Sedevacantism without "conclavism" is completely useless and superfluous.

It's like after a complete collapse scenario (no grid electricity, Internet, public utilities anywhere), a complete Mad Max scenario, having some survivors "pro Internet" and others being "anti Internet". Now if a group of survivors was trying to actively rebuild electronics and computers from the ground up, and actively working to rebuild the Internet, that would be something. But that would be the equivalent of "conclavist sedevacantism".

At least the conclavists are consistent, and giving some MEANING to their sedevacantism. They are trying to "do something about it". To bring the theory into the practical realm, so it has SOME relevance or reason to actually hold the position.

My position is that sedevacantism, unless you add conclavism, is no better and usually worse than "plain vanilla" Traditional Catholicism. It adds nothing, and solves nothing. All it adds is another point of division, another reason for parishioners to stay home on Sunday when there's not a "sede" group chapel within driving distance.

Yes, many sedes are more practical than that (they aren't "dogmatic" about it; they are willing to attend SSPX for example) but why start a movement like "sedevacantism" when a certain percent are going to be dogmatic about it (unnecessarily divisive and condemnatory) and/or end up Home Aloners?

Zero upsides, nothing but downsides!

Would you take a medicine that has no chance of helping you with anything, but has a 30% chance of killing you? Neither would I.

The comfortability of an outcome does not add or takeaway from its legitimacy. I myself am not even a full sedevacantist (I think there are better places to focus our attention) however your argument is pointless. 

1. It has nothing to do with comfort. No one is "comfortable". So that argument is neither here nor there.

2. To Ladislaus points --
Perhaps it would help if I clarified.
I'm not against SedevacantISTs, and even the position per se. It's "Sedevacantism, Inc." that I have a problem with. Making it an "identity", limiting which Tridentine Masses one can attend, suggesting that "Traditional Catholic Singles" isn't enough; we need a "Sedevacantist singles" website. That kind of thing.

Sedevacantism is one explanation for the Crisis in the Church. It is a personal opinion. Yes, we can/should discuss and have strong personal opinions, as if we care about the Church (imagine that!). But we need to draw the line and limit ourselves. In the end, it's ONLY a personal opinion and we should all go to Mass together afterward -- a good Tridentine Mass with a 100% certainly ordained priest, formed TRADITIONALLY (at a Traditional seminary). Just like Traditional Catholics all over the world have done since 1969.

Sedevacantism used to be a personal opinion. It needs to go back to being one. People need to stop caring whether a chapel is "sede" or not. Unless they are conclavist and have elected a "pope" or something, it shouldn't be an issue one way or the other.

The Traditionalist clergy is to blame.

They are the ones who condemn R&R, Sedecantism, Una cuм, etc.

They hate each other and expect the faithful to do the same.

If they taught the faithful that explanations to the Crisis are merely theories, then people would not worry about the "Traditionalist political parties".

1. It has nothing to do with comfort. No one is "comfortable". So that argument is neither here nor there.

2. To Ladislaus points --
Perhaps it would help if I clarified.
I'm not against SedevacantISTs, and even the position per se. It's "Sedevacantism, Inc." that I have a problem with. Making it an "identity", limiting which Tridentine Masses one can attend, suggesting that "Traditional Catholic Singles" isn't enough; we need a "Sedevacantist singles" website. That kind of thing.

Sedevacantism is one explanation for the Crisis in the Church. It is a personal opinion. Yes, we can/should discuss and have strong personal opinions, as if we care about the Church (imagine that!). But we need to draw the line and limit ourselves. In the end, it's ONLY a personal opinion and we should all go to Mass together afterward -- a good Tridentine Mass with a 100% certainly ordained priest, formed TRADITIONALLY (at a Traditional seminary). Just like Traditional Catholics all over the world have done since 1969.

Sedevacantism used to be a personal opinion. It needs to go back to being one. People need to stop caring whether a chapel is "sede" or not. Unless they are conclavist and have elected a "pope" or something, it shouldn't be an issue one way or the other.

The identity of the Roman Pontiff is not an opinion. It is of paramount importance. It is a dogma (ex cathedra! ) that it is necessary for salvation to be submitted to the Roman Pontiff (a picture in the vestibule isn’t sufficient). 

I agree we should draw the line and limit ourselves. As can be seen in your forum, the rabid anti-sede recognize and resisters are actually willing to DENY the DOGMA of the Indefectibility of the Catholic Church in order to keep their figure head Pope in place. Talk about crossing the line! 

we should all go to Mass together afterward -- a good Tridentine Mass with a 100% certainly ordained priest, formed TRADITIONALLY (at a Traditional seminary).

Why are these important? How have you concluded that these are absolutely essential to Catholicism but somehow the Pope is totally meaningless (if not in theory, at least in practice). Someone can turn back around and say well this is just your opinion that these things are important, just like how you say the importance of the identity of the Pope is just a side issue with minimal weight. 

The Papacy, which was Divinely instituted by Christ, the rock and foundation of the Church, doesn’t matter in effect and it’s just your opinion and we can all get along without him. That completely runs contrary to Tradition. The hallmark of a Catholic is his submission to the Pope. 

it shouldn't be an issue one way or the other.

The Papacy is irrelevant to Catholicism said no Catholic ever. 

It’s not just about the isolated question surrounding the Pope. This topic reaches so much further. Depending on how one answers this fundamental question will dictate their beliefs about the Church as a whole; her nature, essence. Some users on this platform insist that Bergoglio is the Pope which causes them to conclude that in fact the Church and her teaching authority is capable of becoming corrupt in faith and morals. I would never attend Mass with people who believe those egregious heresies and blasphemies. We can’t act side by side because we have SUBSTANTIALLY different beliefs about the Catholic Church. Differing beliefs that simply can’t be ignored for the sake of false unity. I will not sacrifice the Church’s teaching concerning the Indefectibility of the Roman See to “Unite the Clans”. These are non negotiable. Saints have sacrificed their lives to defend the divine rights of Peter and his successors. 

I agree with so many posts here, including Matthews. If all the world’s valid Catholic bishops (Latin rite, Coptic, Byzantine, etc) held special meetings every year and had arrived at the conclusion that a non-Catholic could not be a valid pope, I believe they would have the right to reconstitute the Church’s hierarchy. Under the situation of a universal acceptance by the world’s bishops, I believe this would be a great solution to the problem. For this to come close to happening, the Traditionalist bishops would have to create a united front. As someone else pointed out, they are all too busy trying to monopolize Tradition and create more and more factions. This seems to prolong the crisis. 

The crisis is only getting worse and worse. They changed the doctrines, rites, sacraments and now they are becoming less subtle. The end game is a modernist one world religion that is acceptably fitted into the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr and a one world authoritative governing body. It’s hard to not see that. The cardinals that Bergoglio has put in place ensure that this will come about. 

Meanwhile, Traditionalist Latin rite groups squabble about who is right. 

A good listening to Bishop Puvarunas’ youtube conference “objections to sedevacantism” will reveal that he is on board with what seems to be a solution to the empty chair of Peter. Have a good listen. 

I agree with so many posts here, including Matthews. If all the world’s valid Catholic bishops (Latin rite, Coptic, Byzantine, etc) held special meetings every year and had arrived at the conclusion that a non-Catholic could not be a valid pope, I believe they would have the right to reconstitute the Church’s hierarchy. Under the situation of a universal acceptance by the world’s bishops, I believe this would be a great solution to the problem. For this to come close to happening, the Traditionalist bishops would have to create a united front. As someone else pointed out, they are all too busy trying to monopolize Tradition and create more and more factions. This seems to prolong the crisis.

The crisis is only getting worse and worse. They changed the doctrines, rites, sacraments and now they are becoming less subtle. The end game is a modernist one world religion that is acceptably fitted into the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr and a one world authoritative governing body. It’s hard to not see that. The cardinals that Bergoglio has put in place ensure that this will come about.

Meanwhile, Traditionalist Latin rite groups squabble about who is right.

A good listening to Bishop Puvarunas’ youtube conference “objections to sedevacantism” will reveal that he is on board with what seems to be a solution to the empty chair of Peter. Have a good listen.

Link please!

I agree with so many posts here, including Matthews. If all the world’s valid Catholic bishops (Latin rite, Coptic, Byzantine, etc) held special meetings every year and had arrived at the conclusion that a non-Catholic could not be a valid pope, I believe they would have the right to reconstitute the Church’s hierarchy. Under the situation of a universal acceptance by the world’s bishops, I believe this would be a great solution to the problem. For this to come close to happening, the Traditionalist bishops would have to create a united front. As someone else pointed out, they are all too busy trying to monopolize Tradition and create more and more factions. This seems to prolong the crisis.

The crisis is only getting worse and worse. They changed the doctrines, rites, sacraments and now they are becoming less subtle. The end game is a modernist one world religion that is acceptably fitted into the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr and a one world authoritative governing body. It’s hard to not see that. The cardinals that Bergoglio has put in place ensure that this will come about.

Meanwhile, Traditionalist Latin rite groups squabble about who is right.

A good listening to Bishop Puvarunas’ youtube conference “objections to sedevacantism” will reveal that he is on board with what seems to be a solution to the empty chair of Peter. Have a good listen.

Then why don't you choose one of the conclavist groups that have already done this? Which one would you choose, CA, I wonder? Maybe I could give you three options like you gave me?

I will tell you why you don't choose one of those groups - because something deep down in your blessed Catholic heart tells you that they are in schism. You recognise the ones that have not behaved in this schismatic fashion as the true Catholics, yet if they would all come together and embark on that course of action, it would seem to give you more comfort, it would then legitimise this schismatic way by force or numbers?

Yet our religion is not a numbers game. If that is the Catholic way, it is the right way and you should be on it, regardless of whether Bishop Williamson does it, or Bishop Da Silva does it, or Bishop Pivarunas does it. Is that not so?

No, that is not what God requires of us. That is an oversimplification of what is happening in the Church. It is simply not a true and just judgement that the hierarchy has defected, that there is nothing left of it in the mainstream Church.

Heed the advice of St Robert Bellarmine regarding a Pope destroying the Church - tell me how you destroy the Church if you do not destroy the Faith:

"But they will say, therefore, only the Church is without remedy if it has a bad Pope, and the Pope can disturb all things unpunished, and destroy and no one will be able to resist. I respond: No wonder, if the Church remains without an efficacious human remedy, seeing that its safety does not rest principally upon human industry, but divine protection, since God is its King. Therefore, even if the Church could not depose a Pope, still, it may and must beg the Lord that he would apply the remedy, and it is certain that God has care of its safety, that He would either convert the Pope or abolish him from the midst before he destroys the Church. Nevertheless, it does not follow from here that it is not lawful to resist a Pope destroying the Church; for it is lawful to admonish him while preserving all reverence, and to modestly correct him, even to oppose him with force and arms if he means to destroy the Church. For to resist and repel by force of arms, no authority is required".

Imagine, a Pope can want to destroy the Church. That can be his desire, his intention. So many do not want to believe it. No, such a one cannot be Pope, let us create another!

God will indeed convert him or banish him. Pray fifteen decades of the Rosary every day for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as Bishop Williamson never tires of telling us, and you will do more to achieve God's plan than by a schismatic act of establishing a parallel hierarchy.