Sede clergy refuse the sacraments to r&r people, and tell sedes they will commit a mortal sin if they go to r&r clergy for the Mass and sacraments.

Yet all the while, at the same time the same sede clergy still claim these r&r clergy are still “catholic”.

So they are refusing the sacraments to people they consider Catholic, and forbidding other Catholics from receiving go the sacraments from clergy they somehow still regard as Catholic.

This is flat out schism.

“The sin of schism is also committed by separation from the members of the Church. Thus, one who refuses to communicate with Catholics in matters of faith or worship, choosing to act as an independent in those things, is a schismatic.”

If we want to be technical, R&R is also schismatic.  They say new-Rome is in authority but then do their own thing. 

There’s no Trad option which is free from criticism.  Accept this, everyone stop flinging mud, and pray. 

You are talking about dogmatic non Una cuм Sedevacantist clergy. The CMRI, which is he largest Sedevacantist group, do not follow these practices.

When I read posts like this, I’ve come to the conclusion that the poster never really understood sedevacantism in the first place or his desire to not be an outcast outweighed his love for the truth.

Every Traditionalist group (not including the Indult, which isn’t Traditional) is technically schismatic.  But the Trad argument is to say that modern Rome is the schismatic sect.  There’s no perfect Trad position.  Both R&R and Sede positions solve problems and also have issues.  Nothing's perfect.  It’s not our job to figure it all out. 

The current sspx continues to slide towards indultism.  The resistance is solid.  Most Sedes are solid.  There shouldn’t be as much fighting as there is between Trads.  But life’s not perfect.

It is no longer amusing to toss around the accusation of schism.

In his lifting of the episcopal excommunications "Pope" Benedict XVI explicitly stated that there was only "danger of schism" and he explicitly stated that the excommunications were of persons for proceeding without a papal mandate and that the SSPX institution was not schismatic. To repeat, he only went so far as to claim a "danger of schism."

I recently posted his exact words, so am not at all inclined to look for it again to re-post it. I estimate the post was about 1 month ago.