Even though I don't believe Francis is Pope, I believe you are correct on this point. The current Sanborn v. Dolan spat is a good example of this. Or even the ongoing dogmatic non una cuм fiasco.

That being said, if you think there is any more such unity being hitched to the Vatican, you are sorely mistaken. Otherwise there wouldn't be a Resistance to the SSPX. The sheer lack of unity on all traditionalist fronts is the biggest point in favor of there being no visible Head.

There's no such thing as real unity without the papacy acting as the glue.  This current situation highlights even more why Our Lord instituted the papacy.  This is what the Church would look like without the papacy.

Just project what we see in the Traditional movement over 2,000 years of Church history and imagine what, if anything, would be left of the Church after all that time.  We'd be like the Prots with 23,000+ different denominations ... and probably 4x that amount, since the Prots have only been at it for about 500 years.

But people like Stubborn think it's perfectly fine and normal for Catholics to remain severed from unity with the papacy ... and then has the termerity to complain about disunity.

There's no such thing as real unity without the papacy acting as the glue.  This current situation highlights even more why Our Lord instituted the papacy.  This is what the Church would look like without the papacy.

Just project what we see in the Traditional movement over 2,000 years of Church history and imagine what, if anything, would be left of the Church after all that time.  We'd be like the Prots with 23,000+ different denominations ... and probably 4x that amount, since the Prots have only been at it for about 500 years.

Or, at best, like the EO or Novus Ordo: a collective of national "churches" or synods with a variety of doctrines.

The fact that the point of unity among Catholic traditionalists resides on the last orthodox Pope, Pius XII, rather than John 23 or Paul 6 or John Paul 2, should tell us all we need to know about there being a visible Head.

It recognizes that there may not be a visible Head of the Church - hence, sede vacante. Otherwise there would, in fact, be an orthodox unity surrounding the Pope somewhere. There isn't. Not even the Novus Ordo has orthodox doctrine stemming from V2. Each diocese has its own set "orthodoxy".

Ok, you say it opines there may not be a pope, which also means the pope may well be pope. Not sure, but I don't think most sedes would agree, I think that most sedes are quite sure the pope is not the pope - at least sure enough to split and start their own communities.

But regardless, what is accomplished by the splitting away from established and growing trad groups in order to establish their own, separate chapels, seminaries and so on?

Is the sedeism idea more necessary than unity?

"In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed, that was fastened in the sure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord hath spoken it."
[Isaias 22:25]

Yes, and.....

"Woe to the pastors, that destroy and tear the sheep of my pasture, saith the Lord.[2] Therefore thus saith the Lord the God of Israel to the pastors that feed my people: You have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold I will visit upon you for the evil of your doings, saith the Lord." - Jeremias 23:1,2

I say it is a consequence of the lack of a point of unity, a visible Head. I'm not arguing for their decision to separate, I'm saying that it is the logical outcome of there no longer being a point of unity. Hence why I referred to Isaias 22:25. The whole fixture collapses once the center of unity is removed. Which is why we see not only degeneration of groups among "sedeists" but also among "R&R's" such as the SSPX vs SSPX Resistance, et al.

I'm not here trying to argue this like sedevacantism is an absolute truth (as it appears you think I'm doing), I'm showing you why the position even exists, or, any traditional group exists.

Understood, and it's why I referred to Jeremias - the Lord will take care of the destroyer pastors, i.e. the popes, and bishops and priests - we leave it up to Him since it's His domain and (thankfully) the whole thing is out of our hands.

And yes, we most certainly need a faithful and courageous pope and hierarchy - no question about that.

I am not really arguing with you, I would like Lad or another sede to answer the clear question with a clear answer is all.

....I just thought of what I am looking for - an clear answer, lol

Yeah, sorry, that's about as clear as I can make my own reasoning on the matter.

I agree with what you're saying, and I think everyone here agrees that the pope is a Modernist heretic and that between him and the heretical hierarchy they have caused disunity among the faithful. 

If there was no sedeism, there would be no splitting, no break ups into separate, often dissident groups. That's not to say that there could be other ideas straying from the faith to cause disunity among the faithful - who knows? But disunity is what sedeism has thus far proven itself to be very efficient at. 

The opinion that the Chair is vacant comes at the cost of disunity among the faithful, making the idea itself more necessary than unity of the faithful. Seems it should be obvious, but for some reason the sedes don't seem to see that this is what sedeism actually accomplishes, proving that disunity is a main reason of sedeism. 

You can't just blame that on sedeism when it's present among the non-sede traditionalist groups as well. The split caused by ecclesia Dei, the emergence of the Resistance under Bp. Williamson, are two major examples that have nothing to do with "sedeism" as you call it.

If sedeism didn't exist, the disunity would still exist without the presence of a functional Head.

Yes, as I said...."That's not to say that there could be other ideas straying from the faith to cause disunity among the faithful - who knows?"

I am not talking about ED or FSSP etc., a false sense of obedience is a main reason they are where they are. I am more talking about the +Sanborns/+Kellys/+Dolans and on and on from the original trad groups of the early 70s.

You can't just blame that on sedeism when it's present among the non-sede traditionalist groups as well. The split caused by ecclesia Dei, the emergence of the Resistance under Bp. Williamson, are two major examples that have nothing to do with "sedeism" as you call it.

If sedeism didn't exist, the disunity would still exist without the presence of a functional Head.

THIS ^^^