Can you explain this? I don’t understand how someone can be “somewhat sede”; is that like believing the Pope is 33% illegitimate?
One group could claim the current pope stole the election, another man actually is the current pope. But some bishops appointed prior to Francis are valid. Or not.
Another claim, Francis is validly elected pope but no longer
fully papal due to heretical teaching. He is now like a camerlengo, a fill in administrator who can supervise the Swiss Guard but his teachings carry no authority.
Another, that the whole hierarchy is invalid since 1958 or some other year. Thus no living or recent pope or bishop had any authority, nor Vatican 2.
There are other nuances. The most common is to regard
popes after Pius 12 as occasionally authoritative but not fully Authoritative, as
Popes were before 1958.
Some regard the local Ordinary as no teaching or pastoral authority over them, though they respect the man, because of his office. They may cite something from their Ordinary before 1965 as authoritative, or a few bishops from somewhere else even today.
There are other variations, but their relationship with their own local Ordinary is a crucial variable. That’s the Chair, the sede, they do or do not choose to deal with most of the time.
For instance they may choose to communicate with their Ordinary when they take certain actions but they are not affected by their Ordinary on what actions they take.
Thus, there’s kind of intermediate categories on sedevacantist scale.
