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

Would you attend a non una cuм mass if it were the only mass available to you?  Or would you stay home?

There was, at a moment prior to the Western Schism, one papal claimant recognized by all as the true pope. Just because later there were three, does not change it on the grounds Sean posits.
The application of the GWS was to show that there were canonized saints who attended Masses where the wrong pope or no pope was mentioned in the canon. If one were to side with St. Robert Bellarmine in believing that a manifest, formal heretic loses office, they would still be Catholic. They might even be right. But a dogmatic sedeplenist would rather follow a Buddhist pope than admit that an opposing view could be right.
The official position of the SSPX had always been that a formal heretic loses office of the papacy. Indeed, even Bishop Fellay has admitted that it may be possible to say one day that Bergoglio never was pope.
If one were to compile a list of all the people who have doubted the post-conciliar popes on up to Bergoglio, it would be nearly every single Traditionalist priest and bishop (Fr. Gruner, Fr. Kramer, Bishop Williamson, Bishop Fellay, Canonist Fr. Hesse et. al.) on one side and Sean Johnson, Fr. Pfeiffer and the Fraternity of St. Peter on the other.

You avoided answering my question.  Would you attend a non una cuм mass if there was no other option?  Would you attend an Orthodox liturgy (since they do have valid priests) if there was no other option?

There are currently 1.3 BILLION Catholics in the Church.

I'm guessing there are approximately 40,000 sedevacantists on the planet +/- (and that might be a generous number).

That's 32,500 Catholics who accept Francis as Pope for every sedevacantist who denies it.

That comes to 0.0000307%

Pretend that's 32,500 grains of sugar vs 1 grain of sugar.

That would barely register as a trace, or perhaps not at all.

No, there is pretty much unanimity.

Funny, I always thought the definition of unanimity meant agreement among all the people of a group....as in 100%.

Anything, but sedevacantism! :jumping2: