if he defines a dogma, you can only be 95% certain that the dogma is true and guaranteed true.  95% certainty precludes certainty of faith, and therefore your acceptance of it as dogma.  But to a great extent, the SSPX have long admitted certain degrees of doubt about who these men were, following their founder.

It's only in later legacy, unfortunately because +Lefebvre didn't sufficiently clarify the necessary distinctions or do it with sufficient emphasis, you have a generation later a bunch of dogmatic R&R types, who are in fact mired in a heretical and schismatic ecclesiology.

R&R should be dumped in favor of the DOUBT & RESIST (D&R), which is actually a better description of +Lefebvre's position, and you obey what you can but only with the mindset of "since it does no harm, just in case I'm wrong ... why not."

If una cuм masses are mortally sinful and you just so happen to be the only non-una cuм chapel within a reasonable driving distance, then you have a monopoly on the faithful's checkbooks

do you know of this site below? I personally know the guy who wrote this one particular article below. Just curious.



The 'una cuм Mass': A crucial question for our time

May be true in certain locales, but there are also many Traditionals out of reasonable driving distance of any traditional Mass whatsoever. As n.o. dioceses are first eliminating Latin Masses and combining dioceses into one, the same with parishes and those remaining not having Masses every Sunday due to lack of priests, Catholics of all sorts increasingly find themselves in the same predicament.
Your statement, also, is predicated upon most traditional Catholics having an una cuм traditional Mass, also, upon being able to drive what you call reasonable distances and upon having a car or the ability to move. Some have cars, but the expense of travel is too much. Others cannot physically undertake hours in a vehicle. Chances are, if you can’t afford to travel, affording to move is unlikely.

These and similar factors are why my personal policy on finer points of belief that cannot be settled without a valid, Catholic, and good Pope, is “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell.” If someone with authority, ie, the priest, questions me directly about my stance and cannot accept it, therefore does not accept me as being Catholic, I leave. If Susan or Chad from the committee or Mrs. Dee Mentia interrogates me, that means nothing. It’s different if there’s a priest who insists I confess to something as a mortal sin, when it is/was not, any sin at all, then I leave. I’m not interested in cults be they of false doctrine or personality. I do not hear Mass where I am obviously not wanted, why upset their apple cart?