For those that say that Sedevacantism solves nothing and offers no solutions, I find that a strange argument. Sedevacantism is an explanation of the crisis. It is simply a conclusion that you either find logical and agree with or not. 

It is like having a political discussion with someone who has recently gone down many rabbit holes and is coming to some of your conclusions, but still holds on to some of their political programming. You tell them that virtually all world governments, corporations, entertainment, education, etc are all run by Lucifarians under the guise of Freemasons, тαℓмυdists, and even Christians. That they all are working towards the same evil agenda. That regardless of claimed political party, virtually no one makes it to political prominence without being a part of that evil system, directly or indirectly. That you choose not to even vote anymore because even if all of these corrupt evil politicians weren't on the same side, that the voting system is rigged and untrustworthy anyway. That you choose to do your best to just focus on your daily life, your salvation, your family, homeschooling, prepping, etc. And then the person's rebuttal is, "well you have to vote man, you're not offering any solutions". 

That may be an imperfect analogy, but what I'm trying to say is that perhaps there are circuмstances in which there really are not obvious solutions around the corner and we have to have humility to control what we can, and patience and faith that God is allowing these things and will fix it on his time, not ours.

I find it very strange that some traditionalists will bash Sedevacantists, but they operate in their day to day lives as though there is no Pope anyway. That they would have doubt and spread calumnies against +Thuc and the consecrations he performed late in life during the crisis, but have little to no issue with +Williamson doing the same thing. Were not both men likely just seeing the end of their lives approaching, and no better solution in sight then to try to preserve valid sacraments for the faithful? Why not look to the faith that we all hold dear and have some charity for each other. 

Personally, I hold the sedevacantist position because I find it to be the most logical explanation of the crisis, and the most logically consistent position to hold as a Catholic. I believe that R&R mentality can lead one to a very protestant mindset of popesifting for what they personally agree with and find consistent with the magisterium, and what they disagree with and find modernist. And respectfully, that has always been my hangup with some of the positions of Fr Cekada (may he rest in peace). The idea that you can celebrate whatever holy week you prefer, or omit the Leonine prayers, reject the feast of St Joseph the Worker, etc. I believe that despite him coming to the Sedevacantist position, his formation in the SSPX gave him the bold confidence to say, with regard to Pope Pius XII "this is a valid Pope, but I disagree with this, for this reason, Bugnini, etc so I will do something else". This is why I find the CMRI take on the crisis to be the most consistent. They practice the Catholic faith as it was left to us at the time of our last certainly good Pope, follow everything that he instructed through his Papacy, and reject the V2 revolution in its entirety. I think that's logically consistent and practical.

Having said all of that, like most sedes, I have many family members who attend the SSPX and I do not consider them to be less Catholic. Whether we agree on the crisis or not, we are faithfully trying to live our Catholic Faith and receive the sacraments as worthily and as frequently as possible. I do not post on CI often, and initially was not intending to interject into this thread, as I often find that these discussions just lead to more division and needless infighting among the faithful, but thought that sharing where I am coming from may resonate with some. 

And respectfully, that has always been my hangup with some of the positions of Fr Cekada (may he rest in peace). The idea that you can celebrate whatever holy week you prefer, or omit the Leonine prayers, reject the feast of St Joseph the Worker, etc. I believe that despite him coming to the Sedevacantist position, his formation in the SSPX gave him the bold confidence to say, with regard to Pope Pius XII "this is a valid Pope, but I disagree with this, for this reason, Bugnini, etc so I will do something else".

There are always some things to work through. Lay people need to stop being so sensitive when they hear someone suggesting their priests are mistaken. I was never perfectly in tune with Fr. Cekada. There is actually a lot more to the subject of the 50's changes, and one of them is there is good reason to believe Pius XII was unaware of them. But I won't go into that here. Another is that something can BECOME extrinsically harmful over time because of changing circuмstances (heliocentrism being an example in reverse).

This is why I find the CMRI take on the crisis to be the most consistent. They practice the Catholic faith as it was left to us at the time of our last certainly good Pope, follow everything that he instructed through his Papacy, and reject the V2 revolution in its entirety. I think that's logically consistent and practical.

Again, there are things existing that need addressing. It's not as well as you think.

Well, generically, popes have very little if anything to do with our day to day lives, which we strive to live according to the faith. And most trads I know do not spread calumnies against +Thuc for the reason you gave.

 I agree with your last sentence, but I do wonder why it is that once the typical trad has embraced the sede position, they tend to seek out and join other sede priests/chapels so as to separate themselves from the faithful trads who simply continue to  maintain living their faith without any concern as to the pope's status.   

The problem, I think, lies with the people want to follow leadership.  If we choose to be Catholic, we choose to follow a hierarchy.  Since Vatican 2 and the Popes who came after, make everything suspect, then people choose sides and in their pride want their side to win.  It is just human nature, I am afraid.  The best of Catholics, admit they do not know, they pick a side to raise their family and try to stay consistent.  I know it is not ideal, I just wish both sides had more charity to those who look at the situation differently.  Please take this as addition to your comment, not a criticism.

We know those people INTEND to mention a true pope. This makes their mistake only a material error.

Right, that is all clearly explained in the distinction concerning being truly convicted in one's conscience (as stated above).

The issue is you will have some dogmatic R&R who will claim from sun up to sun down that, "Leo is a manfest, public heretic I am truly convicted of it to my bones. Yet still, he is truly Pope and now I shall go to Mass and pray for him to be a good Catholic Pope."

The moral problem with that can be one or several issues;

1) They really aren't convicted that Leo is a manifest public heretic. (If they don't believe he is and don't say he is no problem, maybe no sin there - they just look foolish).

2) They don't understand what the "Una cuм" means in relation to expressing unity in eccelsisial faith. (MATERIAL ERROR ONLY)

3) They see no problem with going against their conscience and telling a lie to God during the Mass. (THERE IS SIN HERE).

And then of course there could be those who actually know the teaching about this and choose to ignore it for human respect or other purely human motives and there of course would be sin here as well.

So, holding that a manifest heretic remains pope is the Cajetan Opinion and the other one where he can never be deposed, even minister ally.

And, even if I agreed with St. Vincent Ferrer on his choice of pope, there would be nothing wrong with assisting at the Mass of a priest who felt it was one of the others.

That's the argument I had on X, where the priest said basically that formal intention meant nothing ... which is absurd.

There would be a problem if you were morally certain that the one name in the Canon was a manifest, public heretic. To go against that certitude would be sinful no?