If I were convinced that Pope Francis wasn't the Pope -- in other words, if I was a sedevacantist, I would certainly believe that the Catholic Church needs a Pope. Because Catholic dogma. So why has the Sedevacantist world not elected a pope in the last 50 years? Come on guys, get your ship together, we need a pope! Come on, what are you waiting for?

I know, many have tried. Pope Michael is a comical example, but there have been more serious attempts as well.

But why are most American sedevacantists (but I repeat myself -- aren't 95% of sedevacantists American? I think sedevacantism is a mostly American phenomenon) of the NON-Conclavist variety?

That is as contradictory as any R&R position could ever be.

If you think the current claimant is ZERO percent Pope, and the Conciliar Church is ZERO percent Catholic, and the Trad bishops are "it", then why the photon don't they get together and elect a pope already? Most sedes believe the last valid Pope was Pope Pius XII -- who died in 1958. That's a long interregnum, guys. Don't you think it's Pope time yet?

Do they deny the Catholic dogma that the Catholic Church needs a Pope? Do they deny the teaching that the Catholic Church including its structure must be visible? Do they deny Christ's promise to Peter?

I think most American sedevacantist bishops and priests are "non-conclavist" because they want to compromise in order to appear more sane, legitimate, etc. for the sake of getting a higher number of pari$hioner$$$. Money equals power and comfort. And so they teach their sedevacantist parishioners not to desire or look for a new pope to be elected. They avoid the issue. The Sede clergy are also embarrassed by early attempts by sedevacantists to elect a pope, so they won't "go there". But I'm here to say: you contradict your own position, and I have more respect for those sedes who actually are consistent with their beliefs and attempt to elect a pope.

Seriously, what is their lame excuse? Why haven't +Dolan, +Sanborn, +Pivarunas, and all the other Sede bishops elected a pope yet? They must have some lame excuse.

Obviously you would need universal acceptance.  Firstly you would need all the Catholic groups to be talking together in some sort of open forum regarding the state of the church.  That would require some humility to even begin so good luck with that.

Obviously you would need universal acceptance.  Firstly you would need all the Catholic groups to be talking together in some sort of open forum regarding the state of the church.  That would require some humility to even begin so good luck with that.

Francis has universal acceptance, and according to the sedes, it does him no good: Those who accept him are not Catholic enough, they say.

But if the sedes are the only pure and true Catholics, then by the same logic, only they should need to agree upon a pope, and the universal acceptance threshold is met.

So the question stands: Why DOESN'T the sede movement elect a Pope?

Francis has universal acceptance, and according to the sedes, it does him no good: Those who accept him are not Catholic enough, they say.

But if the sedes are the only pure and true Catholics, then by the same logic, only they should need to agree upon a pope, and the universal acceptance threshold is met.

Check...and mate!

Catholics didn't set the purity test the Catholic Church did!  Labels are for those outside the bastion the one holy Catholic Church.  Modernist voluntarily put themselves outside the church.  Sad but true.

Ok...

And while we're talking randomness, "I like onions."

You haven't mentioned anything about why the majority of American sedevacantists shrink from taking the bull by the horns and electing a Pope.

I can't even tell what your opinion is on the matter. Your statement above is neither here nor there.

For the sedevacantist Laity, I think they can be passive, but for the Bishops they need to be active as they have the responsibility to elect a Pope and continue the Church assuming they really believe they are the last of the Catholics. But if they deep down do not believe it, then they should say their position is just a personal opinion or theory, and thus they can be excused for not taking action.

Yes of course. It has never been the responsibility of the laity to elect a Pope, in good times or bad.

When I criticize the contradiction, I'm primarily aiming it at the bishops but also the priests, who collectively have responsibility in the matter. A simple layman can be "neutral", but a priest or bishop has to take a position on each of the issues. There's a difference between a shepherd and a sheep.

Of course, the laity should be somewhat less-than-content with all their pastors' collective waffling on the matter -- they should have been saying stuff like in my OP for decades now. They should be wondering aloud about this. So some measure of criticism falls to them as well for failing to do so -- failing to care. But that's another story.

 Really Matthew?  After all of these years on this forum you've never gotten any answers to these questions?

Yes really. If someone ever gave me an answer, it either didn't truly answer the dilemma (a non-answer), and/or I can't remember it.

Hey you can't get all passive on me. Sedevacantists actually TOOK THE WHEEL and made a turn off the DEFAULT setting.

The choice between "he's the Pope" and "he's not the Pope" is not a T in the road where you have to go left or right, and both are equally positive/active choices.

The choice of "He's not the Pope" is a POSITIVE, ACTIVE CHOICE like turning off the road to the left or right. Those who R&R just keep driving forward on the road, taking no positive action at all -- using the defaults, that is.

If you're just going to be all passive about it, leaving the mystery and the solution to the Crisis in God's hands, why not stick with the DEFAULTS in the meantime, which is: he's the pope. The Church has a pope.

If you're going to get all activist and "do something about it", why not be consistent and elect a pope as well?

You can't be proactive/activist and passive at the same time.

Like I said: a contradiction.

Recognizing the truth of a situation doesn’t mean you are active or passive, come on Mathew, that’s a really poor argument.