I hold that Leo XIV is violently suspect of heresy.
I hold the Jorge Bergoglio was not pope. 
I hold that the conciliar popes up to and including Benedict XVI were popes. 

Do these make me a Sedevacantist?

Is because "sedevacantism" is divisive. It's adding a COMPLETELY UN-NECESSARY division to the world of Traditional Catholicism.

In other words, I'm not against individual "sedevacantists" for their opinion. Their opinion doesn't make me angry. The whole idea of "sedevacantism" as an identity DOES make me angry, however. "Traditional Catholic" should be enough. The idea that "sedevacantists" need to worship only with other "sedevacantists" at special "sedevacantist" chapels.

Every bit of good fruit I've observed over the past decades in the Traditional Movement can be 100% attributed to the core tenets of the Traditional Movement -- none of the fruit comes from declaring the See vacant, having a dart board with the Pope's face on it, etc. Sedevacantism hasn't been the solution; it hasn't solved the Crisis. It has been as impotent as the non-sedevacantists. I have no reason to hope for a solution to the Crisis to be found within the Sede camps.

Tenets of the Traditional Movement (what defines every Traditional Catholic from 1969 - present, worldwide):

- Complete rejection and aloofness from the Conciliar Church and the Novus Ordo, due to an unprecedented "Crisis in the Church"
- Seeking out traditionally trained and ordained priests/bishops
- for the pre-Vatican II (Tridentine) Mass and ALL the other sacraments, without scruple (about jurisdiction)
- without any concern about getting "permission" from the Modernists

These 4 points, and only these 4 points, were common to all Trads before Sedevacantism added a new "dogma". Now we have to have SedevacantistTraditionalCatholicSingles instead of just TraditionalCatholicSingles -- as if being a mere Trad somehow wasn't enough. Those duped into Sedevacantism are expected to attend special chapels apart from others, join specific Sede-focused groups, to be with specific KINDS of Trads who share your belief in that one doubtful OPINION touching on the mysterious Crisis in the Church.

That sectarianism, that unnecessary spirit of division, is the BIGGEST thing that keeps me many leagues away from Sedevacantism.

It's not every Sedevacantist that bothers me. Some of them aren't so sectarian; they will attend any Tridentine Mass (offered by a valid priest, etc.) But the whole milieu surrounding this particular "opinion" disgusts me. Just like a man who is tempted to sins against nature (because he was abused, etc.) incites only pity from me -- however, the "gαy lifestyle" that most gαys get involved in: the politics, marches, drug use, public debauchery, flamboyant display, in-your-face promotion of hedonism and degeneracy -- that whole milieu disgusts and angers me.

Yes- this is the only problem I have with certain Sede groups-
That they say a Resistance TLM Mass is is invalid because of "una-cuм".

They may have an option of saying it's illicit , but saying the entire Mass is invalid is really outside of their "wheelhouse" so to speak.
To me they have no authority to say a validly ordained Traditional priest is saying an invalid Tradition Mass because of naming "una cuм".


I don't like the una cuм either, but I will go to valid una cuм Masses with validly ordained priests.

Someone tell me where "una cuм" actually invalidates the Mass and where I can find this information, please.

It's pretty damning when you have a sede bishop saying the una cuм mass is a mortal sin to attend. I honestly don't understand this, and it makes me somewhat angry. What is the motive?

Yes- this is the only problem I have with certain Sede groups-
That they say a Resistance TLM Mass is is invalid because of "una-cuм".

This is incorrect. Cekada, Sanborn and everybody else got it from Fr. Guérard des Lauriers (go look up his credentials).

Here's an explanation of the problem with assisting at una cuм masses by Fr. GdL himself: