I've pointed out on several of the SV vs. R&R threads that both sides have some valid points, but both sides have significant flaws.  That's why neither of these sides can WIN out.  That's why I do not consider myself either one of these, but rather what I call "sede-doubtist" and "anti-defectionist".  SVs can point out the very real problems with R&R and thus remain convinced of their position; and vice versa.  Meanwhile, each side remains attached to the valid points of their position.  At the end of the day, however, and this is painfully obvious on this forum, very few people are willing to honestly examine the evidence and the arguments with an open mind and have emotional attachments to their positions.

That's why, Matthew, it was refreshing to see you change your opinion on the geocentrist issue, not because I happen to be a geocentrist myself, but because upon examining the evidence you were willing to go where the truth led you.  That's a rare thing to see.

There will never be an actual solution to the crisis because as st. Paus states, heresies must exist. God allows it. The current heresy the Church is fighting is Modernism, starting about 200 hundred years ago but Modernism will be surely defeated, just as Arianism was defeated. Our Lord permits heresy in the Church, that those who are aproved may merit by combating it.

Truth is an epic confrontation between Good and Evil, between Darkness and the Light.  The Church has power on Her Own, which the parasites that infests Her will never be able to completely extinguish. Here, is the Church in all her splendor, laboring, (such as she did under the arians) but far from dead. In the very struggle between Herself and all the heretics that opress Her, she moves, breaths and has Her life.
 

I've pointed out on several of the SV vs. R&R threads that both sides have some valid points, but both sides have significant flaws.  That's why neither of these sides can WIN out.  That's why I do not consider myself either one of these, but rather what I call "sede-doubtist" and "anti-defectionist".  SVs can point out the very real problems with R&R and thus remain convinced of their position; and vice versa.  Meanwhile, each side remains attached to the valid points of their position.  At the end of the day, however, and this is painfully obvious on this forum, very few people are willing to honestly examine the evidence and the arguments with an open mind and have emotional attachments to their positions.

That's why, Matthew, it was refreshing to see you change your opinion on the geocentrist issue, not because I happen to be a geocentrist myself, but because upon examining the evidence you were willing to go where the truth led you.  That's a rare thing to see.

Yes - and you and I both know this post to be true better than most posters here can either dream or imagine. Intellectual honesty has always been your strong point !

Who was it who once said that a great many people think they are thinking when they are in point of fact only rearranging their own prejudices.

I guess my opinion on this doesn't amount to a hill of beans but here goes anyway.  The driving factor behind one's position with respect to R&R vs. SV is the position of your primary priest.  More or less.  Of course, the fact that you are a traditional Catholic is a pure grace.  And generally, I find that almost all traditionalists are primarily concerned about worshipping God in a manner that will be pleasing to Him.  The theology behind it all is secondary for most of us.  Raise your hand if you diligently worked out the theology first and then sought out a priest or a chapel which conformed to your position.  I doubt we will see many hands although I'm sure there are a few whose study did influence their choice of chapel.

I was baptized Catholic as an infant prior to the promulgation of any of the docuмents of V2 but I was raised and "catechised" in the post-Conciliar era.  Like the vast majority of my peers I fell away from the Church.  But by the grace of God I was inspired by the funeral of my best friend's father to start going back to Church (Conciliar).  By the grace of God, I decided to put my heart into it.  I was fortunate to find others who were also putting their heart into it but it was a mixed bag.  First I fell in with some charismatic renewal types.  They were sincere and they were devoted to JP2 and obedient to the Conciliar authorities but I was never comfortable around that type of thing.  I gravitated to more conservative groups.  I ended up going to a Conciliar seminary.  It was conservative and obedient to JP2 but nevertheless I was there when the sex-abuse crisis came to light in the early 2000s.  I was disillusioned by that and I was starting to have my doubts.  I never saw any kind of overt ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity in the seminary but there sure were a lot of very effeminate men there.  By the grace of God I was fortunate to have had a strong desire to learn from the saints so I read a lot of books on the lives of the saints (God bless Thomas Nelson and his TAN books company!).  I became frustrated that the seminary seemed to be blocking me from imitating the saints.  So I left.  The first thing I did was go to a traditional Latin Mass (ecclesia dei indult Mass).  Within 10 minutes I knew I was home.  By the grace of God, someone was leaving old Remnants and Catholic Family News issues in the back of the Church and the pastor of the Church was a laissez faire kind of guy so I started sponging up all the information contained therein and it started to dawn on me that the reason the Church was so screwed up was V2.  Then Cardinal O'Malley closed my indult Church (he didn't care that from a tiny little parish of no more than 300 people came more vocations than any other parish in the entire archdiocese -- those vocations didn't count because they were traditional vocations).  That made me very angry and I started looking around for somewhere else to go.  Around the same time the SSPX committed to a greater presence in Boston.  I started going to Mass there.  It was great.  I started to learn about the problems with the validity of Conciliar sacraments.  I was conditionally confirmed by Bishop Tissier.  I made retreats in Ridgefield.  It was great!  My faith was getting stronger.  And then in 2012 Bishop Fellay decided to do the unthinkable and make a deal with neo-modernist Rome.  I was alarmed.  I started following what Bishop Williamson was saying as well as going to Masses of Fr. Pfeiffer and Fr. Hewko and Fr. Chazal.  I split my time between the Resistance and my local SSPX chapel.  The Resistance was only having 1 Mass/month so the other weeks I continued to go to the SSPX chapel.  I was hopeful that the SSPX would stop the nonsense.  But then Benedict resigned and Francis rose to power.  I immediately knew this guy was a bitter enemy of tradition.  Ever since I started going to the SSPX chapel I thought there was a good possibility that a future pope might declare the Conciliar popes to be antipopes but I never seriously looked into the SV thesis.  But when Francis said "there is no Catholic God" I was beside myself.  I couldn't believe that this man could be the ultimate authority of the Catholic Church.  I started seriously looking into the SV thesis and I was very surprised to find that it was rock solid.  I knew that SV was considered a super-heresy in the SSPX.  Any time Bishop Fellay wanted to cow someone into line he would accuse them of an SV-mindset.  But I thought maybe SV would be tolerated in the Resistance.  Alas, those hopes were dashed late in 2013 by some statements from the Resistance priests.  So I started going to the local CMRI chapel and a Church in Lawrence, MA (Sacred Heart) associated with Bishop McKenna and Bishop Morello.  I am happy to be freed from the threat of being absorbed into the Conciliar Church.  I can rest assured that the sacraments are valid.  I am also very pleased that I have found the CMRI because almost from the very beginning of my return to the Catholic faith I had a strong devotion to Our Lady.  I wear the brown scapular and pray the Rosary daily.  I'm hopeful that Our Lady will obtain a final victory for me.

The way I see it, the R&R position is becoming instinct.  The vast majority of R&R is going towards the FSSP position with Bishop Fellay leading the way.  Many of the remaining R&R folks are at the very least sympathetic to the SV position.  Many of them at the very least think that a future pope could declare the Conciliar popes to be antipopes.  As the Conciliar popes become less and less Catholic (I foresee women deaconesses on the horizon), more and more of the remaining R&R folks will lose confidence in the R&R position and join the SV camp.  I think Pete Vere is right about that.  I think a big factor pushing people to the SV position is the doubts about the validity of the Conciliar sacraments.  Once you admit that the Conciliar episcopal consecration is very doubtful it is hard to justify R&R.  Who are you recognizing?  Laymen pretending to be priests and bishops?

From the Gospel of Matthew; (Matt: 16:17-19)

17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

and again; (Matt 28: 18-20)

18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

I don't know about anybody else but the Catholic church is't going anywhere until the end of time.
   

I have my views, but as far as certain topics are concerned, I am fairly open minded.

We should all be careful about being "open minded".  I have an oral catechism recorded by Father Fulton Sheen in which he notes that the liberals are so open minded their brains fall right out on the floor.

We should be open to reasoned arguments, but close minded about attacks against the faith.

Have SVs correctly understood the meaning of "that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy"?

Have R&Rs correctly understood the meaning of "that this see of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error"?

Yes, it seems we do have a stalemate.