Many more issues could still be raised. For example, what will happen now to the marriage “annulments” and marriage tribunals unlawfully erected by the SSPX? Will Rome recognize them? Will the SSPX recognize Rome's? What will happen to the properties hitherto owned by the SSPX? Will the modernists try to gain control over them? No answer shall be attempted here, but it is an interesting question to ponder.
The sedevacantists arrange their own "remarriages" based on their own analysis. The properties under sede control are not safe, they can be taken from the people who paid for them at any time, and they have done this in the past and will do it again.
Comments are not allowed here. So you did not make the above comment and I am not making the below response:
The above quote is about the SSPX and their constant flirtation and wanting to be officially in union with the apostates in Rome, which by definition is not what the sedevacantists want to do. The above has to do with what the SSPX are infamous for on a regular basis and how that would work with the apostates Felley tries to officially unite with.
Your comment is a general comment which anyone can make about anything. Can you be specific as to what you are talking about or give an example? Perhaps open a thread somewhere other than the library if this is important to you.
If a sedevacantist cleric were to issue a marriage annulment, that would be wrong (and in no wise justify the SSPX, by the way).
I'm sure you are familiar with the SSG. Some go to a hotel property because they no longer go to the SSG whose property is NOT owned by the faithful but by the Priests. But these Priests are not going to give it to the apostates in Rome, unless they stop being sedevacantists.
What does does this have to do with the SSPX, which the post is about, anyway?
Perhaps you could start a thread on inconsistencies about sedevacantists. You could start with the SSPV and their Thuc-line stance. We all know what you think about Cekeda and Dolan. And then someone can post and say well SSPX takes strange stances as well.
But your post would be about the inconsistencies of the sedevacantists. And the thread should be about the veracity of your claim rather than "well other people do it as well". Do you see my point?
Well LoT, the same sedes constantly claim the SSPX is inconsistent. I'm just showing that most trads hold similar positions on practical points because they struggle with the same issues. I just don't like trying to differentiate oneself from others when there's no real basis for the claim.