I know this is a question for Lad forgive me for my butting in, but since this is a public forum, my answer is simply.

What if the person who is the devil incarnate was never a pope to begin with, for example, let us say for the sake of argument, the man was a Freemason before his so-called election, therefore in the eyes of God, he was excommunicated from the start of his membership to the secret society years prior to his "election" by others of his ilk.  Never any pope to judge because of his membership.  

Even if you don't believe any of them were Freemasons, what say you if they were?  

Obviously there's a difference between being non-Catholic and a bad Catholic.  In essence, you've summed up the dispute between SVism and R&Rism, with the former claiming that the V2 Papal Claimants have gone so far as to be no longer Catholic, and R&Rism claiming that the V2 Papal Claimants have been very bad Catholics.  That's on the personal level, and I could honestly care less.  What's more at issue is the degree to which it's permitted for Catholics to dissent from the Magisterium.  That's no longer a question of "obedience".  So the R&R "Faith is greater than obedience" maxim is nothing but a farce, since the nature of the Magisterium is not a question of personal obedience, as if it were to a positive command.  If it were the question of a positive command from a delinquent pope, then we must obey UNLESS the command were contrary to faith or morals.  In that case, yes, "faith is greater than obedience" applies.  But not in the case of the Magisterium.

What's more at issue is the degree to which it's permitted for Catholics to dissent from the Magisterium? That's no longer a question of "obedience". So the R&R "Faith is greater than obedience" maxim is nothing but a farce, since the nature of the Magisterium is not a question of personal obedience, as if it were to a positive command.

In your mind how has SV dissented from the Magisterium?  We at CMRI, quote and teach in the school there all that is necessary of what the Magisterium has always taught.  The difference that I see is, SSPX RR believe the authority as they see it is still there and SV believe this authority as they see it, is absent, but the Papacy, with all its dogmas/doctrines, deposit of faith have already been taught/known, and we remain faithful to them.  That is the authority. That is still VISIBLE.  

This is why SSPX shake in their booths when Vatican II excommunicates them, while SV knows the Vatican II has no authority to excommunicate anyone.  

On another note, I attended Catholic school back in the late 40's, 50's and I do remember learning the definition of an Anti-pope;  a man who holds the position in error, a Catholic man, also the nuns told us Anti-popes do not usually change doctrines, they just are holding the office in error.  If this is true, these so called conciLIARS are not even ANTI-POPES, they are no Popes of any kind, since they were not Catholic when "elected".  I do believe if the R&R can ever get past the idea that the conciLIARS are considered Anti-popes they will begin to see things more clearly.  

Not that I am some sort of arm-chair theologian, but I do remember my catechism, hardly remember anything else however.  When I apply what the nuns taught us, everything makes sense. I kid you not, the nuns even told us, my class, that we would be the generation that would see the Mass taken away from us.  

You see, my parents were very poor when I was growing up, they sent me to the poorest of Catholic schools in a very poor neighborhood, the nuns there were very old.  I think the stage was being set for the novus ordo, and in my neighborhood the nuns that were sent to teach were just sent to older poorer schools to spend their last days, and they these nuns knew things. The priests there too were quite old. In my high school we had a very old Monsignor who would come into class and teach us religion and warn us of things to come.  These schools that I attended are all torn down today.  

Sorry for babbling and getting emotional!