Also, would maintaining a sedevacantist position, if I am wrong, compromise my salvation in any way? I would not want to face the unimaginable torments in Hell for all eternity.

If you take tha liberal position, God will accept your ignorance as not sinful.

But it is a decision of salvation indeed.

I was wondering, is one a schismatic if he becomes a sedevacantist? Would they still be considered Catholic?

If somebody is disobedient to the Holy See because of erroneously judging its authority to be illegitimate, while still holding to Catholic dogma and wishing to be in union with all Catholics, then one is certainly not schismatic.
Some moral theologians specifically speak of such cases.

But, what of the case of those in the Novus Ordo, if belieiving in doctrines which do not constitute heresy, but grave error, what communion could there be with them?

These are bizarre and strange times. That is what we must always keep in mind when considering such questions.

I think one of Caminus's points is that only the authority can pronounce someone a heretic, and give one the definitive judgment on which all Catholics must act. I agree with him - or that position, anyway.

However, I also agree with the sedes that one must sometimes make a judgment before the authority does, and that it is bizarre to insist that one must wait for the authority's judgment. What if the pope, the bishops in union with him - what if what appears to be the Church hierarchy is fraught with heresy? You have to stand up for what you believe to be the Catholic faith.

As to those in the Novus Ordo in good faith, I accept them as fellow Catholics and would consider myself in communion with them. Fellow Catholics can disagree on "open" questions. However, if the authority takes a position on an issue and you think it is false, you must reject the authority as false. But the question, as to your fellow lay Catholic, is still be an "open" question - their false opinion on a matter of the faith doesn't implicate the Church's indefectibility.

For example, I consider myself a Thomist on the issue of Predestination and Providence. The Molinist position contradicts it, and is I believe false: one or the other has to be false - they are contradictory - and an issue of the faith is involved. The Church has kept the question open, and not pronounced upon it. I therefore accept Molinists as my fellow Catholics. If the Church were to pronounce upon the question and come out for Molinism, I would have to reject that Magisterium as false, but would my opinion change as to my fellow Catholic Molinists? No. Because the Church would still have not pronounced for Thomism, and the question, as far as the True Church goes, would still be open.

So there is no inconsistency in holding that position (accepting good faith Novus Ordites) while also rejecting the authority that they are in allegiance to. Their very allegiance is something expected, something Catholic in a normal situation. The principles that are in conflict indicate that the situation is not clear, no matter whether you or I think it clear. We must act on our understanding and according to our lights, but must also understand how someone could disagree with us where foundational Catholic principles appear to be in conflict.

I can reject the authority as false because it teaches error and the true Church could not teach error. But, in the absence of an authoritative judgment that is binding on all Catholics by the true authority, I cannot reject those whose private judgment differs from mine as to that very authority in issue.

It is a strange, very strange situation we are in.

Trad,

I understand. I was using an analogy to indicate why I have the view I do.

What appears to be "the authority" says that "Muslim's worship the same God"? Now, that statement from Vatican II has some ambiguity. In any event, I cannot fault a fellow Catholic for believing that a lawfully elected pope and the bishops of the Church are not spouting heresy there. If I disagree with them - that's my judgment, and it's on me. But I really can't fault them for following what appears to be the lawful authority.

To get back to the original subject and answer your question Daegus, I too am open to sedevacantism. I go back and forth sometimes, wondering if these Popes are really Popes. I have already concluded that Paul VI couldn't have been Pope because there is strong evidence he was a Freemason (and even some evidence he was gαy). And since a Catholic who joins Masonry is automatically excommunicated from the Church, Paul VI couldn't have been a valid Pope.

I have respect for sedevacantism, but dogmatic sedevacantism is something I take issue with. In my opinion, the sede stace should be the belief that the Chair is currently empty and leave it at that. Dogmatic sedevacantism, however, goes much futher than that, stating that the sede stance is a fact and that all Trads must accept it. Some dogmatic sedes have even been known not attend a TLM unless it's said by a sede priest/group (these people are called home-aloners). In reality, accepting Traditional Catholicism is what matters, not believing whether or not we have a Pope. That's currently a matter of opinion. Neither stance can be proven as right, regardless of what you hear from both sides. That's why I don't encourage either side to go around trying to get other Trads to join their side. Save that for people who actually need conversion (i.e Protestants, athiests, Jєωs, even Novus Ordites).

The main thing that keeps me from being a sede is where to draw the line. If I become a sede, then where is the line drawn? Certain dogmatic sedes who posted here previously (David Landry who posted as CM, to name one) who not only believes Benedict is an anti-pope but believed there are no valid priests in the US and that Pius X was an anti-pope. So again, where do you draw the line? Not that I would ever adhere to such crazy viewpoints, but sedevacantism can sometimes stretch things too far. I'm also trying to determine an exact stance on the issue about lay-people not having the authority to judge the Pope, that I'm still on the fence with. I label Paul VI as an anti-pope according to Church teachings on Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, not my own opinion. It's a bit different when dealing with modernists.

So my advice is that it really does not matter whether or not you think Benedict is Pope, either way it won't solve the crisis in the Church. Just be a Traditional Catholic, that's what matters.

Also, would maintaining a sedevacantist position, if I am wrong, compromise my salvation in any way? I would not want to face the unimaginable torments in Hell for all eternity.

And to answer this question, no, it would not. God isn't going to send you to hell for doing something in an attempt to please Him. Sedes don't declare a modernist Pope an anti-pope for no reason, they do it to please God by refuting modernism. Whether or not the sedes are right is unknown, only God knows. But what God cares about is you being a Traditional Catholic and doing the very best you can to please Him and serve Him.

I really do not want to believe that we have not had a true pope for such a long time. The thought that the Church could be deceived for so long is amazing to me. Obviously, I will need to do many prayers on this topic, but I will also need to know where I'm supposed to start. Also, would maintaining a sedevacantist position, if I am wrong, compromise my salvation in any way? I would not want to face the unimaginable torments in Hell for all eternity.

Hello Daegus:

Although I accept the "sedevacantist" explanation of the current predicament of Holy Mother Church as the most accurate one, I find myself bereft of the competence and authority to oblige individual consciences thereto (Deo gratias, for that is one less thing for which I will have to render an account on Doomsday): therefore, I cannot reject as Catholic those who in good faith disagree with the sedevacantist thesis (be they SSPX, N. O., etc.) so long as the integrity of the dogmas of the infallibility and the primacy of the Roman Pontiff as defined by the Vatican Council [the one convoked by Pope Pius IX], is kept inviolate.

I would like to add a personal reflection. As I wrote to a friend of mine recently, discussing the very substantial scholarly contributions to contemporary liturgical discourse by non-sedevacantists (which, I must candidly admit, very much dwarfs those made by sedevacantists in this field), "I hate being labelled a 'sedevacantist.' The New Liturgical Movement blog makes me wish sometimes I weren't a sedevacantist, but faith must be founded upon reason and not sentiment (especially when emotion is self-serving). My life would be far easier as a non-sedevacantist, even perhaps attaining to a brilliant academic career [ed. Yeah right!]. However, I know too much to go back. Although I lack the authority and competence of imposing it upon others, I do acknowledge (even despite myself) that what is properly understood as 'sedevacantism' is a non-negotiable fact. I can never call Ratzinger 'the Holy Father,' or pretend that 'Vatican II' can be explained away." [Note: I am not insinuating that theological virtue of faith in itself is contingent upon this or that thesis postulated by non-authoritative sources (both clerical and lay, because whether we wear a Roman collar or not, we're pretty much in the same boat here) but in the practical order certain key praxes immediately pertaining to the faith are; for example, which Chapel to attend for Holy Mass and the Sacraments, which Priest to choose as our Father Confessor, etc.]. My point is that we are to carefully cultivate a faith shorn of personal sentiment and egocentricity, a faith founded on solid doctrine and nourished by devout and persevering prayer, self-abnegation and works of charity and penance.

I don't think we are ought to like the fact that we are not in "full" communion with Rome (whether because one rejects the current claimant of the Apostolic See as anti-Pope, or in the sense one does not obey all of his directives and heed all of his teachings even though he is recognized as the Supreme Pontiff). It is not the way things are supposed to be, and we must not give ourselves over to a sort of tepid complacency that is ultimately counter-intuitive and self-destructive. We must seek to reform and to better ourselves so that we may contribute to the restoration of Holy Mother Church and the rehabilitation of civilization (of you can call it that!), rather than take comfort in some hyper-idealized past that has been somehow crystallized in the present. We have to look to Jesus and Mary to guide us beyond a nostalgia, or a paranoia, or a cynicism, that betrays an unwholesome attachment to self and lack of filial trust in Divine Providence; and to seek a way for future generations to attain to the profession and practice of the holy faith, whole and inviolate as taught by Holy Mother Church throughout the ages, by any means within out grasp (above all, by our own example).

The fact that you are approaching this topic in a humble, earnest and prayerful manner is a sign that you are seeking to please God, which is a very edifying example. If you maintain this attitude whilst doing research upon this and other controversial subjects, whilst continuing to cultivate the interior life, it would be morally impossible for you to fall into the formal heresy or schism that would reprobate you. Just keep saying Our Lady's Holy Rosary!

Anyways, these are my personal observations. I can be (and mostly have been) wrong, so don't cite me as an authority (please)...