Hello!
Over the past year I have accepted Michael as pope as he seems to be the first valid conclave that happened, and the sede vacantists seem divided and actually opposed to holding an election rather than simply that they didn't have one yet.
I read another thread on here before about some other guy who came under PM and the arguments did not seem substantial ("he's just crazy!", etc.). I can answer various objections and provide some perspective on things as I've contacted or read about every "traditionalist" group I can think of.
I know this board's official position is that of "the Resistance". I emailed the stmarcelinitiative.com admin but he didn't respond. I think the SSPX and "The Resistance" are correct in identifying the need for a pope and opposing sedevacantism, in a sense, but why not hold an election or support a conclave? There were talks within the SSPX about holding an election, and Bp. Thuc consecrated bishops specifically for the purpose of holding an election (but neither materialized!).
I think conclavism will grow, so even if you're anti-conclavist, you should probably think about it.
When I started with the sedes, I merely thought they didn't have time to hold an election yet.
The plot thickened, because I believe many sedevacantists are acutally sedeprivationists (they believe that Francis and the V2 "popes" are "material, but not formal popes"). If Francis were to renounce Vatican 2 heresies tomorrow, sedeprivationists would submit to Francis as pope. I believe this is contrary to cuм ex Apostolatus Officio, argument of both sedev's and conclavists, that "such elections [of heretics] shall be null and void", not that they will produce "material popes".
Conclavists believe that 1) the cardinals around Vatican 2 should have formed to fill the sedevacantist vacancy by holding an election around that time (besides the ones that "elected" Roncalli and Montini). Now google what would happen if all the cardinals died - we find that 2) a general imperfect council of bishops, as noted above with Thuch/SSPX, is the next line of defense. This too failed. Google extraordinary papal election. Cardinal Billot states that 3) the Church Universal (clergy and laymen) should hold an election when the electors are unknown or doubtful. Hence, this is what pope Michael's election was, as he contacted all eligible sede vacantist chapels at that time and made a reasonable effort to invite Catholics to the conclave.
Many commentators I've seen online ask the same question I've asked, "if sedes believe they're the Church, why don't they just hold an election?" Thus, I believe the sedes simply made unjustified excuses for why they shouldn't or couldn't hold an election, as noted above, and they adhere to other false theories like sedeprivationism that prevents the election of a pope. I have been working to understand everything in the "Traditionalist Movement" and want to put this to an end, and I think that conclavism is the solution. There are also other side-problems which need to be cleaned up, like the heresy of feeneyism, etc. Other conclaves have happened which should also be "cleaned up".
Basically with Vatican 2, I believe it was a crisis of 1) the specific heresies introduced in the docuмents and 2) the prevention of the election of a pope. Most trads seem to have some understanding of #1, but not how it relates to #2 and necessitates a papal election, in my understanding.
The longest pre-V2 vacancy was 2.5 years, putting the vacancy up to PM's election at 32 years and the vacancy at 56+ years for the sedes.
The SSPX seems to be in an unCatholic position of "partial communion", which is a Vatican 2 novelty and in my opinion just where the Vatican 2 leaders want them, to create more confusion.
I would appreciate any feedback, comments, and questions, but ask that you be charitable. I'm working in good faith to clean up this mess.
Also: I found it most interesting to see the post "Ecclesia-vacantism is manifestly heretical, Direct denial of the Apostolicity" which I will respond to. This is related to why I think an election needed to happen. There is a heretical form of sede vacantism which says that "Peter shall have no more perpetual successors" which directly contradicts Vatican Council. The only consistent sede belief is that there is currently an interregnum and the world could end during an interregnum.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Ecclesia-vacantism-is-manifestly-hereticalInfo:
Pope Michael site: vaticaninexile.com
See his Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/user/PopeMichaelI/videosP.S. Please see Lucio Mascarenhas' apologetics for PM vs. other "trad" groups and issues, including other conclaves like the "Pius XIII" one which happened in 1998. Again, even if you're not conclavist, he opposes other positions like sedeprivationism which are worth reading.
http://www.geocities.ws/prakashjm45/michaelinum.html)
News: Someone I don't know has launched a PM fundraising GoFundMe for a project I did know about, a new HQ:
http://www.gofundme.com/m4lwjk