CathInfo.com

[...] In order to be even a material heretic, however, pertinacity is required. [...]

Now, here's the problem for a Pope.  Popes are required by their duty of state to not be ignorant of Catholic doctrine.  Consequently, any ignorance of Catholic dogma on the part of Bergoglio is culpible.  It would be a different story for some ignorant peasant who had barely been catechized.  Bergoglio's heretical statements are presumed to be culpable and pertinacious.  Not to mention that Bergoglio has completely blown off attempts at correction regarding Amoris Laetitita.  He clearly refuses to be corrected, and that's prima facie evidence of pertinacity.

It's a "problem" for all fathers of the robber council who didn't reject it.

The latin word pertinax means stubborn and in the given context expresses the notion that the heretic knows the doctrine of the Church and instead of accepting it piously like a lamb, rejects it stubbornly like an ass.

In the case of the thousands of putative bishops assembled to teach to the whole world in the 1960s, the reasonable presumption is that they were well aware of those Church doctrines which are relevant to the topics they debated and then taught about. And if they weren't well aware in advance, their duty of state was to make sure they are. They got no excuse. And if they think they have: None has come forward to present his excuse.

Some mix up pertinacity with the two admonitions, the Apostle is talking about. But the admonitions are not a prerequisite for the heretic to be a heretic. And pertinacity just means stubborn rejection in spite of the knowledge that it's Church teaching they reject.

I lean sedeprivationist and none of it is relevant

First, it is relevant to everyone if someone falls into open heresy, and the Ecclesia-Vacantist opinion that the entire hierarchy is heretical is certainly itself heretical. It is heretical irrespective of whether it is held by sedes like Struthio or R&R like Stubborn. I respond to whoever denies it, docuмenting from Church Catechisms and other official sources, that it is impossible. 

I have been replying to 3 separate errors (1) The entire hierarchy can defect into heresy or die (2) Papal appointment is not necessary for ordinary jurisdiction and formal apostolicity, and (3) the Church can elect a new Pope without Ordinaries issuing a juridical declaration first. I believe you agree with, or at least don't contest, (1) or (3), but you do deny 2. Is that right?

With regard to Sede-Privationism, here's the thing: Sede-Privationism says the material Pope remains a Pope-elect only. In such a case, the Bishops designated by him would remain Bishop-designates only. It is the universal Jurisdiction of the Supreme Pastor that effects the conferral of particular jurisdiction of the Bishop. If you disagree with this, you disagree with the doctrine as explained by the Theologians, including Msgr. Fenton and Cardinal Ottaviani. So I'm not disturbed by the objection of Sede-privationism.

This is a real problem for sedevacantism, whether sedevacantists and quasi-sedevacantists want to admit it or not. A 100 year interregnum is clearly heretical and contradicts the defined dogma on St. Peter's Perpetual Successors. So what is the limit?

No sedevacantist even wants to touch that question? The clear limit, upon reflection, is seen to be when all Papally appointed Bishops die.

Stubborn, have not the popes after Vatican I and before Vatican II taught there can be no disagreement with the pope?
"Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circuмstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord."
(Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii, n. 104)

Certainly correct in that Pope Pius XI is entirely orthodox in everything he says here. If what he says in bold is to be taken literally as a certain, unchangeable truth, then the NO is in fact the Church, which we know is not true because of 2000 years worth of Church teachings and not our private judgement. This is the same reason that we know with certainty that the Supreme Pastor has fallen into error.

Yet the undeniable truth of the matter is that if what Pope Pius XI says here is in fact to be taken as a type of fallible Gospel, literally and unchangeable, then all trads everywhere, including sedes, are the ones in error because per the above bolded, he appears to be saying that the pope cannot err in all things that touch upon faith or morals.  

You must accept and be clear in your mind that we, us, you and I and all trads, are not relying on any private interpretation of V2 nor false autonomy of human reason - so these quotes certainly do not apply to us in this present crisis. Who knows - perhaps the next crisis they would apply, but not in this crisis.

The reason for this is because in this crisis what we are doing is, *not* relying on our own interpretation, rather, we *are* relying on the 2000 years worth of teachings of the Church prior to V2 that taught and bound us, not only *that* we must believe, but also *what* we must believe in order to be saved. We know wrong when we see it because the Church taught us to know wrong when we see it. That's how we know right from wrong when we see it, it is a main part of our faith.

It is because of those teachings and not our private interpretation that we know with certainty of faith that what he said above only applies to us whenever our Supreme Pastor teaches things that do not conflict with or contradict what the Church has always taught....which goes without saying, just as he did not say above.