Struthio, what you need to know is that the term dogmatic sedevacantist means whatever a non-sedevacantist (typically a rabid anti-sede, but not necessarily) wishes it to mean; typically it's whatever they judge to be "going too far". Hope that helps!
False. We clearly defined those terms earlier in this thread.
Examples of dogmatic sedevacantists: Dimond brothers, Bishop Sanborn
Examples of moderate sedevacantists (the opinionists, as Bishop Sanborn calls them): SSPV
So, for instance, the Dimonds claim that anyone who believes that Bergoglio is the pope is by that very fact a heretic. No allowance made for disagreements regarding the Cajetan vs. Bellarmine positions, or more of a sedeprivationist angle. Bishop Sanborn is a bit more moderate, but still a dogmatic sedevacantist, since he would hold that people could be excused from formal heresy due to confusion, etc. But he still holds that the conclusion that the See is vacant is dogmatically certain.
Poll
