Is it possible Bp. Williamson was wrong?  He also said he could not in an absolute manner, as binding in conscience under penalty of mortal sin, forbid attendance at the novus ordo. 
I haven’t the time to look it up now, but he published a much more recent Eleison Comments saying exactly that. 

Interesting.  Fr. Cekada remarks that the Abp allowed some of his priests to hold the sede position.  Cekada says they took the Abp's sedevacantist-like comments to their logical conclusion.  Cekada doesn't go so far as to accuse the Abp of holding the sede position, though.
 
https://youtu.be/DqgcCujfQF0?si=lbA55xoWQXk3krAm

I am siding with the three bishops on this one.

I don't feel the need to side with anyone here.  Did the bishops deny that the Abp ever used sede-like language, as demonstrated by Fr. Cekada?  If not, then I don't see a conflict.  Fr. Cekada never accuses the Abp of embracing sedevacantism, but he does bring the receipts showing the Abp making sede-like accusations. 

Father Cekada was expelled by Archbishop Lefebvre. 

While Lefebvre occasionally used strong language condemning Modernist Romes errors he never denied the papacy or broke communion with the Church. 

Is because "sedevacantism" is divisive. It's adding a COMPLETELY UN-NECESSARY division to the world of Traditional Catholicism.

In other words, I'm not against individual "sedevacantists" for their opinion. Their opinion doesn't make me angry. The whole idea of "sedevacantism" as an identity DOES make me angry, however. "Traditional Catholic" should be enough. The idea that "sedevacantists" need to worship only with other "sedevacantists" at special "sedevacantist" chapels.

I just happened to be cleaning up my email subscription list on the Web after some years, and tested whether this login was valid. It is! I am posting here because I know it is not good etiquette to respond to old threads. This one interests me.

I totally reject the word "sedevacantism". It really is not an ISM at all. It is really just "Catholicism"; that ISM which includes the fact that a pope can become a heretic and automatically cease to be pope. Just because someone believes a fact has happened within Catholicism doesn't create a brand new ISM.

Let's put it this way:

Even if I were someday convinced that the See is vacant, I would nevertheless reject "sedevacantism" wholeheartedly. I would avoid Sedevacantist chapels for their sectarianism. I would reject the sedevacantist identity/movement, and adhere instead to the "plain vanilla" Traditional Movement. I would continue to treat the Pope question as a personal opinion, etc.

I would continue to consider the same things to be important:

Tridentine Mass
Catholic Faith as it was taught, believed, and practiced before Vatican II
Training of the priest, his attitude towards Vatican II and the new Conciliar religion
Validity of his ordination (including the bishop who ordained him)

Those are the only things the "sedevacantists" are doing right -- in other words, the Traditional Movement. They get no extra cred for their rejection of the recent popes. Because it has solved nothing, and done nothing positive for the Faithful or the Church.

Good thread.

For the sake of exposure of the topic to new viewers of CI, how about a thread about the biggest reason(s) you are not an Indulter?