CathInfo.com

- It may be held that since the Vatican II popes possess a legal and valid election, they have a certain legal status as popes.
- It may be held that this legal status is sufficient to maintain the succession to Peter and the perpetuity of the hierarchy.

When +ABL was alive, the sspx agreed with the above.  The ‘recognition’ of the popes was limited as he didn’t think that spiritually they were legitimate.  

Since +Fellay has took the reigns, the sspx’s definition of ‘recognize’ has become ridiculous and hypocritical.  

Very important distinction.

Nobody ever seems to explain to me how proper authority in the Catholic Church continues according to the strict sedevacantist position. I never get a clear answer.

Oh, they wimp out by saying, "God will work a miracle" or "St. Peter will come down and personally pick the next Pope", which amounts to the same thing.

That seems like a cop-out to me, because when you have recourse to, "Well, there could be a miracle!" it means you're out of ideas! You don't see any possibility in the human realm.

See, there's nothing wrong with NOT attempting to explain away the mystery of this Crisis in the Church. Even if we did try to reason about it, we might easily be wrong. Our reason is not infallible. But the Sedevacantists have clearly applied their reason, and have attempted to solve the Crisis mystery completely (with a neat little bow, I might add). But their solution (from human reason) falls short PRECISELY because they can't explain how Authority will come back.

I don't know how this is all going to be resolved either, which is why my realistic and honest position is: "I don't know, and I can't know. I'm just going to keep the Faith and save my soul."

Because the status of the Pope is not a T in the road (do I go left? Or right? I have to choose one of them, and they each involved a hard turn one way or the other!), I go with the DEFAULT (as in, computer software) POSITION. That is to say, we assume he's the Pope until a council declares otherwise.

The Pope question is like a straight road saying "He is the pope" and sedevacantism is a sharp right turn off that road. It's making a decision. If you make no decision, you keep going forward, holding to the default position that he's the pope.

It follows from this, that Catholics won't ever be judged by God for holding to that default position. Now the same can't be said for those who rashly took the reins, and diverted the carriage on a sharp 90 degree turn. Maybe they shouldn't have done this, maybe they should. But how can you blame someone who just rides in the carriage, letting the horses move you along? Unless you know exactly what needs to be done, and where you need to go instead, then why take the reins?

Such taking of the reins is a moral action. Is not doing anything also considered a moral action? If so, then we're screwed, because we really don't know what to do, and if we're going to be judged for "doing something" either way, even if that "something" is doing nothing, then how fair is that?

Traditional Catholics have traditionally remained aloof and basically ignored "the man in a white cassock who lives in Vatican City".

Whether he is the pope, only legally the pope, or not pope at all doesn't really matter to us. In my opinion, that knowledge is AT LEAST morally impossible for 99.99% of men who weren't present at this or that secret meeting or election. For the average American or European living in 2018, no amount of study or thought is going to bring you to 100% certainty on the status of Pope Francis (and/or Pope Benedict).

But when I consider that the whole Crisis in the Church touches on God's secret plans and providence, which NO MAN IS PRIVY TO, nor has God shared his plans with anyone, it's even more impossible to know with certainty. I can't say "metaphysically impossible" because that would be like a plant having the use of reason. But it's morally impossible for 100% of men, not just the 99.99% who weren't intimately involved in papal elections, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, etc.

Oh I've heard some good arguments in my time. From R&R, from conservative Novus Ordo, from sedevacantists, and from sedeprivationists. As you listen to any of their arguments, they sound quite convincing. Just one problem -- those arguments can't all be right!

They all sound convincing because they each focus on ONE ELEMENT of the mystery of the Crisis in the Church. If you focus on this element, you lean R&R. If you focus on this element, you lean sedevacantist. And so on. The problem is, NONE OF THESE POSITIONS ADEQUATELY ADDRESS ALL THE ISSUES AND OBJECTIONS INVOLVED. Hence my firm belief that we're dealing with a mystery.

But what we do know with certainty: We have to save our souls, and keep the Catholic Faith, and the man in white isn't promoting or protecting that Faith. On the contrary, he is doing everything he can to destroy it.

So we can pray for him, even in the Canon of the Mass (especially since he might be pope or legally pope -- who knows?) but that's about it.

We don't have to follow a material heretic, nor should we negotiate with him for "legitimacy", jurisdiction, approval, etc.

The above is good Catholic common sense.