CathInfo.com

I agree that any version of R&R that says that the Church can promulgate poisonous rites or teachings is as much of a heresy as sedevacantism.

 

1. It's above my pay grade. I.e., not required to save my soul. We're talking about the Crisis in the Church, NOT the Catholic Faith. So yeah, "I don't know", "leave me alone", or even "I don't care" is a valid answer.

Actually, you are morally required to make judgments about what is Catholic doctrine and what is not.  Obviously, one's level of knowledge about the Church's teaching determines what judgments can be made.  But every Catholic should be able to recognize that worshiping a pagan idol (pachamama) is contrary to the doctrines of the Church.  It is a direct denial of one God in three persons (Holy Trinity).

2. The default position for a Catholic is not to declare the See vacant, but rather to assume validity. In this way, the Sede position is NOT equivalent to the R&R position, nor is it the "inverse" or a perfect mirror image of some sort. As I've said so many times, the Sede position is like taking an EXIT RAMP from the highway -- the default position is to keep going straight -- to accept that the Pope is Pope. Sedes might like to pretend it's a T-intersection, where some go to the right, others go to the left, and therefore the "move" of R&R and Sedes is of equal fundamental nature. BUT IT IS NOT. By default, we have a Pope. Taking the position the Pope is not Pope is a POSITIVE MOVE. We are not making a POSITIVE MOVE to declare the Pope is Pope, we are actually doing NOTHING. See the difference?

3. However, when the Pope is acting like the last several, one MUST disobey rather than commit sin or lose the Faith. In other words, I do the bare-minimum necessary to keep my Faith intact. That is what +Lefebvre did, and what I think is the most Catholic, safest, most prudent course of action.

So you can make a judgment that the "pope" is not worthy of your obedience but you can't make a judgment about why he is not worthy of your obedience?  It's not that hard to research the issue.  But SSPX or former SSPX people are generally programmed by the SSPX to not do any research concerning the pope question.  The only material you allow yourself to read are Angelus Press garbage like True or False Pope.  The author of that book is back in the Novus Ordo now.

5. I'm not dissing or even rejecting Fr. Chazal's position. I just don't have A) the training or B) the objective knowledge of the situation to know if it's correct or not.

But you were able to determine that the earth is flat without any formal training?  You can obtain the objective knowledge about the papacy at least as easily as you can obtain objective knowledge about the shape of the earth.

6. We shouldn't get the mindset that we need to be wearing the right jersey (having the right opinion on every nuance of the Crisis) to save our soul. Even if I was fervently excited about Fr. Chazal's writings, then what? I still have to choose from the AVAILABLE positions that offer Mass in my country. I can't try to search the world over for a person exactly like myself, who shares all my opinions on the Crisis, denouncing everyone else as a heretic. That's how you end up with cults like the Dimond Bros. or Pfeifferville. Or how to end up very alone, probably despair, and ultimately to lose one's very soul for eternity.

I don't know what criteria you are using to determine what a cult is but I'm pretty sure the same criteria could be used to make the case that you are in a cult.  MHFM (Dimond Bros) is a monastery.  They have no organization beyond their lone monastery in New York.  They don't actively recruit members to their monastery and they don't solicit donations.  Some men have entered their monastery and some people have donated to them.  But they have none of the characteristics of a non-Catholic cult.  So whatever false criteria you have used to classify them as a cult can be used against you who surely puts a collection plate out at your Masses and hopefully at least encourages people to attend.  It's surprising that you have the training and the objective knowledge to judge that MHFM is a cult but you don't have the training or knowledge to judge that Bergoglio is a heretic/apostate or that heretics cannot legitimately hold ecclesiastical offices in the Church.

8. It's just my opinion, but if I'm wrong then the ONLY OTHER OPTION is that the Crisis HAS been adequately solved (in a definitive manner, with all objections adequately answered and addressed) but that all the other "positions" are populated 100% by those of bad will. I don't buy that.

That's an oversimplification of the sede position with regard to those who hold non-sede positions.  And it is irrelevant with regard to whether the sede position is the correct position or not.