CathInfo.com

Sedevacantism without "conclavism" is completely useless and superfluous.

It's like after a complete collapse scenario (no grid electricity, Internet, public utilities anywhere), a complete Mad Max scenario, having some survivors "pro Internet" and others being "anti Internet". Now if a group of survivors was trying to actively rebuild electronics and computers from the ground up, and actively working to rebuild the Internet, that would be something. But that would be the equivalent of "conclavist sedevacantism".

At least the conclavists are consistent, and giving some MEANING to their sedevacantism. They are trying to "do something about it". To bring the theory into the practical realm, so it has SOME relevance or reason to actually hold the position.

My position is that sedevacantism, unless you add conclavism, is no better and usually worse than "plain vanilla" Traditional Catholicism. It adds nothing, and solves nothing. All it adds is another point of division, another reason for parishioners to stay home on Sunday when there's not a "sede" group chapel within driving distance.

Yes, many sedes are more practical than that (they aren't "dogmatic" about it; they are willing to attend SSPX for example) but why start a movement like "sedevacantism" when a certain percent are going to be dogmatic about it (unnecessarily divisive and condemnatory) and/or end up Home Aloners?

Zero upsides, nothing but downsides!

Would you take a medicine that has no chance of helping you with anything, but has a 30% chance of killing you? Neither would I.

".....depending on how one judges the manner in which he was elected."

Bishop Williamson is hinting, whether knowingly or not, at the root of the problem here, and that is that Jorge Bergoglio was "elected" by the cardinals while there was a pope, Joseph Ratzinger, still occupying the Throne of Peter.  However, if it can be demonstrated with sufficient evidence that Jorge Bergoglio was a public manifest formal heretic BEFORE his "election", then that would be the a priori cause (reference cuм Ex Apostolatus Officio) of his not being pope.

If it is true that Ratzinger was pope and allowed a usurper (Francis) to claim the papal throne, then, in a certain sense Ratzinger is worse than Francis.  It is sort of like the father of a family who steps aside so the pimp can move in and "trick out" the wife and daughters.  Prove me wrong.