Well said, Bowler. There is definitely room for polite debate on the issue. But, like a few other unsettled theological issues open to multiple viewpoints, in actuality the "polite" in polite debate never actually happens because of, as you wisely pointed out, vitriol on both sides.
Seraphim, you know I respect you, but I believe we could all do without the sarcastic tone. I would imagine this isn't really how Our Lord wants spiritual brothers to act. I wish you had said something more like:
"Grant, I have to disagree with you on this. It seems to me that saying there are multiple acceptable viewpoints on the issue of sedevacante/non-sedevacante is equal to saying that Catholics can believe whatever they want, which is kind of the essence of Modernism."
to which I would say:
"My dear Seraphim. God Bless you! Actually, my post had nothing to do with my own opinion about the issue. I was simply stating docuмented facts about what Archbishop Lefebvre held and what Bishop Williamson holds about the sedevacante position. If you think that their position is guilty of subjectivism, then so be it. But I would personally never accuse Archbishop Lefebvre or Bishop Williamson of that. It is certainly true that pluralism on issues of established Catholic teaching, whether through a simple statement from the Vatican approved by the Pope (such as Pope Pius XI's Modesty Standards), an established continuity of belief or practice held throughout the Church or, of course, formal declarations by the Pope himself, is not permitted. But, that doesn't apply here to Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Williamson not condemning the sedevacante position despite NOT personally holding it. Because, though there surely are VERY FEW conceivable theological issues that have not been clarified and so, therefore, are open to differing views by Catholics, this issue happens to be one of the few. Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Williamson simply was/is consistent with the accurately Catholic position, namely, to not hold as infallible a theological position the Church has not clearly taught on. It is a fact that there has never been any clear guidance from Holy Mother Church as to how laypeople are supposed to deal with a situation when the visible/recognized popes state heresy and have a general council that espouses heresy, and different Saints have taught different theoretical consequences of such a theoretical situation, so, according to Catholic theology on the definition of Church doctrine, it would seem that no Catholic of any viewpoint on this particular issue has the authority to maintain any position on the issue as absolute and condemn as heretical/schismatic anyone of the opposing viewpoint."
and then you can politely respond and I can politely respond and we can either eventually politely agree to disagree or come to a polite accord. Now, isn't that much more in keeping with Catholic fraternity than the sarcasm and bitterness that has directed the debates on the topic thus far?