Let's not get off track.
I don't want this thread to be pro v con on sedevacantism.
I want it to be about why, on this forum, the preference is for the CMRI.
There was another thread on the validity of the Thuc consecrations (30+ pages long) regarding their validiy, so I think it safe to say the questionability of his consecrations is fair game.
1) If you are going to be sede, why not Fr. Cekada, Sanbourn, Dolan, Pope Michael I, etc?
2) If you were to rank the various sede groups, how would you stack them in terms of most clergy?
3) How about in terms of most laity (if different)?[/quote]
1) CMRI is merely one. CMRI doesnt claim to be the sole purveyor of truth - this approach seems most reasonable to most people.
2) CMRI is growing and SSPV is growing - thanks be to GOD.
3) Praying and sacrificing for vocations is the duty of laity. How well we do is reflected in the fact of whether our numbers of vocations are growing or shrinking which translates eventually into Laity as the Faith is spread by these vocations in GOD's Grace. The fact that both CMRI and SSPV are growing exponentially in both Vocations and numbers of Laity is attributed to the Grace of GOD. It is for that reason that many have embraced Sedevacantism - in order to remain in union with the Church Triumphant and the Church Suffering. As a lay member of CMRI - I have nothing but respect for Father Cekada , Bishop Sanborn and Bishop Dolan. As for "Pope Michael" it is my opinion that those who claim the Chair of St Peter for themselves are never to be taken serious.