Consume Product

> I do believe there will be a pope prior to the return of Christ and totalism doesn’t allow for that.
 
well, I guess I would distinguish by what is meant by "totalism". The vacancy of the Holy See, I would defend, and argue sedeprivationism is in error. An alleged vacancy of the episcopacy, sometimes called "ecclesia-vacantism", or a view that there are no more clergy, some have thought to be heretical and impossible. I don't know if it is impossible or heretical, but I guess I do believe there must be clergy somewhere: either "in the woods", hidden, like a "siri theory of the clergy", or some members of the Vatican 2 church must be Catholic clergy.
 
Sedprivationism was created as a response to Paul VI being a "pope who fell in to heresy", going from a formal to material pope in their view. And part of the reason is because it is an unresolved issue, how the Church is to handle the case of an heretical pope. But once he died, then sedeprivationism should have ended. Because then there were heretics trying to be elected as pope, and those elections would be invalid. Further, many sedevacantists / sedeprivationists then started to think John XXIII never became pope in the first place. This would also exclude any need for sedeprivationism.
 
Also, so the concern seems to be about how a pope could be elected in the future. Originally as I noted, sedeprivationism held a "material validity" of certain papal elections because Pius XII cardinals participated in the elections. But they have all died off, so this would be another case where sedeprivationism also should have ceased as a theory. However now it has also been made in to a second theory, that these "material popes" have created "material cardinals". I suppose the misunderstanding here may be in thinking that it is necessary for there to be cardinals to elect a pope. For about a millennium, there was no set method for electing a pope, the bishops and clergy (with some participation from the laity) just chose one and then the election was peacefully accepted: https://infogalactic.com/info/Papal_selection_before_1059
 
Other writers have noted that a pope could be elected by a general imperfect council of bishops if somehow all the cardinals died. So I don't see any need to argue for a "material papacy" of "material cardinals" in order to elect a pope and preserve the indefectibility of the Church as far as those go.
 
Then to me there's also the question of conclavism which has not been adequately addressed in my view by sedevacantists or sedeprivationists (sedevacantists elect a pope). Essentially how it's manifested is a kind of agnosticism or embrace of "ecclesia-vacantism" or a belief that there were no clergy available (laity only) or existing. So laymen elected a "pope", who can then make the various illicit but valid "traditionalist clergy" in to licit clergy. This would potentially solve the problem of "how to get a pope". But I object that this method has been doubtful with respect to preserving apostolicity, as it seems to presuppose "ecclesia-vacantism", which may be impossible or heretical to begin with. In other words, I think there must be Catholic clergy somewhere, and they can elect a pope or confirm an election. Hence this is my own objection I developed to conclavism.
 
So I guess I'm supportive of a "sedeprivationism of the clergy" view, possibly, and not "totalist" in that sense. Although this view has problems, since if they are truly Catholic clergy in the Vatican 2 church, then why shouldn't Catholics just follow them? So I find possibly that view to be inconsistent, and find the "bishops in the woods" view most favorable - there must be Catholic clergy somewhere, but possibly in hiding, or at a remote distance who may not know if there's a pope or who the pope is (so that they would not fall in to schism due to being at a distance).
 
Another problem I have with the sedeprivationist view or general view of some of these "trad chapels", is I've seen some sedeprivationists argue that abjurations of errors weren't required of converts to any of the traditionalist chapels, and that therefore this was a sign that sedeprivationism was true. Rather instead, this is a sign to me that these "trad chapels" are not Catholic, and abjurations of errors should have been required. Because even setting aside specific Vatican 2 errors, which might be new, pepole have been falling in to older errors which are already condemned. So to err on the side of caution, it would seem abjurations of errors would be encouraged.
 
That would be another reason why in practice I would tend towards a totalist view (or specifically "home alone" view), as in practice my experience has been "totalist". I would not recommend Catholics attend any of these trad chapels or any known church, due to wide variations in teaching and practice.
 
In short, many things should be put "on hold" and much work done to come to more of an authoritative consensus on how to proceed. From the taste I see of the pre-Vatican 2 way of life, it does not seem like a lot of traditionalists have been carrying that forward. Another random thing I think of is how a lot of communications are in English rather than latin, among these "traditionalist" writings (like the linked Cassiciacum thesis ... perhaps it is in latin, I forget, I did not click it as I have read it before, and the few links on this topic have not been in latin).
 
But I do concede I think more discussion is probably required, to definitively put the sedeprivationist thesis to rest, given that we still have no forthcoming "bishops from the woods" or rival papal election to challenge the Vatican 2 institution which still has such organization as to make it look like having some "material" claim to carrying on something of the Church.