Well, I'm glad somebody finally clarified that. I've been wondering what the heck these terms (as they are used on Cathinfo) meant for a long, long time.
However, now that the definitions have been mooted, I must say I don't think "dogmatic" is the right adjective to use here. It doesn't fit the definition that has been supplied for it. Furthermore, it needlessly confuses the vernacular and the technical usages of the term DOGMA and its cognates.
If we were using DOGMA in its vernacular sense, viz. stating an opinion as though it were a fact, then a "dogmatic sedevacantist" would simply be anybody who assumes sedevacantism is the given and actually existing state of affairs: one whose thinking and acting follows from that proposition. Obviously sedevacantists believe that their view is something more than a mere opinion; they could not have a clear conscience about it if they didn't. They believe it to be a fact and they form their intentions accordingly. If other people then accuse them of being "dogmatic" about their beliefs, it is because those others wish to have the whole question reduced to matter of opinion, to render it less certain and make room for the opposite point of view.
On the other hand, since Cathinfo is eminently a Catholic forum, a certain religious context has already been imposed a priori on all our discussions. The term DOGMA and its cognates have a precise technical meaning in religious contexts and it must be assumed that that is the meaning intended whenever they are used here. On that reading, a "dogmatic sedevacantist" would be somebody who believes it is an unquestionable teaching of Holy Mother Church that the Chair of St. Peter is empty; not just in the present crisis, but always and forever. A dogmatic sedevacantist binds sedevacantism on the entire Church for all time, since dogmas cannot change.
In all my life I have never met, seen, read about, or heard of anybody fitting that description. Hence I was rather confused about the threat posed by these so-called dogmatic sedevacantists. I wouldn't think such a bizarre point of view even existed! What is really meant by "dogmatic SVism" around here is somebody who A) Believes non-SVs are going to hell and B) Militantly pushes that belief on the forum pages. The correct terminology to apply in these cases, at least as it pertains to the first condition, would be exclusivist sedevacantist, or something like that.
I don't know any exclusivist SVs either. All the sedevacantists with whom I'm familiar do not believe that all non-SVs are going to hell, but that is because they know that God is merciful to those who err in good faith, not because they believe there is any room for doubt about the question. Apropos of that very subject, I am going to repeat and paraphrase something I wrote in an earlier thread.
Either Francis is the Pope or he isn't. There is no such thing as a Schrodinger's Pope who may or may not be the Vicar of Crist on Earth, depending on one's opinion. The disjunction has to be settled one way or the other. The question "Is Francis the Pope or not?" seeks to ascertain the truth or falsity of a statement about empirical reality. That makes it an epistemological problem, not a doctrinal problem. The pertinent question then becomes, "How do we know whether somebody is or isn't the Pope?"
We could go through a great deal of sophisticated back-and-forth regarding that question, but I think the crux of the matter is this: God sees the truth about all things. Of anything whatsoever that exists, the way it appears in the eyes of God is the way it "really is." God does not consider somebody who teaches heresy to be a true shepherd. Francis teaches heresy, therefore he is not a true shepherd in the sight of God. Therefore he is not the Pope, no matter how firmly settled his office would otherwise appear to be.
Based on the preceding argument, I affirm with certainty that Francis is not the Pope. He holds the office, but he is a PINO, a Pope In Name Only.* However, this affirmation has nothing to do with dogmatic truths of any kind. It is the outcome of a process of natural reasoning about empirical facts. And although it does contain a premise which refers to "the sight of God," this is a matter of natural theology not dogmatics. We need Revelation to tell us that God is a Trinity; we do not need Revelation to tell us that He plays no part in the operation of error. It should not be controversial that heretics do not represent God on earth. Sedevacantism, even when qualified as the "dogmatic" sort, is nothing but the dawning recognition that the Conciliar Popes are not God's representatives, which is something all Trads agree on.
*I guess Pino Bergoglio ain't just one of those newfangled Argentinian clarets. :roll-laugh1: