Then, you should be a traditional Catholic in Communion with Rome, Ladislaus, which is the correct traditional Catholic position. Fr. Michael Mary explains it below. If you agree with Father, the easiest and simplest way would be to go to an SSPX, FSSP or ICK Priest, confess the sin and schism of schismatic sedevacantism, and resolve never to participate in it again. I know what you'll say, the SSPX are not in full peace with the Apostolic See either, but the Pope disagrees, because (1) only Priests in peace and communion with the Holy See can be granted the power to forgive sins (2) only Bishops in peace and communion with the Holy See can likewise be granted the mandate to consecrate Bishops. And (3) since Bishop Fellay has made clear H.E. and Society Bishops have ordinary jurisdiction since the Year of Mercy, that is another clear evidence that the Society is in full communion. At any rate, after Divine Mercy Sunday this year, it will become indisputable.

One could even confess to Society Priests and resolve never to support SVism again, just as with any other sin. 60 year SVism is a very serious and grave mortal sin against the Faith, because it denies many dogmas, and dogmatic facts. http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/sedevacantists-reject-pre-vatican-ii.html

"Rejection of a Dogmatic Fact is a Mortal Sin Against Faith

     In his 1951 book On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them, Fr. Sixtus Cartechini, S.J., explains that the rejection of a dogmatic fact is a “mortal sin against faith”[13] (and the example he uses of a dogmatic fact is the legitimacy of a determine Pope). Hence, Sedevacantists - who publicly reject the Church’s judgment concerning the legitimacy of a determine Pope, in favor of their own personal opinion – have committed an objective mortal sin against the Faith. And, needless to say, those who follow the private opinions of these Sedevacantist apologists commit the same mortal sin (at least in the objective order). We can only hope that these individuals renounce their grievous error before they arrive at their Particular Judgment."

"Looking to the future, the next stage will be to have our community canonically erected." http://andrew4jc.blogspot.com/2008/07/te-deum-laudamus.html

You can either choose to do or not to do, it's up to you. But if you do, you will know that is God's Will for you and for us all and there will be the Peace the world cannot give, which Jesus promised to give us, as long as we remain in His Church, fighting the good fight for the Faith, cuм Petro et sub Petro.

If you hold that the "Conciliar" Catholic hierarchy is wholly legitimate, then you must believe that Archbishop Lefebvre's excommunication was valid and that he was probably damned to Hell. You must also accept that the SSPX almost entirely severed itself from the Church and disobeyed its hierarchy and the Pope in breach of Canon Law and under pain of excommunication for many, many years. 

I'm sick and tired of this halfway house business where you types call the Pope a heretic one second and his Mass a call to impiety(which renders one anathema automatically), and then a second later turn around and call the Pope legitimate and sedes schismatics. You can't have it both ways. 

Why don't you actually address the well-docuмented point made by John Salza and Robert Siscoe? I addressed your misrepresentation elsewhere. You can start with these two questions:

(1) do you deny it is a mortal sin against Faith to deny a dogmatic fact?
(2) do you deny legitimacy of a Pope or Council is a dogmatic fact?

If you deny (1) or (2), you will end up justifying even the Old Catholics who rejected Papal Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception etc.

We'll go from there based on your reply. Please read the link: "And to show where this dangerous, Protestant mentality eventually leads, the Sedevacantist author, Richard Ibranyi, now claims that every single Pope for the past nine centuries has been an antipope.  You read that correctly. He claims that every Pope since the year 1130 – over one hundred Popes in a row – have been false usurpers of the Papal Throne. And he bases his position (which he considers to be a “fact”) on what he describes as “conclusive evidence.” In his own words:

     “As of January 2014, I have discovered conclusive evidence that all the so-called popes and cardinals from Innocent II (1130-1143) onward have been idolaters or formal heretics and thus were apostate antipopes and apostate anticardinals.”[9]

    And it is not just the last 100+ Popes that are subject to Mr. Ibranyi’s private judgment.  He also declares that all – yes “all” - of the theologians and canon lawyers for the past seven and a half centuries have been apostates! In Ibranyi’s own words:

     “Also all of the theologians and canon lawyers from 1250 onward have been apostates. Hence all their teachings, laws, judgments, and other acts are null and void. Therefore, all of the ecuмenical councils, canon laws, and other acts from Apostate Antipope Innocent II onward are null and void.”[10]"

Edit "This, dear reader, is the fruit of the Sedevacantist mindset. Whether it is Fr. Anthony Cekada

rejecting the last six consecutive Popes after Pius XII, Speray adding several pre-Vatican II Popes to the list, “Our Lady’s Resistance” rejecting all the Popes after Pius X, or Ibranyi declaring that all the Popes for the past nine centuries have been antipopes, it only shows why the legitimacy of a determined Pope is not a personal opinion to be decided by each Catholic for themselves. These rotten fruits alone demonstrate the complete absurdity of the Sedevacantist thesis."

I don't deny either of those things.
Do YOU deny it's a mortal sin to:
(1) say the canons of the masses of the Church contain errors?
(2) reject much of the Magisterium and declare it in error?
(3) ignore and openly defy the authority of the legitimate Catholic hierarchy and Pope?
(4) knowingly go to masses of a society with no canonical status with priests lacking any legitimate ministry within the Church? (Pope Benedict XVI 2009 - "Until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers — even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty — do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."
(5) reject councils of the Church (Vatican 2)?
(6) refer to Catholicism after one of its valid councils as a "false religion"?


If you deny these points, you will end up justifying even the Old Catholics. 

Crickets in this thread. Xavier's position is basically that the Pope and the Conciliar Church, and the Vatican 2 Council, are completely legitimate and are the real Catholic Church - but that he can also choose to ignore its Magisterium and the orders of its rightful hierarchy, including going to Masses of Priests barred from holding Mass(a pretty serious offense), in a state of effective schism. I don't understand how he can't see the problem there. 

It's different from +ABL and the standard R&R opinion in that, unlike Xavier, their opinions and actions come from a natural uncertainty in the face of the Crisis. In the face of a Council that opened the gates to heresy in the Church, naturally there will be questions over whether or not the new rite promulgated and the Popes who promulgated it are actually legitimate. The SSPX and R&R position is effectively a lifeboat position of safety, that while it's too dangerous to reject the Pope based off speculation, there is good reason to be doubtful of the new rite and so the old one should be used to ensure a proper rite is used. It's effectively trying to guarantee you go to a valid mass without completely severing yourself from the Conciliar Church, in case it is legitimate.

That's different from effectively saying: "The Popes who promulgated the Novus Ordo were definitely valid, Novus Ordo and Vatican 2 were definitely valid, but in spite of being completely valid the new rite is somehow less holy and grants less graces(a borderline heretical opinion to hold about a mass you consider valid), so I'm going to go to unapproved masses said by priests without ministry under Bishops who have been excommunicated."