I've been watching the latest dog-pile on those few souls fighting sedevacantism over at Cathinfo. Watching the sede supporters devolve into a pack of hysterical shavelings has been a display of comedy and amusement for everyone outside of the arena.
Amidst the din and tumult, I found this enjoyable summary by Ladislaus:
I believe that there is sufficiently probable, nay, rather, grave, positive doubt regarding the legitimacy of the Vatican II popes ... for all the reasons that the SVs raise, but that individual Catholics cannot and never have the right to decide this matter definitely on their own, that only the Church can do this. Consequently, we can never go beyond the point where we have doubt. We cannot have the requisite certainty of ecclesiastical faith that would be required to decide the matter. We cannot go beyond that. Nor is it necessary for us to solve this problem for the salvation of our souls. We avoid schism simply by positing that there's sufficiently probable positive doubt regarding the election or power or person of these individuals.
I cannot be R&R because R&R does grave violence to Traditional Catholic theology regarding the necessity to submit to the Magisterium. That's something that the R&R folks haven't touched. If I were to accept Nishant's "peaceful acceptance" argument, then I would have to cease being a Traditional Catholic in the sense of being out of canonical submission to Rome. I would go FSSP or Eastern Rite or something, just because I find 99% of all Novus Ordo Mass implementations to be contrary to my sensus fidei, but I would FIND A WAY to return to canonical submission to the Holy See.
I believe that both SVs and R&R make some very good points and yet they take things too far.
R&R point out that not everything in the Magisterium is infallible. But they take this TOO FAR by positing a grand-scale defection of the Magisterium and of the Church's universal discipline. That's contrary to the indefectibility of the Church.
SVs reject this and then swing too far towards the opposite direction; many of them refuse to allow the existence of ANY error in ANY authentic papal teaching. They also create problems by making it allowable for any given individual to declare SV whenever they disagree with any teaching of the Magisterium. Nado's SVism is actually the very worst form of SVism, what I have termedmodo tollens SVism, where you judge the Magisterium, which if you feel the need to reject, then you must reject the Pope behind it. That undermines the Magisterium NO LESS than R&R but the SVs refuse to see it. This subjects to Magisterium to a constant validation feedback loop against private judgment whereas normally if you had a different opinion about a subject (say, papal infallibility) you would submit to the Magisterium and change your mind rather than rejecting the Magisterium due to the a prioricertainty regarding the pope's legitimacy.
I find myself quite sympathetic to this point of view. I daresay, I almost identify with it. However, I would caution Ladislaus. In such arguments as this, conceding any point is merely a hole and weakness that your opponents will rush in to take advantage of.
Though, for all your words, I am uncertain that anyone paid much attention to what you said.
I wonder if anything in Ladislaus' statement goes contrary to what I have stated in the previous year. All of my views about sedevacantism are on record on this blog, so it is easy to crosscheck. If I thought it was a worthy argument that required more of my attention, I'd look into the matter further. But as of present, I really don't see the importance or urgency for discussing
pet theories schismatic heresies such as sedevacantism.