Pope Francis confirms Holy Orders only for men

All I did was post the article (in the other thread).  As I said, I accept him as Pope, but I do not have absolute moral certitude either way, a kind of pars tutior, if you will.  And as another commentator rightly pointed out, my moral certitude, or lack thereof, is of no importance (except possibly to me).

I do not, however, dismiss sedevacantists as being "out of the Church".  They just differ from the mainstream as to the present status of the Chair of Peter.  To use an example I've cited before, think of the Pope dying during the night, and a priest who hasn't heard the news goes to the church, vests, and offers Mass una cum, not knowing that there is no Pope.  Then a parishioner comes up to him and says "Father, have you heard the news, the Pope died last night?".  Or flip it the other way around. The Pope died recently, a conclave has been held, and a new Pope has been elected, the priest hasn't had the news on, repeat the scenario, he offers Mass non una cum (as is the practice during a papal interregnum).  He only learns after Mass that we have a new Pope.  He was in simple error as to the status of the papal chair when he offered the Mass. 

That's how I view sedevacantists, though their error is due to being convinced that the see is vacant for various theological and/or canonical reasons, not due to being unaware of the status of the chair.

And think, during the Avignon period, there were Catholics who remained loyal to men who were not the true Pope, including one saint who name escapes me.  I would not be prepared to say that those people had gone into schism. 

It eventually all got settled up.

But at that point it just becomes a question of numbers.  The principle of sedevacantism being an error as to the status of the Chair of Peter still remains.  (And sedevacantists would say the same of sedeplenists, that they are the ones who are in error.)

Thought experiment here:  let's say that in the next conclave --- don't ask me how this would happen --- someone like Viganò would be elected Pope (let's call him Pius XIII just for fun).  He rescinds Vatican II and restores the Tridentine Latin Mass as the sole Mass of the Roman Church (leaving exceptions such as the Ambrosian and Mozarabic Rites in place).  There is, at least on an academic level, some cloud over the circumstances of his election, some canonical irregularity, even though the faithful, in some huge display of docility (again, don't ask me how that would happen either), overwhelmingly hail him as Pope and recognize him as such.  Some progressives even go so far as to say that denying Vatican II is heresy. 

Do you suppose that maybe, just maybe, those same progressives would try to construct a case for him never having been Pope in the first place (due to those irregularities) or having fallen into heresy for putting Vatican II through the shredder?

Not going to happen, but it would then be a case of someone else's ox being gored.