Sedevacantists Are Being Pickier Than Necessary

In some former articles I have already criticized the defects of some sedevacantists. There is an elitist attitude, issues regarding women’s behavior, and unnecessary divisions. The last issue results in them being hard to please. Some are very judgmental. History tells us that the Church is very careful about judgment. See, for example, canonizations. She is careful to condemn too. It took almost three years to condemn Luther. St. Thomas More was very reserved in judging those who signed the proclamation of the king’s primacy over the church of England.

Here in Portugal, Mr. Araí Daniele, the first of the prominent organizers, was very careful: although he didn’t admit una cum celebrations in his chapel, he was more reserved on other issues. He had some sede priests celebrating who didn’t publicly declare their stance. He even had a chaplain who collaborated with some bishops who accepted the Cassiciacum thesis. He had one priest who was undecided on the sede issue, but celebrated una cum Petro, meaning St. Peter.(Later that priest became a full-blown sede, but that was a long time after Araí’s death.)

Nowadays, some organizers are fussy: they have issues with orders coming from Bp. Dolan, since he was ordained with one hand. They spurn priests involved with Bp Sanborn because he is an adept of the thesis. They object against the priests of Bp. Pivarunas because, in case of necessity, he doesn’t forbid his faithful to frequent una cum Masses. Some issue with the Congregation of St. Pius the Fifth because that organization, although most, if not all of its priests don’t celebrate una cum, they don’t condemn it.
Others reject Bp. French because he derives his orders from Bp. Kohrab, whom they (somehow, don’t ask me how) have linked to the KGB (as if that mattered). Others reject priests who don’t associate with any bishop. Others reject some bishops due to their scandalous behavior, because the bishops have reproduced, to put it mildly. If we continue this way, we have to throw out everything and everybody. In that case, the Church is already dead, despite the promise of Our Lord.

So what is to be done? One must first see that most, if not all, of these picky people have been sedevacantists for only a few years. I myself have been a sede for twenty-six years, and I’m less judgmental. Araí Daniele was very tolerant too. The saints, like St. Thomas More was very reserved in his judgments. Our Holy Mother the Church was also very careful in her judgments during her whole history. Breaking communion for a Catholic is a very serious issue, so don’t take it lightly. Some organizers became akin to Protestants, who reserve themselves the right to choose their ministers. This attitude is not Catholic, but unfortunately, today we can’t accept everybody. What are therefore, the important criteria in eliminating potential celebrants? We know that the new sacraments are doubtful at least, if not outright invalid, so we cannot accept them. We must reject the new doctrines that come from Vatican Two (the F@gtican council), as we should refuse to hear heresy from the pulpit. These heresies stem from the acceptance of the fake popes. This also results in an erroneous ecclesiology, namely in confusing the Catholic Church and the conciliar sect. Although I prefer having nothing to do with the una cum Masses, I’d be careful in eliminating those who don’t forbid that. I’m against the thesis, but since it’s not a dogma, I wouldn’t eliminate celebrants that accept it.
So, we must reject:
1) the new church, its hierarchy and it’s “pope”.
2) it’s doctrine and the erroneous ecclesiology (confusing the new church with the true one), consequently heresy from the pulpit, condemned doctrines like feeneyism and millennarism;
3) the new sacraments
4) the una cum celebrations

5) conclavism
6) openly sodomite or married celebrants
7) I’d prefer the rubrics of St. Pius X. Interestingly, none of these hairsplitters has an issue with rubrics.
But it’s not all bad news: at least our organizers recognize the Thuc line. There are no orthodox bishops stemming from the other lines, the Church will always have pastors (so says Vatican One).
So if they were not valid, there would’ve been no Catholic bishops.
And in order not to throw out everything, we must be tolerant of the remaining issues.
This is the best advice one can give, since there’s no pope to give a definitive judgment.