That doesn't sound like a good reason. Truth is what matters, not how favorable or unfavorable something is.

MiracleoftheSun said, "A small part of what helped me into sedevecanstism".  

He is not saying that some degree of being unfavorable indicates truth. He is saying that the hubbub about it piqued his interest to look into whether there should really be some disfavor about the subject. That was the small help.

With 75 replies to the OP there still is not much unity about whether to be or not to be Sedevacantist. Traditional Catholics should know that the Pope is the source of unity. It seems then what is needed to restore unity is to choose a truly Catholic Pope. Sedevacantists are the ones that are in a position to work toward this end. Non-sedevacantists are in a position to defeat a truly Catholic Pope.

Bishops that want to work toward unity and choose a Pope will only succeed with the encouragement/push from sedevacantists. Non-sedevacantists will never allow their bishops to even discuss it.

I disagree, though you may be right in most cases regarding your statement. I think sedes may be in a position to reject a truly Catholic Pope for having spent so much time rejecting popes by their own judgment. Non sedes, having not been judging the Pope, just his actions, and practicing a spirit of unity and submission to whatever limited extent is prudent in this situation, would readily follow a Traditional Pope. 

I think that not only should non-sedes be ok with it, but that it may be the duty of our bishops to continually present the Pope with his errors, and the Traditions of the church that prove he is doing wrong, and that declare if he persists, it may be judged by the church through whatever members are in good standing with the Traditions of the church, starting with the members of highest rank, to depose a Pope persistent in grave error and harm to souls. Otherwise, Resistance or Indult, the bishops might as well be approving of Pope Leo XIV if they just ignore his wrongdoings and do nothing to remedy this particular core problem.

Then, having gone through the proper channels of authority, the situation may be remedied with the election of a new Pope. Although, my faith in the modern traditional clergy to agree in their choice of a Pope as good as we need is lacking.

So, this truly is a chicken-and-egg type of dilemma (though that example is actually false, as the chicken obviously came first, per Sacred Scripture).

God has permitted the Traditional movement to become fragmented precisely to reinforce in us how true it is that the Pope is the only true source of unity in the Church.  Leo XIII's longer-form prayer to St. Michael (the exorcism) refers to the plan of the Church's enemies with the goal that "when the shepherd has been struck, the sheep may be scattered".

This scattering is an inevitability of this striking of the shepherd.

That's why various prophecies such as that of Anna Maria Taigi, where Sts. Peter and Paul will appear in order to designate the Holy Pope ... make a great deal of sense.

I think that Prevost could come out tomorrow denying the Holy Trinity, and the R&R and Conciliar pope-splainers, they would all find a way to claim he's still Catholic.  AND, if it gets obvious enough where even that fails, who's going to organize an Imperfect Council in order to elect an actual Catholic Pope?  In order for an Imperfect Council to have effect, there would have to be near-universal buy-in on it.  Otherwise, it just increases fragmentation, just like when during the Great Western Schism, when they held a council to resolve the matter, it just created another Anti-Pope.

God will handle it, and we must realize that we are incapable of handling it by our own devices.

At the same time, while we will never have a practical cooperation due to too many differences, we should still be able to recongize the other groups as Catholics (with some exceptions) ... and some of that comes from backing away from the excessive dogmatization on the opposite sides, where you have dogmatic SV and dogmatic R&R polarizing everyone, and those positions are both completely false.

SVs mistake "dogmatic indefectibilism" for dogmatic SVism, and R&R dogmatize the legitimacy of the V2 popes, even though +Lefebvre never did so and was actually more a "Doubt & Resist" (which is legitimate), a sede-doubtist, as I called it.

So if the dogmatic SVs can realize that the Major Premise of indefectibility is the problem, where one might argue about the Minor (which is what +Lefebfvre did) and the R&R would realize that +Lefebvre was a doubter, and as the Canonists indicate, one may refuse submission to the Popes ...

perhaps the vast majority of Traditional Catholics can agree on a legitimate range of opinion that's still Catholic.  St. Robert Bellarmine still considered Cajetan to be Catholic despite disagreeing.

There is in fact a "variation" on R&R (which should be called D&R, doubt and resist, or "sede-doubtism") that's perfectly Catholic, and it's this position that +Lefebvre actually held, and then if the dogmatic SVs can realize that one can reject the SV conclusion by rejecing one or another of the hidden (understated) minors in their syllogism, rather than the dogmatic major ... perhaps they can get to a point where, with the exception of a few outliers (such as clowns who declare Pius IX and even St. Pius X Anti-Popes), and those who explicilty reject the indefectibility of the Church, there may be some hope.

I'm trying to work on a Substack piece to explain the errors of both dogmatic SV and modern R&R (showing that it should be D&R and is what +Lefebvre believed) ... with some hope that a few might snap out of it.

We do have some moderate SV out there, and some true D&R types ... but they're drowned out by the extremes, the caricatures of their position, which contributes to and increases the polarization.  R&R see SV and think of the dogmatic SV and push farther in the opposite direction.  SV see the R&R types who basically deny the indefectibility of the Church, and they push back opposite of them.  So when the edges are stretched like this and people are drawn toward a binary, where they must circle their wagons in one or another of these "two" camps, the polarization is intensified.  And much of this is due to the fact that those on the extremes happen to be the most vocal.

Then we have two options for you to choose from:

1) The Jimmy Akin Model of "what he really meant to say was..."

and

2) he has been dabbling with Modernism and doesn't know he is suffering from a little mind rot. 

Either way, what we do know pretty much absolutely is that he is still the pope because +Lefebvre wasn't a sedevacantist.

I think that Prevost could come out tomorrow denying the Holy Trinity, and the R&R and Conciliar pope-splainers, they would all find a way to claim he's still Catholic.

I think Our Lord could come out tomorrow, carrying His Cross to Calvary again, ripped from the scourge and bleeding, and the sedevacantists [all flavours] would still find a way to deny that He is God Incarnate.

I think Our Lord could come out tomorrow, carrying His Cross to Calvary again, ripped from the scourge and bleeding, and the sedevacantists [all flavours] would still find a way to deny that He is God Incarnate.

I think that the popes could infallibly declare at least seven times that there is absolutely no salvation outside of the Church, with no exceptions, and trads (all flavours) would still find a way to deny it. Wait, that's already happened 

I think Our Lord could come out tomorrow, carrying His Cross to Calvary again, ripped from the scourge and bleeding, and the sedevacantists [all flavours] would still find a way to deny that He is God Incarnate.

People who aren't capable of discerning a false pope, lash out at those who are capable, with such strange stuff!