There are "dogmatc sedes" which is just another term for anyone who is a devout and consistent Catholic who believes in papal claims (I am one of them). There are "dogmatic non una-cuмers" but, thankfully, very few. These are the Stephen Heiner wannabes (minus the ugly gook face) that everyone else pretty much ignores.

Are there any Dogmatic Sedevacantists on CathInfo? Or any Dogmatic non una-cuмers?

For the record, I am only asking this out of curiosity. I do not hold either of these positions.

There are plenty of  dogmatic R and R, who get very angry when you suggest that the Pope may not be one and really OK with other parishioners attending indult masses. 

They are the most closed minded trad catholics I have ever come across. 

I'm on the fence on the una-cuм issue.

Priests and laypeople forget or deny that it is only their opinion that the Chair is vacant. Fr. Wathen states it as the Church has always taught it.... "We say that their private judgement in the matter must not be introduced into the Liturgy which is an official act of the Church. Their private judgement has no place in the sacred liturgy."

There are "dogmatc sedes" which is just another term for anyone who is a devout and consistent Catholic who believes in papal claims (I am one of them).

See, this is precisely the mistake that the dogmatic sedes make, where SV is dogmatically true because of the nature of the papacy (which is dogmatic).

But the dogmatic SVs forget that there are other premises involved.

(over-simplified for clarity)
MAJOR:  Pope can't teach error.
MINOR  Montini taught error.
CONCLUSION:  Montini wasn't pope.

So, because you hold that the MAJOR is dogmatically certain, you falsely conclude that the SV conclusion is dogmatically certain.

Basic principle of logic is that peiorem partem sequitur conclusio, what I refer to as the logical "weakest link" principle, where a conclusion cannot be more certain than the weakest premise.

Are you dogmatically certain that Montini taught error?  You may be morally certain, but you can't be dogmatically certain.  Someone might argue a "hermeneutic of continuity".  While you may disagree with that, you can't have dogmatic certainty about it ... since only the Church has the authority to teach with dogmatic certainty.

That by itself prevents the SV conclusion from being dogmatically certain.

Or, what if I say that Montini was drugged, locked up in a dungeon, and replaced in public with a double?  I may be crazy ... but you cannot say with DOGMATIC certainty that this position is false and that therefore Montini wasn't Pope.

Or what if someone argues that Montini was pope, but he was being blackmailed and his acts were not free and were therefore null and void?

Again, they may be wrong, they may be crazy ... but you can't assert that with dogmatic certainty.

Now what if I distinguish the MAJOR.  So, the Pope cannot teach error in teachings that meet the notes of infallibility, but he can teach error in things that do not meet the notes.  There's no Catholic theologian who would dispute this.  It's possible for a Pope to teach error in matters that do not meet the notes of infallibility.  YOU might disagree ... but then "that's like ... your opinion, man" and it's not dogmatically certain, and you won't find a single theologian after Vatican I who believed in absolute papal infallibility.

But then you might argue:  "But the Vatican II teachings SHOULD HAVE BEEN protected by infallbility."  Maybe, but again, that's like you're opinion, man.  And it lacks dogmatic certainty.

Now, it's true that nearly all R&R do reject the SV conclusion precisely by rejecting the MAJOR above.  But not all do, and it's not logically necessary to reject it in order to avoid the SV conclusion.

Consequently, the dogmatic SVs exaggerate the theological note of their conclusion.

Priests and laypeople forget or deny that it is only their opinion that the Chair is vacant. Fr. Wathen states it as the Church has always taught it.... "We say that their private judgement in the matter must not be introduced into the Liturgy which is an official act of the Church. Their private judgement has no place in the sacred liturgy."

I laid out the logical error as to why they end up exaggerating the theological note of the SV conclusion, since it has premises that are less than dogmatically certain.

Nevertheless, on the opposite side you have those who do in fact run afoul of dogma by claiming that the free exercise of legitimate papal authority can wreck the Church so badly that it's no longer recognizable as Catholic, corrupt the Magisterium, promulgate a Rite of Public Worship that offends God and harms souls ... making it so bad that Catholics are not only permitted but even obliged in conscience to several subjection to and communion with the Vicar of Christ in ordert to please God and to save their souls.

So that is NOT anyone's opinion, and if you reject it you're a heretic, a thinly-veiled Old Catholic.

Yes, if you accept this and come up with other reasons why SV doesn't necessarily follow ... then, yeah, at that point it's your opinion.

But please don't throw Catholic dogma regarding the papacy under the bus in order to avoid the evil SV conclusion.  There are other ways to do that without lapsing into heretical theses.  I recommend Father Chazal's opinion, for instance.

Are there some on CathInfo who elevate their private opinion to the level of dogma, and treat uncondemned, unaccused Catholics as excommunicated heretics and vitandi (to be avoided)?

Perhaps I missed a couple with my ban hammer.

Why would I ban them, you ask? It's simple. They are the most disagreeable, unreasonable, and unpleasant pr***** you can imagine. They make rational discourse impossible. They are by definition unreasonable, since they *pretend* that God has intervened already and made it clear the He teaches the "truth" of sedevacantism, and therefore everyone else is clearly in error -- and every non-Sedevacantist is going against Christ and is of bad will.

That is the definition of dogmatic sedevacantist. It's a quite ludicrous position really. Does the Catholic Church really teach, as dogma, that the Papal see is vacant? Of course not! At best, it's a temporary status or an opinion. So why LITERALLY treat it like a dogma that every Catholic must accept?

As if this Crisis were routine -- nay, that it had *ever* happened before, and been resolved by the Church (councils, Papal bulls, etc.) If we had such a history, we could easily solve the problem. But no, the current Crisis is absolutely unprecedented. WHICH MEANS there is a certain requirement for TOLERANCE and LEEWAY -- and allowing difference of opinion -- when judging individual Catholics in how they respond and react to said unprecedented Crisis.

If someone won't live in peace in CathInfo (agree to disagree, live and let live), so as to have discussions with other Catholics, I have to ban them. And yes, that is the conclusion any "major" forum will have to accept. Sure, you have micro-forums with 100 people or less who are desperate for traffic and users, who try to allow fire and water to coexist in the same container. But as the moderator of a major forum for 19 years, I'm here to tell you that in practice, it doesn't work. In practice, certain individuals would actually cost you more members than "tolerating" that one insane member would gain you. In practice, you have to choose. And yeah -- those who are extreme and unreasonable should be the first to go, not the last.

A forum is about discussions. Reasonable discussions, not empty name calling. Those who can't do that certainly don't belong on such a forum.