NB:
It has been 16 months since this article was originally published on SP.
Reconsider this excerpt, and think about the case of Fr. Ringrose as you do:
Those few Resistance priests who, on the one hand deny being sedevacantists, and on the other reject Francis’ authority and jurisdiction, and refuse to mention his name in the Canon, are incoherent to say the least. One must look upon their position with a certain degree of suspicion. They are sedevacantists in fact, if not by intention, and seem to be in transit to a conscious recognition of that position (even if they deny it today).
As a friend wrote to me:
The ‘non una cuм’ position “resembles a kind of hideous misery of dogmatic sedevacantism, which makes it possible to present a less frightening face to souls disturbed by the current crisis of the church but which, in the end, draws them to the terrain of hard sedevacantism.”
I quite agree