CathInfo.com

"Well?"  So deliciously pompous!  

Just letting you know that that is a totally homo expression. Get rid of it out of your mind as fast as you can. If my son said it, I'd tell him the same thing the first time I heard it.

Interesting that you have it completely backwards.  Sedevacantism actually does provide "an explanation for the crisis that [doesn't] require more that a passing knowledge of Catholic theology."  
.
It is all the of the theories which posit the Catholic Church in a group of manifest heretics with its head being so obviously a heretic that requires theological machinations that make your head spin.

To hope to understand the Church's present state from any camp requires intellectuality. One of the marks of the Church is visibility. This is a big reason why most people, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, still view the conciliar church as being the same religion which produced St. Thomas Aquinas. However, if the conciliar church were to carry out posthumous excommunications of all the canonized who exhibited (put the following in quotes) racist, sexist, homophobic, and anti-semitic views such an action would expose the conciliar church as the counterfeit it is, because all the canonized would have to be excommunicated. The conciliar church is a Noahide sect.

I've taken sedevacantism seriously from the moment I became acquainted with it. Still, you'd think the true remnant would be more impressive. I don't know that the best ambassadors for the sedevacantist position are sedevacantists. I'm familiar with many of the people on Te Deum and they're a shifty lot. Some outright Judaizers among them. Not necessarily worse than any other faction though.

I'm reminded of Graham's observation on page 3 of this thread:

Sedevacantists can be enigmatic. Many of the most intelligent online contributors are sedevacantist. But then their cultural and political style is foreign to me, sometimes seeming quite lax and naive. That can be found among all the traditionalist groups and maybe it strikes me because I just don't expect it from the most hard-line on the pope question.

I've taken sedevacantism seriously from the moment I became acquainted with it. Still, you'd think the true remnant would be more impressive. I don't know that the best ambassadors for the sedevacantist position are sedevacantists. I'm familiar with many of the people on Te Deum and they're a shifty lot. Some outright Judaizers among them. Not necessarily worse than any other faction though.

I'm reminded of Graham's observation on page 3 of this thread:

Quote

Sedevacantists can be enigmatic. Many of the most intelligent online contributors are sedevacantist. But then their cultural and political style is foreign to me, sometimes seeming quite lax and naive. That can be found among all the traditionalist groups and maybe it strikes me because I just don't expect it from the most hard-line on the pope question.

I am a "sedevacantist" myself and I, quite frankly, share the observation of Graham as regards the startling cultural and political positions taken by many sedevacantists. It would seem that "getting it" on the issue of the status of the See of Peter does not necessarily equal "getting it" on cultural and political issues.
I started my "journey" into traditionalism via the SSPX and therefore was exposed at an early stage to Bp. Williamson, Tradition in Action, and others, who helped me very much with the cultural, political, and historical issues. The fact that many sedevacantists don't have the equivalent of these personalities is a factor I believe since many people raised inside sedevacantist circles seem to never read what is written by R&R folk. The reason sedevacantists don't have their "own" personalities like those listed above may well be due to the fact that there are far fewer of us. There also seem to be a lot fewer Europeans among sedevacantist circles than among R&R. 
All that said, I don't find a huge difference between the average sedevacantist and average "recognize and resister". The reason I had more people with whom I had common ground on cultural and historical/political issues when I was with the SSPX was more a factor of numbers. There were just so many more people to "choose from" that it was easier to find like-minded individuals. Also, based on my own studies of history, it seems that the vast majority of people in Christian times could also be said to have been less impressive than one would expect given that they got to live in Christendom rather than the ruins we inhabit. It's just human nature in my view.
Alas, sedevacantism does not provide people with an immunity to the wiles and influences of the world. These things but be struggled against no matter what, and one must always study. We have no pope and secular society is in an even worse shambles. I frankly find it more astonishing that there are ANY Catholics left than that those who exist are not more impressive.