What have they got right? That we need to oppose the modern Popes and not follow/obey them. And 99.5% of the material we share in the "Traditional" package.

Arguing about Sedevacantism is a direct result of the BISHOPS/PRIESTS dividing us -- yes, just like (((them))), they keep us divided. And yes, that's doing the devil's work.

The fact is: sedevacantists and R&R are both TRADITIONAL CATHOLICS, part of the classic TRADITIONAL MOVEMENT which started spontaneously everywhere immediately after Vatican II, and will continue until the Crisis in the Church is over. Some might lose heart, some might betray, some might defect -- but for all we know the Traditional Movement might turn out to be WHERE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS, EXCLUSIVELY during these dark years.

No investigation, no argumentation, is going to come up with the silver bullet at this point. By silver bullet, I mean "The One Ring" or the evidence/argument which will convince 100% (not just 99%) of those *of good will* over to said position.

See, the problem is that many mistake their own judgment, their own opinion, for that silver bullet. They therefore conclude that anyone disagreeing with them is either malicious (of bad will) or literally stupid. That is NOT true, however.

MY opinion is that only God can sort out this mess. My reasoning is rock-solid: we've been trying to solve this Crisis with human means for 52 years and counting. It hasn't worked. We have tried. We have had holy men, brilliant men, prudent men -- nothing has worked. The mystery is too deep; it must be similar to a Supernatural Mystery, where God has to reveal it because we'd NEVER work it out by ourselves. Like the Holy Trinity for example.

Back in the early days of CathInfo, around 2007-2009, some R&R had a nice discussion with a sedevacantist. I think it was my wife and the sedevacantist was Gladius_Veritatis. We asked him, "Say we, who are R&R, decided today to adopt Sedevacantism. Of what practical benefit would that be to us? We're not Novus Ordo; we're already doing all the same things you Sedevacantists do." All he could say was, "Well, you'd have the *truth* and that's something..."

But my point: there is no practical benefit to Sedevacantism over the plain-vanilla "Traditional Catholic movement" package. By the Traditional Catholic movement, I mean the no-compromises movement that resists modernism but is pretty basic:

1. Leave the Conciliar Church behind, shake the dust off your feet, ignore the modern Churchmen who are 99.9% presumed Modernist or tainted Modernist at this point
2. Seek out priests/bishops who will offer the traditional Mass and sacraments, who are formed in a pre-Vatican II manner (Aquinas, etc.) and will preach the pre-Vatican II, true Catholic Faith -- also who are properly ordained/consecrated.
3. No scruples about "jurisdiction" for any of the sacraments, including marriage and confession. No need to ask permission from anyone, even the Pope, to stay Catholic and/or save our soul.
4. Believe in a "Crisis in the Church" which is about the FAITH, not just the Mass.

That's it. That is what God caused to arise on earth in all places after Vatican II. Everything additional is a NOVELTY, an ACCRETION, something EXTRA. That includes all theories about the Pope. Sedes used to sit side-by-side with non-Sedes in Traditional (independent) chapels, considering the Pope question to be part of their own personal opinion only. It wasn't their identity like it is today.

But it's not just Sedes that "added" to the Traditional Movement. Indulters twisted the movement into a "Latin Mass" movement, ignoring the fact that it's a Crisis of Faith, not just the Mass. And they added "you need to be on good terms with Rome, you need to have permission, jurisdiction, etc." to the list of beliefs. That is objectively a NOVELTY, because there was no question of permission from 1970-1984 or especially 1988! What did Trads do during that period? See what I mean? Whatever is true, had to have been available AT ALL TIMES after the Crisis began, until the present day. The truth is not going to contradict itself or radically change during that time period. Either supplied jurisdiction is legitimate during a great Crisis, or it's not. If it's not, then the Catholic Faith was completely snuffed out from 1970 - 1988. NOT POSSIBLE.

And the SSPX added something as well: worship of their organization. Bishop Williamson got it right, trying to keep the SSPX humble. He compared SSPX to a fat ugly kid in a tug-of-war, the "anchor man" who holds the line, but isn't popular or pretty. He also warned seminarians in 2001 that the ONLY STRENGTH of the SSPX consisted in their uncompromised defense of the Truth, and that they could fail someday. If and when the SSPX failed, God would be fine because He didn't need them: He could raise up children to Abraham "from the very stones". But most SSPX parishioners and priests are far too proud of their organization, even putting it FIRST above the good of souls. They think they OWN the souls. They think they ARE the Church. They think the souls in their care exist for the good of the SSPX, instead of the other way around. That has been their tendency, their weakness dating back to the 80's. But it's gotten very bad in recent years. Not everyone is fully guilty, but all too many have imbibed this error to a greater or lesser degree. When you hear SSPX priests or Faithful call the Resistance "disobedient", "illegitimate", "don't attend their Masses", that's my proof right there. Come on!

I'll pray for him that he can find a bishop to conditionally ordain him.  Father would make a top-quality priest.  Of course, he would likely be denied by neo-SSPX (given their current orientation) ... and his praise of Father Cekada would certainly do him in with neo-SSPX.

Father acknowledges that SVism is a theological opinion, right or wrong, and points out that even great saints have been confused and conflicted about the pope question (e.g. during the Great Western schism) and that it did not make them any less saints.

On the other hand, we had John Salza concluding that Joe Biden and Nancy Peℓσѕι are Catholics in good standing, while SVs are outside the Church, and more recently so are the SSPX.  

Conditional ordination would greatly advance unity with FSSP and Christ the King. 

A miracle maybe.

The neo SSPX parishioners believe there isn't a problem with validity.  And so they have lost the "unity with Rome" argument.

They risk becoming the High church of the NWO if they refuse to return to a more cautious stance.

In some cases, yes, but I don't see how you can have an orthodox view of the papacy, infallibility, indefectibility, obedience, private judgment, unity of the Church etc. if you accept apostates as popes.

I have a whole list of magisterial quotes that are irreconcilable with the resistance view and that is excluding the question of a heretical pope, just plain teaching on the papacy (see attachment, the list is not nearly exhaustive, of course).

So I would say that while it is possible to be R&R and subjectively orthodox, by virtue of holding contradictory views and not realizing it, it is in itself inconsistent with orthodoxy and considered objectively is heretical or schismatic.

I may be wrong, goes without saying, but there it is.

In some cases, yes, but I don't see how you can have an orthodox view of the papacy, infallibility, indefectibility, obedience, private judgment, unity of the Church etc. if you accept that the visible Catholic Church authority structure could completely disappear and/or have no Popes for 64 years (and counting).

I have a whole list of magisterial and Scriptural quotes, including from Our Lord, that are irreconcilable with the Sedevacantist view.

So I would say that while it is possible to be Sedevacantist and subjectively orthodox, by virtue of holding contradictory views and not realizing it, it is in itself inconsistent with orthodoxy and considered objectively is heretical or schismatic.

I may be wrong, goes without saying, but there it is.

Anyone who thinks the Crisis has been completely or adequately explained, much less solved, by their limited and flawed "side" or solution clearly doesn't understand the gravity or depths of the Crisis in the Church.

If Roland Emmerich made a disaster movie about the Church, he couldn't destroy or cause confusion within the Church like we actually have today with the Crisis in the Church. You know what they say about R.E. -- that he has a vendetta against the earth. He can't destroy enough stuff in his movies. Watch "The Day after Tomorrow" or "2012". Now apply that kind of chaos and destruction to the Church -- and consider that the Crisis in the Church is actually much worse.

I'm dead serious. If you could SEE spiritual destruction, if errors were collapsing skyscrapers, if souls losing the Faith were people dying, if heresies were cities sliding into the ocean or erupting volcanoes, then Vatican II would be worse than any Roland Emmerich disaster movie. We are NOT in normal times. The Crisis in the Church is offered as an excuse for a lot of things these days, but FOR GOOD REASON.

In the "universe" portrayed by the Emmerich films, don't you suppose "Crisis in the Climate" was brought up as an excuse literally millions of times worldwide for why people couldn't come to work, pay their bills, fulfill various agreements and obligations, etc.? Of course it would be. They can't show all these interactions of the common man on-screen or the movie would be 150 hours long. But you can imagine the hundreds of millions of times the Crisis in the Climate would be used, sometimes without words, to justify all kinds of non-standard behavior and consequences. AND EACH AND EVERY TIME, THAT EXCUSE WOULD BE WELL JUSTIFIED.

But worst of all is the CONFUSION element -- it's not just destruction that happened at Vatican II. You heard of the confusing movie "Inception"? That movie where you had dreams within dreams within dreams? Imagine that kind of confusion thrown in for good measure.

When I hear someone complaining about this or that position on the Pope being schismatic or heretical 

1. I realize that they mean "during normal times" (though they don't always verbalize that -- I know that's what they are thinking)
2. If they don't outright deny the Crisis, then they at least vastly scale it down: from a Tyrannosaurus Rex down to a Chihuahua.
3. They are objectively as foolish as a man in the movie "2012" calling an employee in L.A. and complaining that they didn't show up for work -- despite the fact that L.A. just had a 10.5 earthquake and parts of the city slid into the ocean earlier today.

I checked the attachment and read it until I found the first error, which is to say I stopped right after the beginning where it states: "...Our first salvation is to guard the rule of right faith..." which literally, makes no sense compared to: "The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith..."

I went on a little further and saw more inconsistencies and where it leads, so I stopped.

I am totally onboard with Matthew's; "there is no practical benefit to Sedevacantism over the plain-vanilla "Traditional Catholic movement" package..."    

That's a direct quote from Vatican I

What are you now finding errors in Vatican I?

Potato-potato if you find the translation imperfect.