See, I understand the logic of "I'll give the pope the benefit of the doubt, but I want to be careful about my Sacraments so I'll go to traditional priests", but then why is the SSPX coming into a closer relationship with Rome such a bad thing? As long as the SSPX continues with the traditional rites of ordination and mass, and doesn't embrace the modernist heresies abundant in Rome, then I fail to see how coming into a more regular status in the Church is a bad thing. It would just protect the SSPX from accusations of schism and make it easier for the traditional mass to grow within the Church.

Whether we have a Pope and we ignore him, follow him, resist him or claim he is not the Pope, or pick our own Pope; the problem still remains: the guy in the white cassock sitting in the Vatican spewing out heresies and promoting all the Communist's agendas is claimed to be the Pope by the vast majority of all baptized Catholics and by the vast majority of all those claiming to be the Catholic Chur's Hierarchy.

So if Trads are going to debate each other, they should be productive and debate what is the best way to make the guy in the white cassock to stop destroying the church and make VII and the Novus Ordo go away. Then once a plan is agreed, carry it out. If that can be done among the Trads, then I would support that effort, but if not then you are better off taking Matthew's advice "spend more time sanctifying ourselves and our families, and spending time and love on our children, so they will be less likely to stray later." At least that we can have an impact.

For those of you who strangely believe that "deciding" on the Seat is crucial to your Catholicity, explain why.  It would only make sense if you do not actually know your faith. ...

I don't care if whoever is in the Seat is a Satanist. If you wring your hands about that and seriously worry whether you are "therefore" commanded also to become a Satanist, then you truly do not understand basic Catholicism, and your catechesis is lacking.  And why, by the way, if the faith (since the faith) is so poorly taught from Rome right now, would you look to Rome for a correction or completion of your faulty catechesis?

“Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the pope is heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church it is the pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986) -- Archbishop Lefebvre

Far as I'm concerned, the SSPX should have nothing to do with newchurch until newchurch condemns itself and everything it stands for and returns to the faith. But newchurch is not going to do that and no one expects them to do that, at least I don't thinks so, not in my lifetime anyway.

But the newchurch needs to, it must, it is absolutely necessary that newchurch divides the SSPX and keep on dividing, that is what they do, that is their job - to divide. So they dangle the carrot of a false reward of sorts, that they'll welcome SSPX back, as if it is the SSPX who lost the faith - and the idiots at the top are chasing that carrot.

If it were up to me, I would say that maybe once or twice a year, or maybe once a month - or something, SSPX should send a one-way communication to the pope reminding him of the predicament they (Rome) are in and warn them to return to the faith. Other than that, they should have nothing to do with them.

Actually, the "sede vacante" theory of today as a whole does not make sense, this is considering the fact that the word itself took on an entirely new meaning for sedes sometime in the late 60s - early 70s while the pope, Paul VI who reigned from 1963-1978, was still alive.

Since then till today among sedes, it does not mean "the period between the death and election of the pope", it does not mean that anymore. Today it's definition is best described as simply: "the pope is not the pope therefore we have no pope until we say we have a pope", and this while popes have died and been elected and are still living.  

The "R&R" position is not a theory, it is describing Catholics practicing what the faith has taught always and everywhere since the creation of man, as Fr. Hesse puts it; "First we are under obedience to God, only then under obedience to man".  I like to say; "We remain the pope's good subjects, but God's first." This is traditional Catholic theology.

As such, what is true, is that "R&R" can be said to be a position contrary to today's common definition among sedes of "sede vacante", but the position itself is in total harmony with, therefore no way contrary to, traditional Catholic theology.