The number was tongue in cheek, though I think it would be a good idea to make a list.

Well, this post of mine might get you started:

The list covers the various opinions, or "what things you have to pick a position on", to illustrate how complicated Sedevacantism actually is.

(Sedevacantism is defined here as "believing that the man commonly known as Pope Benedict XVI is not the pope")

The Crisis in the Church is not a simple matter.

These are all honest questions that any Sedevacantist (or would-be Sedevacantist) should ask himself/herself:

(NOTE: These are all points of contention in the Sedevacantist world. That is to say, each of these is a crossroads for each given Sedevacantist.)

* Does the Catholic Church have a pope right now?
* For how long has the commonly-held pope (in Rome) not been the real pope?
* If we have a Pope, who is he (name and place of residence)?
* Is the Catholic Church currently visible or invisible?
* Is there any priest/bishop/pope you would currently trust now, or follow in matters of faith without judging his every move?
* How do you reconcile the fact that the world is VERY dangerous as an influence, and that we need Mass and the sacraments (and to a lesser degree, the moral support of fellow Catholics) to save our souls?
* How do you reconcile the fact that only a future council can judge the Pope? Do you have any evidence that the Church makes it possible for laymen to depose, or deny the papacy of, a given pope?
* Do you believe it's possible to have a less-than-saintly pope on Peter's throne? How about a man who has committed, or who commits, sin? How about a man who personally holds some errors? Have you read much Church history?
* How do you reconcile the notion that, in your estimation, the Catholic Church hasn't provided us laymen with any means of dealing with this crisis? No Epikeia, no ability to disobey a lawful pope, no supplied jurisdiction, etc.
* What do you think of SSPX masses?
* What do you think of Archbishop Lefebvre?
* What do you think of Rome-approved 1962 Masses? (FSSP, ICK, Indult, etc.)
* How many true priests/bishops/cardinals exist? A handful? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Millions?
* What kind of priest is needed to say the Mass you would attend? One from CMRI? SSPV? Indpendent? One ordained before 1962? Are there no priests left?
* Do you realize that it is easy for independent priests to be  actual frauds (with no priestly orders) and that this has happened in the past several times?
* Do you realize that some independent priests are simply weak in the virtue of obedience? That is, while professing to be "fighting for the truth" and all, they merely couldn't follow orders in the SSPX, SSPV, FSSP, etc. and left so they could "be their own boss".
* Should you attend some Traditional Latin Mass, or just stay at home?
* If you advocate "staying at home", is that for fundamental/dogmatic reasons, or would you like to move closer to an independent (sede) chapel someday if you could?
* If you advocate "staying at home", how do you plan to teach the Faith to your children?
* Can the crisis/lack of pope situation be resolved ever? How will you know a new legitimate Pope is elected?
* Is there anything a person (priest, religious, or layman) can do to help end or ameliorate this Crisis? If so, what?
* Should a new pope be elected by "the remnant"? Should you help elect a pope (or become pope yourself? cf. Pope Michael of Kansas)
* What do you think of the average (novus ordo attending) Catholic? Will any of them save their soul? Is it possible for some to be of good will?
* What do you think of other traditional Catholics? (Those trying to oppose error and keep the Faith during this crisis)
* Do you think those who don't support your preferred sedevacantist group can save their souls? How about those who don't attend your chapel? Should they be formally denounced? In writing?
* Should some, many, or all non-sedevacantist Catholics be declared, or treated as, Vitandi (persons to be avoided) like those who are excommunicated? How about other sedevacantists whom you don't agree with?
* If you advocate being harsh with non sede-Catholics, how do you reconcile the fact that normally it is a praiseworthy thing for Catholics to love and pray for the pope? How about the fact that this crisis is not normal, and is, in fact, unprecedented?
* Are you aware of the actions of past popes throughout Church history? The Great Schism? The fact that St. Vincent Ferrer was on "the wrong side" in that crisis?
* What do you think of the various priests/bishops who seem to be fearless in their defense of the Faith, though they are not sedevacantist? For example: Bishop Williamson, and many SSPX priests (though there are countless others!)
* Should we actually hate the pope? The modernist (or all) cardinals? Bishops? Catholics who are not sedevacantist?
* Can married men be deacons? Priests? (Don't laugh; I know an independent priest who had himself consecrated bishop, and ordained one married man a deacon. He also wants to ordain at least one married man a priest!)
* What do you think of Fatima? Padre Pio? Baptism of Desire? "Natural Family Planning"? Separation of Church and State? St. Thomas Aquinas? Limbo?
* Do you believe that Vatican II taught anything binding on Catholics?
* Especially if you deny the validity of 1962 masses, you have to ask yourself "Why would God abandon His people and His Church for 40 years, with no means of salvation available to the vast majority of people?"
* Do you have a family? Do you honestly believe that staying at home (or attending a small chapel of 10 people) will be more beneficial to your children than attending, say, an SSPX chapel?
After all, it's not like the Novus Ordo is said in the latter, and aside from mentioning the Pope's name during the canon (quietly), nothing else goes on that a Sede could complain about. Do you honestly think mentioning the Pope's name during Mass will destroy your child's faith?

Those last two points are important ones. I know personally that attending an SSPX Mass center takes some effort -- usually an hour drive (or more) and many live too far away to attend weekly Mass. How much worse would it be if you couldn't attend any TLM except that offered by an independent sedevacantist priest? You'd pretty much be a "home-aloner" -- one who reads their missal at home on Sunday. With my knowledge of the world (and having attended an independent chapel for 24 years), I know how dangerous this is for the children especially. Usually they give up the Faith -- it seems too much like a cult. Just for starters, they end up marrying non-Catholics, with all the problems that causes.

Matthew

Great questions Matthew!

With little effort, I hammered large holes in a few of your questions on the list you presented a while back, Matthew.  Is this the same one?  Have you modified it at all?  If not, I will just cut and paste my response from that thread.

stevus, your comments about Assisi (within the Dolan thread) were truly stupefying in their naivete.

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: Caminus

But traditional catholicism does involve a judgment, that is where the faith is preserved in all its splendor and implications.  This is a positive judgment of which we are all bound to make.  The "resistance" that follows is accidental for in actuality, it is the bishops who are the rebels, not us...

Who has told you that the bishops are the rebels?  How is the average man in the pew to know he is "bound to make" such a judgment?  It is at variance with everything his parents and the nuns taught him, when there were nuns to teach.

Because we all make personal judgments based on the externals. Yes, we are to refrain from make rash judgments, but we must and we do make these types of judgments EVERY DAY.

Who is Caminus to make a judgment on a Catholic Bishop? Is he making a legal declaration? May he avoid these Bishops based on that non-binding opinion?

The short answer is that I make no definitive judgments regarding persons and you should do likewise lest you fall into error.

It will take until we get a valid Pope to settle the question which will then be mute.

I believe the poster means "moot point", not mute (i.e., lacking, or not making use of, the power of speech).

moot point (plural moot points)

1. An issue that is subject to, or open for discussion or debate; originally, one to be definitively determined by an assembly of the people.
* 2009, Barney Hoskyns, Lowside of the Road: A Life of Tom Waits, Faber & Faber 2009, p. 155:

Exactly which of the songs on Small Change originated in London is a moot point.

2. (US) An issue regarded as potentially debatable, but no longer practically applicable. Although the idea may still be worth debating and exploring academically, and such discussion may be useful for addressing similar issues in the future, the idea has been rendered irrelevant for the present issue.

Until we rebuild downtown, whether we build more parking spaces is a moot point.

It's a general description since this is a crisis primarily of bishops in one way or another.  

Which, of necessity, must have some kind of specific, practical application - or it is so much horse pucky.

Quote from: Caminus

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: Caminus

But traditional catholicism does involve a judgment, that is where the faith is preserved in all its splendor and implications.  This is a positive judgment of which we are all bound to make.  The "resistance" that follows is accidental for in actuality, it is the bishops who are the rebels, not us...

Who has told you that the bishops are the rebels?  How is the average man in the pew to know he is "bound to make" such a judgment?  It is at variance with everything his parents and the nuns taught him, when there were nuns to teach.

Because we all make personal judgments based on the externals. Yes, we are to refrain from make rash judgments, but we must and we do make these types of judgments EVERY DAY.

Who is Caminus to make a judgment on a Catholic Bishop? Is he making a legal declaration? May he avoid these Bishops based on that non-binding opinion?

The short answer is that I make no definitive judgments regarding persons and you should do likewise lest you fall into error.

Then you have no business avoiding these people.

Anyway, Caminus, YOU judge people almost every day...based purely on externals...and without making any legal declarations.

Ah, we can't avoid evil, or determine where catholic tradition is without making illicit judgments or rendering our opinions binding on others.  I'll be waiting for an "authority" on that one.  Look, if you can provide compelling and sound evidence for your position, I would accept it as legitimate.  Furthmore, I have always admitted the possibility of holding a certain form of this opinion privately and merely as less probable.  The thing that I take issue with is what I refer to as "dogmatic sedevacantism."  This is clearly outside certain boundaries, moral, theological and canonical.  Labor not to establish how this opinion is the only "true catholic opinion."  Work on your own interior life, work to restore this tradition, and the conversion of our catholic neighbors who find themselves in some kind of error.  The entire perspective of the dogmatic SV is simply not proportionate, nor is it spiritually healthy.  No one is spared in this trial and you are liable to error just like anyone else.  

Ah, we can't avoid evil, or determine where catholic tradition is without making illicit judgments or rendering our opinions binding on others.

Are you trying to bind others to your opinion about the nature of the judgments we are making? JK :wink: