Simple: the Church has not defined anything regarding the vacancy of the Holy See since 1958. Not. A. Thing.

Therefore, there is no sin involved in not holding a sedevacantist position, because it is all a matter of theological opinion until the Church speaks on it.

Yep.  Their error lies in believing that because they can construct a syllogism with one premise that’s dogmatic, then the conclusion must be dogmatic.  False.  I’ll elaborate on this more later when I have time.

Clue/Hint/Preview:  peiorem partem sequitur conclusio

Bishop Sanborn’s famous tract condemning what he calls “opinionism” is the seminal manifesto for the dogmatic sedevacantist position.

Let’s be fair, the same can be said of those who are dogmatic R&R.

Let’s be fair, the same can be said of those who are dogmatic R&R.

Who's really making things into a fight?  Same ole same ole here.

Oh, and I'll save you some time Sean:  "the sedevacantist cries out in pain" 

I would like a refutation of not sedevacantism itself, but the radical strain promoted by the Dimonds which leads people to refuse communion with Catholics just because they aren't sede. I was in a chat earlier and this Dimondite called me a skeptic, claimed I was blind, and that I have no faith just because I choose not to become sede as I don't want to risk being in schism. I need some arguments to show that sedevacantism isn't something that you are bound under pain of mortal sin to embrace. Does Fr. Chazal have any good arguments? I know he wrote a book against dogmatic sedevacantism. This Dimondite strain of sedevacantism seems very dangerous and schismatic.

4. The Vatican Council declares, “ Fide divinâ et Catholicâ ea omnia credenda sunt, quae in verbo Dei Scripto vel tradito continentur, et ab Ecclesia, sive solemni judicio, sive ordinario et universali magisterio, tanquam divinitus revelata proponunter":

"By divine and Catholic Faith are to be believed all those things which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down by tradition, and proposed by the Church as divinely revealed, either by her solemn judgments, or by her ordinary and universal teaching.”

It may be asked, What are the truths that we must receive as revealed by God, and as proposed by the Church, and that we have to believe by divine-Catholic faith?

5. These truths may be classed under the following beads:-

(a) All those truths that are so clearly contained in Sacred Scripture that no one can doubt or mistake their meaning, viz., the Nativity of Christ, His death and resurrection, &c.
(b) The truths that are obscurely contained in the Sacred Scriptures, but declared by the Church to be therein contained, such as the definition or declaration of the true sense of any text of Scripture.
(c) Those truths that are expressly defined by the Church to be of faith, or whose contradictories are condemned as heretical, viz., That there are Seven Sacraments of the New Law; That we cannot merit beatitude or perform salutary works without the aid of God's grace.
(d) The truths that are handed down to us by divine tradition, and which the Church has always held and declared, or manifested by her doctrine and practice, such as her doctrine regarding Guardian Angels, Infant Baptism, the Canonical Books of Scripture, &c.

All the truths contained under these heads are revealed or inspired by God, and declared or defined by the Church; and, therefore, to be believed by divine-Catholic faith. It is not necessary to have an explicit definition of the Church for every text of Scripture, and for those portions of the Sacred Scriptures whose sense can be clearly known to any one who reads them; neither is there need of an explicit definition in regard to those truths which are known to all as handed down by divine tradition. When a doubt has arisen with regard to any proposition, as to whether it is contained in Scripture or tradition, the Church, through the divine assistance, defines the truth of its revelation, or condemns it if it is opposed to revelation. This she has done whenever she has judged it necessary for the preservation of the deposit of faith committed to her by her Divine Founder. She has defined what we have to believe as divinely revealed, and condemned errors opposed to revealed doctrine whenever this was necessary for the preservation of faith and morals.

6. How are we to regard propositions that are deduced from revealed premises, and that are, therefore, necessarily connected with our faith and its preservation? For example:

(a) Propositions or Conclusions drawn from two revealed premises by evident reasoning, viz.: All the Apostles received the Holy Spirit; but St. John was Apostle, therefore St. John received the Holy Spirit.
(b) Propositions or Conclusions deduced from one premise revealed, and the other only evident to reason, viz.: A baptized child is sanctified; but this child is baptized, therefore this child is sanctified. Or again: A consecrated host is to be adored; but this host is consecrated, therefore this host is to be adored. Or again: Whatever is defined by an Ecuмenical Council is to be believed; but the Council of Trent was an Ecuмenical Council, therefore its definitions are to be believed.

Are these conclusions to be considered as coming under the object of faith? And again, what are we to hold in connection with the object of faith, with regard to singular propositions contained in revealed universal propositions, or propositions virtually contained in revealed truths?

A conclusion as such is not an object of faith, but merely the result of human reasoning. And a proposition, to be of faith, must be immediately revealed by God, and received on His authority. Propositions or conclusions such as are here given, may be said to be more certain than the conclusions arrived at by mere natural science, because they are founded on and deduced from revealed dogmas; and they have, therefore, a certain amount of divine authority, as they are so closely connected with revealed truths.

7. A rule is laid down for deciding whether a conclusion of this kind belongs to faith or not, namely: If the conclusion be formally and immediately contained in the premises, or in the premise which is of faith as a part is contained in the whole or a singular in a universal, and if the deduction be only a further explanation of the premises, and does not introduce any new idea into the definition, such a proposition or conclusion would be the object of faith, and is to be believed as such. If it be not formally, but only virtually contained in the premises as an effect in a cause, the conclusion is not to be believed by divine faith because it is not the object of faith, but a deduction of reason. It is, however, often said to belong to faith indirectly, in as much as by denying a conclusion of this kind the revealed premises from which it is deduced are indirectly denied.

Other propositions, which are not clearly and immediately revealed by God, or which are not deduced by reason from divine truths, but are taught by the Fathers and Theologians as certain and true, are said to be received on ecclesiastical faith. They are not the objects of divine faith, and they are received by something more than mere human faith, and may be said, therefore, to be believed by a certain ecclesiastical faith. This faith is sometimes called divine (though in reality it is not divine), because its act may proceed from the divine virtue which is in us, and the dispositions which it creates in the soul.

As to these few questions which I have here introduced, we have no definition of the Church, and I only state the received teaching of Theologians on such points for the purpose of meeting captious objections, after the manner of Dr. Littledale's “Plain Reasons,” that may, from time to time, be urged against the Catholic faith and doctrine. For this purpose, it is necessary to explain even critical questions from a Catholic point of view that the enemies of the Church may not be credited with inventing objections that she has long ago considered and rejected, and thereby do harm to the faithful and others.