More evidence that ladislaus is on the wrong theological path. He was a dogmatic vacantist. Insists that we must be dogmatic plenists. Cannot bring himself to practice either. So he tries to settle in the middle, which is doubt. But, worst, he spreads his doubt around for others to join him. And, if you doubt, why in the world would you become a catholic, who has to follow the " " personality cult of a man dressed in white from Rome? Not likely, so you favor vacantism, but only minimally. You are at the end of your road, instead of dragging others there, admit you are wrong and follow the moral authority.
Scrap 1 and 7. And, be faithful to your state in life. You are a married man with children. God is not going to shower you with a contemplative's grace, no matter how hard you try.
Again, not a single word of this makes the least bit of sense. So, because I was a dogmatic sedevacantist for a couple years, oh, about 28 years ago, this to your weak mind is proof that I am mistaken now. I am not trying to "settle" for anything. Anyone who knows me knows that when I believe in something I believe in it zealously ... and I don't compromise on middle grounds. But what I have told you is simple fact.
Basically, I think that this goes completely over your head. None of this is mere speculation.
Papal legitimacy is dogmatic fact. Period. If we did not know with the certainty of faith that Pius XII was a pope, then we cannot believe the dogma of the Assumption with the certainty of faith. If you do not accept Bergoglio as pope with the same certainty of faith, then you do not accept him as pope in the manner that Catholics must accept a pope. In other words, you are not a sedeplenist even if you think you are or say you are.
I'd bet that the vast majority of R&R do NOT have certainty of faith regarding Bergoglio as pope but have entertained some doubts about him. Consequently, that doubt is enough to suspend submission to him ... until the Church resolves this doubt. This would in fact absolve them of schism. Except that they won't articulate it this way. Instead, they come up with a completely un-traditional caricature of the Church and the Magisterium. Kreuzritter is correct that it's schismatic and completely non-Catholic. You're the one who's wrong, PG, so wrong that you barely qualify as a Catholic ... except for your confusion and befuddlement. Your thinking sounds more like what a practitioner of schismatic Orthodoxy would articulate.