* Is there any priest/bishop/pope you would currently trust now, or follow in matters of faith without judging his every move?

Well, there are two types of bishops and priests in the world today.  Those with a mission and those without (traditional bishops and priests).

I know with certainty that there are bishops in the world who are members of the hierarchy, and who have kept the faith.  Whether or not they err on who the pope is, I would trust their doctrine, as long as the have kept the faith.  The same applies to the priests sent by the Church.

Regarding the traditional clergy, there are many whom I trust.  This would apply to sedevacantist and non sedevacantist clergy.  The essential elements that I have in trusting the traditional clergy are whether they have the Faith, that they remain in communion with all Catholics, and are not the cause of scandal.

There are many that fit this description, and I do trust them.  At the same time, however, I remain aware that the traditional clergy are not the lawful pastors of the Church.  I am not bound to them in justice as a pre-Vatican II Catholic was to his Pastor and to his local bishop.

* How do you reconcile the fact that only a future council can formally judge a Pope? Do you have any evidence that the Church makes it possible for laymen to depose, or deny the papacy of, a given pope?

The answer to this can be found in the word, "depose."  We cannot depose any pope.  A public heretic loses his membership in the Church, and therefore his office (if he had it to begin with), from the moment that he professes public heresy, by operation of law.  

We are witnesses to the fact, we have no power, therefore, we cannot bind any else to what we see and comprehend.  That is why Catholics who believe the claims of the anti-popes cannot be guilty of schism.  Until a future Pope authoritatively makes a judgment on this, the determination we form based on the public evidence binds only our only conscience, not the Church.  

As laymen, we have a duty to profess the Faith, to keep the Faith, and to avoid heretics.  But, how can we avoid our head?  Archbishop Lefebvre understood this and explained this point ver well in his 1986 Address to Seminarians.  The Pope cannot be ignored.  If the man claiming to be pope is professing heresy, promulgating evil laws, impious sacramental rites, engaging in public sins against the First Commandment, he is forcing us to make a judgment about him in order for us to keep the Faith.  He is the aggressor, we are merely reacting to the public evidence we are witnessing.

* Do you believe that Sedevacantism is a dogma of the Faith? When was it added to the Deposit of the Faith? What authority added it?

Sedevacantism is not a dogma.  It is a judgment of the status of men claiming to be pope who are publicly profession heresy and grave errors against the Faith.  As I mentioned above, Archbishop Lefebvre believed such a judgment was possible prior to the judgment of the Church, and he was forming this view based on the Code.  St Robert Bellarmine and the majority of theologians who have written on the case of a heretical pope all say that he would lose his office prior to a declaration.  

As Catholics we are recognizing a fact, we are not creating a dogma.  

If you came home one night and saw a prominent member of your town dressed in black, climbing out a window of your home with a crowbar in one hand, and a bag full of money and other valuables in his other hand.  You yell at him to stop, he drops the bag, and flees.  There is no evidence except you testimony, as he wore gloves.  

The police arrest him, but the town is divided.  Many say, he would never do that, you are mistaken, etc.  Do these people have to believe you?  It is your word against his.  One thing that cannot be denied is that you are certain of what you saw regardless of whether anyone believes you.  The truth in this instance binds you, but not others.

Many Catholics have very carefully looked at the evidence of the public crime of heresy committed by Paul VI and his successors.  Many of us, myself included wish that there was some innocent way of explaining this.  We have seen the evidence of what these men have done. We have formed the judgment that these men could not have been popes, but the judgments binds no one else to it.  We have no authority in the Church.

Some books providing evidence that I have read:

1.  Peter Lovest Thou Me? Fr. Daniel Le Roux
http://www.carmel-books.org/peter-lovest-thou-me-p-986.html

2.  Iota Unum, Romano Amerio
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0963903217/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0963903217&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20

3.  John Paul II's Theological Journey, all volumes, Fr. Dormann
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0935952527/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0935952527&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20

4.  The Books of Accusation of Heresy against Paul VI, John Paul II, and the Alleged Catechism of the Catholic Church, Fr. George's de Nantes.
http://www.crc-internet.org/1097-books-of-accusation.html

5. Paul VI Beatified, Fr Villa
http://www.padrepioandchiesaviva.com/uploads/Paul_VI.._beatified_english.pdf

I could continue but all that I have presented already is very strong evidence of public heresy.

* 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 Pope who commits grave sin(s)? How about a man who personally holds some errors? Are you familiar with many Popes throughout Church history? How about Popes that lived before the 18th century?

Yes, it is possible to have a very bad pope, even a public sinner.  History demonstrates this as well.  There is no arguing against a fact.

A pope could hold a private error or perhaps innocently err on a matter of faith.  What he could not do, however is teach heresy or grave error to the universal Church.  we know this from the case of Pope John XXII, who erred but recanted.  He never taught his error to the universal Church.

Catholics are bound to receive the teaching as given by the Pope to the universal Church with docility.  The Pope's teaching on matters of Faith and morals, even if it is non-infallible must be believed under pain of mortal sin.  The Pope's non-infallible universal teaching is guaranteed to be safe.

* What do you think of SSPX masses?

* If the answer to the above question was in any way negative, please answer: How many SSPX priests have you met? How many SSPX Mass centers have you visited?

I believe that SSPX masses are the Mass.  The celebrant's attachment to SSPX is irrelevant.  

As I said in a previous post, the criteria that I use in deciding if I would go to a chapel are whether the priest has kept the Faith, is he schismatic, and is there any grave scandal from the priest or others at the chapel, especially to protect the children.

The fact that the SSPX continues to "accept" these men as pope, still does not change the facts involved.  

I would to this day go to most "SSPX" masses.

What do you think of Archbishop Lefebvre?

I have always had the greatest respect and admiration for Archbishop Lefebvre.  He and Bp. De Castro Mayer were the only two members of the hierarchy that publicly stood up and actively resisted the anti-popes, and all of the heresy, grave errors, impious sacramental rites, evil laws, and scandals that came from them and those in league with them.

I am in agreement with John Daly's thought s about Archbishop Lefebvre and sedevacantism given in this radio interview:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/restorationradio/2012/09/09/archbishop-lefebvre

* What edition of the Missale Romanum does your ideal priest use? (1962, 1957, 1913, etc.)

Ideally, the mass with the revisions of Pius XII.  But, as John XXIII was liberal, but not a public heretic, like Paul VI, the 1962 missal might be the law of the CHurch.

This is a murky issue, as John XXIII may one day be declared an antipope for his numerous actions against the Faith.  

In the absence of authority, I would rather retreat to the absolutely safe ground a Pope who not only believed the Faith, but loved the Faith.  John XXIII may not have been a public heretic, but he was scandalous and it was under him that the revolution began.

With that said, however, any argument against his claim to be pope is not air tight, and for that reason, I would happily go to a mass with the 1962 missal.

Archbishop Lefebvre kept to the 1962 missal, it was the last revision before the crisis took hold, and more importantly prior to Paul VI.