CathInfo.com

So here is a syllogism --

( a ) Both SSPX and sedes can't be right
( b ) Only one of them is right
( c ) The one who is right should try to correct the one who is wrong

Your syllogism fails in one MAJOR way:

No one can PROVE whether they're right or wrong- this will only come in the future.

Isn't wanting  (needing?) to be right an emotional position? Its impossible to determine this, because we have no official way of knowing. So to pretend that you're able to convince others of your view, or vice versa, is impossible and becomes counterproductive. There's always going to be emotion involved in such important matters, right? This doesn't mean that if you try to be emotionless about the subject, you all of a sudden have clarity that no one else can obtain. And I hope both sede's and non sede's remove emotion when deciding such opinions.

However, what seems to be continually disregarded is the fact that there are two opinions, held by so many people for a reason. To act as if it is by pure emotion non sede's are simply holding to their position (that believe the pope is the pope, or will not make a determination on the pope, and will  recognize him as such, in all things Catholic, until the Church teaches otherwise) is wrong. Granted, some non-sede's may emotional about this decision. But sede's themselves can be equally emotional about their position on the crisis.

The first thing we have to all acknowledge is something that Father Gabriel at CMRI said one day in a sermon:  The SSPX and sedes can't both be right.  

Can we acknowledge this?  If we can't, we'll get nowhere.  One side is right and another is wrong.

And where do you purpose figuring this out will 'get' us? You've said before that if non-sede's become sede that 'then' we can elect a valid pope- do you still hold to this fact?

Here's the thing: you, and I, and everyone may believe they're right, but we can never know for sure. This is how the Church operates. There is an official structure to the Church, and if you simply believe you can make your beliefs official for others, what they Church has yet to determine officially, you're wrong. I'm not saying you do this, but I'm asking your actions acknowledge it, because right now they don't. This is why not even you will acknowledge that dogmatic sedevecantists is an acceptable position. Its heresy. And the same is true for the opposite view (dogmatic sedeplentism: that sede's are in some way holding a heretical position).

Here's a novel idea- what if the bishops (traditional) of the world actually recognized this fact and actually worked together to get to the point, in helping the restoration of the Church, so that one day, official pronouncement on the office currently being held by these popes since VCII can be made? Again- its a far shot, and its not going to happen because the Restoration will come from Our Lady, when our Lord wills it. But I think my point is made.

The error comes in when people play the Rodney King card of "Can't we all just get along?" which, I'm sorry to say, is just human respect.  It is not being hostile to someone to try to cure him of an error; we are bound to do so in charity.

I assume you're referring to me when I imply that arguing (needlessly) over sede vs non-sede is a waste of time. If not, then okay, but I will respond as such, because I still hold as much.

Re: 'cure someone of error'... you can not cure someone of error, where the Church has not declared a position erroneous. All we have to go off of, for now, is opinions. The sedevecantist position is an opinion. Is it a strong one? Yes, for some. For others it is weak. Again, the Church will not weigh in on this, until the Restoration. There's no magic card anyone is holding Raoul. If there was, there would be no debate. But this crisis is something that the Lord has given to us to be put through. This is part of the chastisement. To bicker about something that doesn't damn someone soul either way, is useless.

Does it give someone a different perspective on the crisis? Yes. Does either position make one more or less Catholic- no way. Do some use the pre'55 missle, and others the 62? Yep. Do some view the pope's actions as embarrassing, and others as pointless since he's not even the pope? Yep.

Does it save my soul? No. Being a good Catholic does. Focusing on the interior life, as you seem to be doing so well (and even inspiring me to do my consecration via the way of St. Louis de Montfort!) is what saves one's soul.

So Fr. Gabriel said, "we'll get nowhere"- well where has your agreeing with his statement gotten anyone? I didn't listen to Fr. Gabriel's sermon, and I'm sure he's a good priest like the the other CMRI priests I've met, though I don't know them personally (I've been to both the Newhall and Fontana chapels- I've been to Fr. Roddecki and there was a visiting CMRI priest- I forgot his name, but gave an excellent sermon). I can't say for certain what his sermon was about, but on this point, I would respectfully disagree.

Have your opinion on the matter, save your soul, and help your brother do the same. Arguing about an unknowable, even though only one of you can be 'right', is fruitless.