Hello, friends.  As I mentioned before, I am very early in my understanding of this important topic.

Please let me know if the Traditionalists positions I list below are correct or whether I missed any major position.

Being honest and open with you, it is very concerning to see so many positions.  I'm having a hard time not seeing this as something similar to the Protestant "Reformation".  The only common ground I see appears to be the rejection of anything taught by Vatican II and after if it is not exactly as was taught before Vatican II.

* SSPX
    * Created in 1970s with the goal of preserving pre-Vatican II Roman Rite
    * Not sedevacantist, which allows discussions with Vatican
    * Various countries worldwide
* SSPV
    * Separated from SSPX in 1980s due to disagreements with SSPX rules, like using 1962 Missal
    * Sedevacantist, so no discussions with Vatican
    * 14 US states and 1 Canadian province
* IMBC
    * Separated from SSPX in 1980s due to disagreements with SSPX’s “moderate” stance
    * Various European countries
* Catholic Restoration
    * Separated from SSPV
* SSPX Resistance
    * Group within SSPX that believes modern SSPX is drifting from founding principles
* Sedevacantists
    * Believe any pope that deviates from traditional Catholic teachings, like supporting Vatican II reforms, loses their authority and is no longer pope
    * Believe every elected pope after Pius 12th, starting with John 23rd, has deviated from traditional Catholic teaching by supporting Vatican II reforms, thus, there has been no valid pope since then
* Indult Sedevacantists
    * Named “indult” because group references Indult (i.e. permission) of 1962 granted by John 23rd that allowed use of traditional Mass.
    * The indult was granted prior to Vatican 2
* Recognize and Resist
    * Reconizes the legitimacy of the papacy, but rejects any modernist changes or teachings
    * Not a formal group, but a general position
* Sedeprivationists
    * Similar to Sedevacantists in the belief the Pope has lost his Papal authority, but remains the Pope

SSPX Resistance isnt within the society, it refers to the priests that left/kicked out around 2012/2013 and is generally seen as having bishop Williamson as it's de facto head


I'm confused what you meant by indult sedes, the "indult" are Novus Ordo priests post V2 that are allowed to say the Latin Mass and the groups such as the FSSP and ICKSP are thrown in that category as well. Basically Novus Ordo or Novus Ordo ordained priests that are allowed to celebrate the TLM. They aren't sedevacantist because they recognize Francis as the Pope and are in full communion with Rome.


You can also add the CMRI in that list, they are pretty large, they are Sedevacantist and get orders via Bishop Moises Carmona

SSPX Resistance isnt within the society, it refers to the priests that left/kicked out around 2012/2013 and is generally seen as having bishop Williamson as it's de facto head


I'm confused what you meant by indult sedes, the "indult" are Novus Ordo priests post V2 that are allowed to say the Latin Mass and the groups such as the FSSP and ICKSP are thrown in that category as well. Basically Novus Ordo or Novus Ordo ordained priests that are allowed to celebrate the TLM. They aren't sedevacantist because they recognize Francis as the Pope and are in full communion with Rome.


You can also add the CMRI in that list, they are pretty large, they are Sedevacantist and get orders via Bishop Moises Carmona

Romulus, thank you for correcting my understanding of the Indult position.

Quick clarification, it essentially means all Sedeprivationist Bishops like Bp Sanborn believe Francis is the Pope of Rome and the legitimate Pope (Valid) since Pius XII but he is not Materially the pope so can't do his Papal Functions (Unless he reverses V2 and it's byproduct e.g Holy Orders of the Old Rite restored etc)

  or do I need to re-read the Cassiacuм thesis?

No, the Pope is materially a Pope but not Formally. 

So due to the "formality" nature of Francis that means he is not the pope due to him not attaining the  fullness of the papacy?

So he has the potentiality to be the Pope

Yes, that is correct. For a more detailed look and critique, see here : 'The Cassiciacuм Thesis' – an explanation for the current crisis in the Church? (wmreview.org) 

Sedeprivationist was the a result of the split between + Bp. Dolan and Bp. Sanborn sadly.

No, the split came quite a while after.