CathInfo.com

Struthio is probably considered an example of a dogmatic sedevacantist. Yet in another thread when I asked him what if sufficiently many years passed, he answered:

"I would (have to) admit that my current assessment of the situation is or was wrong, as soon as the generation of the Robber Council will have passed away (which cannot happen while I have to continue in this life)."

Edit: Just saw, "UDS is a logical corollary of DS." Ok. I would have thought the Dogmatic SVist would at least become non-dogmatic Svist in light of powerful evidence to the contrary. Also, a dogma can only be believed with infallible faith on the authority of the teaching Church. Otherwise, it would remain something like at most a theological conclusion only. But the Church has not ruled that Pope Francis is not the Pope. Ergo, there cannot be de fide certainty that such is the case.

An analogy would be someone writing AGAINST the Immaculate Conception the day before it was defined. He may think he has good theological arguments for the same. But if it were dogmatically defined by the Church, and he wanted to remain Catholic, he would have to say, "I retract my opinion and submit to the infallible judgment of the teaching Church".

In the same way, if it were proved, for e.g. (1) that SVism leads to EVism, and (2) EVism is heretical, a sedevacantist who intends to remain Catholic should retract what was never a dogma of faith, returning to the Authority of the Church that he thought had defected.

Proved by whom?  You?  

So to continue with your analogy if you truly believe it, until the Church defines that sedevacantism is a heresy, you shouldn't be asserting that sedevacantists are not Catholic unless they retract their position.

Struthio is probably considered an example of a dogmatic sedevacantist.

One would have to be completely detached from reality to claim that there is a dogma saying that all who don't hold to the sedevacantist position are condemned. There simply is none.

I don't know what to think about you, presenting your three alternatives DS, MS, UDS. Are you able to quote a single sedevacantist who says what your DS says?

Perhaps I am logically missing something---after all I am a woman.

But if Francis is the Pope and if the VII church is the true church, then we all must accept and follow its teachings.  Is that true?

If the VII Church teaches that a person can be saved regardless of his faith practice, then why would it matter if I remained a Catholic?

Why would I drive 2 hours to find an indult Mass or FSSP just because I "preferred" a Tridentine Mass?  Couldn't I just find a "worship" community of like-minded people who believe in Jesus, don't accept birth control, feminism, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, or transgenderism? 

Would I be required to be a parishioner where the current priest is a practicing ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, where I must welcome the female Baptist minister give the sermon, where the priest actively promotes artificial insemination, where the priest supports the "transitioning" of children from one sex to another, just so I could be Catholic?  Must I follow, at all costs, a Pope who leads people to evil?

I find these things completely illogical.  

If that makes me a dogmatic sede to say that I would have a hard time accepting Protestantism in practice and the rest of the above listed evils, then so be it.  I'll take my chances with God.  May He have mercy on my soul.