The matter in question is not about sedevacantism in itself, but, rather, how certain pundits interpret and publicize it as contrasted by their practice in their day-to-day life.
What Ambrose has written is dramatically illustrated in the manner in which certain sedevacantist polemicists have treated the question of the reforms promulgated by Pope Pius XII in such wise so as to cast doubt upon and defame the authority of the Supreme Pontiff in matters of ecclesiastical discipline and to negotiate away their
sensus Catholicus regarding this matter for an ecclesial Stockholm Syndrome wherein they blindly follow the acephalous clerics who share their opinions and theories simply because they audaciously claim, "It is either
our clergy or the N. O."
This is that whereupon SJB is writing.
Those Catholics who regard Bergoglio as a true Successor of St. Peter are therefore not free to dismiss the content of his interviews and public letters as so much white noise. Rather, they must regard it as authentic teaching and consider themselves “bound to give it assent of the intellect.”
Alright, let's get
logical:
Those Catholics who regard Pope Pius XII as having been a true Successor of St. Peter are therefore not free to dismiss the content of the General Decrees of the Congregation of Sacred Rites
De rubricis ad simpliciorem formam redigendis (23 March 1955;
A. A. S., vol. xlvii., pp. 218 sqq.) and
Liturgicus Hebdomadae Sanctae Ordo instauratur (16 November 1955;
A. A. S., vol. xlvii, pp. 838 sqq) as so much white noise [to be the background of cult propaganda designed to draw confused Catholics' hearts and wallets/purses to their Mass-centres and the place at Florida].
Rather, they must regard it as authentic teaching and consider themselves “bound to give it assent of the intellect" lest they incur the penalties and censures of the Sacred Canons, such as Canon 1399, no. 6, Canon 2334, as well as the Decree issued on 29 June 1950 by the Sacred Congregation of the Council (
A.A.S., vol. xlii., pp. 601 seq.); which would condemn such clerics as Fr. Cekada, Bp. Dolan, Bp. Sanborn, &c. for undermining the ecclesiastical discipline of the Church in their defiance and vilification against the reforms of Pope Pius XII, attacking the person of the Supreme Pontiff in writing, and inciting the laity to defy and vilify the authority of the Church. Probably, their writings and missives would be censured by the Holy Office and placed in the Index of Forbidden Books for these reasons alone.
----
Let's try to be consistent: one cannot condemn the "recognize and resist" position, and yet defend the opinions of Missal-sifting clerics such as Fr. Cekada who not scruple in availing themselves of theological error, shoddy scholarship and novelty to justify aberrant liturgical praxes, as well as violating the Sacred Canons in encouraging disobedience to the Holy See in his rank vilification of the reforms of Pope Pius XII and the Congregation of Sacred Rites, discarding the Leonine Prayers after Low Masses, &c.
Were one to think that these rubric-sifters represent the sedevacantist stance, then one would have to conclude that there is no unicity of ecclesiastical discipline in the sedevacantist movement, and this just leads to more grave questions regarding Apostolicity and how this indispensable note of the Church can be reconciled with the phenomenon of acephalous clerics, the factual lack of habitual and delegated jurisdiction, the present identity and locality of the
Ecclesia docens, etc.
The problem with the sedevacantism,
as interpreted and set forth by the Missal/rubric-sifting sedevacantists, is that in some places it has practically ceased to be an endeavor to preserve the profession and practice of the Catholic faith, as it has become a cult of personality: an autolatrous implementation of cult propaganda; ignoring, defying and even vilifying the decrees duly promulgated by the Apostolic See.
Yes, "cult propaganda," because
either you obey Holy Mother Church or are part of a cult, just like a soul cannot be simultaneously in the state of sanctifying grace and in the state of mortal sin: for the question is whether or not the clerics who seem to be doing as they please are striving to preserve the Church of Christ, or are they endeavoring to propagate their own ideas. None of the present day clerics in the sedevacantist movement can say that they form part of the
Ecclesia docens, so what is to guide the clerics themselves in their ministerial endeavors if not filial and reverent obedience to the decrees of the Roman Congregations, duly promulgated by authority of the Supreme Pontiff?
In order for the practice and profession of any given Catholic to be
Catholic, obedience and docility to the Apostolic See is indispensable. Otherwise, what would differentiate the Catholic traditionalists' resistance against modernism from such schismatic movements as the Oxfordists or Anglo-Catholics, who with their Sarum Missals and ornate vestments have all the trappings of Catholic liturgical praxis but not the
sensus Catholicus that is necessarily and inexorably concomitant with such praxis?
Finally, there following should be considered:
We really need to get the word out that non-Guerardian sedevacantism is not to be identified with Cekadaism.