Exactly

Here is another resource on this - https://selsey.org/old-roman-catholicism/#who-are-the-old-romans

That group there sounds like they might be sedeprivationist ...

Yeah, I was thinking that's a tremendously low bar and should not even be a question in any Traditional Catholic group.

Wow, Captain Obvious strikes again! 

Along the lines of the old adage where "opinions are like ..., where everyone has one", I'm sure there are posters here right now who consider sedevacantists schismatics.  We occasionally get posters who consider all Traditional Catholics schismatics and who sneak on here in "disguise" to troll and disrupt the forum.  So anything could have been posted along those lines at any time.

Now, there's another angle on the CMRI from the SSPV et al. where they claim that they're schismatic because their original founder, +Schuckhardt, received ordination and consecration from an Old ROMAN Catholic, Daniel Brown.  That is such a mendacious position that I largely lost any respect I had for this group since Canon Law clearly states that the penalty for receiving orders from a schismatic is SUSPENSION.  In other words, you don't become a schismatic for getting Orders from a schismatic ... it's a grave sin and you incur suspension.  Nevertheless, given the state of crisis in the Church, I don't think those provisions would even apply.  Recall that this happened before the SSPX had been heard of and before the +Thuc line bishops were anything ... this was 1971, and they were in fact the very first Catholics to start questioning the legitimacy of Montini.  But worst case, Schukhardt would be suspended and this absolutely does NOT make the CMRI Old Catholic schismatics.  CMRI had one elderly priest who was providing some Sacraments to them, and they were legitimately concerned that they'd lose access to the Sacraments once he passed away, since, as mentioned, there was no SSPX yet, no +Thuc line bishops, nothing ... just pockets of individual priests here and there.  Of course, Brown was an Old ROMAN Catholic ... but most Trads, including clergy, don't know the difference.  So, the Old ROMAN Catholics split off from the Utrecht group precisely when and because the latter rejected Vatican I and papal infallibility.  So they did NOT follow them into the heretical positions of the Old Catholics.  Their canonical irregularity stemmed from the fact that the See of Utrecht appealed to some agreement they had with Rome to confer Orders without papal approval, whereas Rome denied it.  So, in this day and age, the remaining Old ROMAN Catholics out there, including one Bishop Meikle ... they're in no different a situation of canonical irregularity than any Traditional Catholic might be.

But, anyway ... in the WORST CASE, the CMRI were not Old Catholic schismatics as the SSPV have continued to allege.  Now, when +Schuckhardt went nuts after having gotten addicted to prescription pain killers (originally for a legitimate reason) and started at least privately referring to himself as Pope, and engaged in some vices against purity and contrary to nature, the other CMRI priests rebelled and kicked him out.  So not sure how Schuckhardt's later insanity made the entire group schismatic either.

I'm no fan of CMRI, BTW, and have serious disagreements with them on many issues.  I just believe in fairness and truth.

What tradtional society of Priests do you believe are the most sound in this crisis, if any? 

What tradtional society of Priests do you believe are the most sound in this crisis, if any?

You are asking the wrong question.

Soundness and stability will always be in flux when dealing with fallible, sinful men.

Think deeper, then reformulate your question.

 I find myself disagreeing on one point or another with every one of them...

I have problems with every Trad group's positions on EENS, NFP, and with some groups' ecclesiology.

As for personal holiness, that varies from one individual priest to another.  I've known virtuous priests and bad priests in every group

So I'm probably alone in my combination of positions ... sedeprivationist in principle, Siri Theorist in practice, pro EENS, anti BoD, anti R&R ecclesiology but also against the exaggeration of papal infallibility by many SVs, anti NFP, anti the excessive dogmatization of most positions, anti the puerile behavior of many Trad clergy and their pretensions to have authority.  Well, by alone, I mean that my positions do not line up with those of any group, but I do know some laymen I mostly agree with.

My oh my, aren't you quite the independent Catholic thinker! Maybe all of us, both the clergy and the laity, should simply look to you in order to follow "The True Catholicism". 

Since you are so opinionated and know far far more than the rest of us, would you be so kind as to take the time to teach the traditional clergy the truthful Catholic positions since you "disagree on one point or another with every one of them"? 

That way, they can pass the truth onto their flocks. Apparently, their seminary training failed them since they disagree with you and you with them on essential Catholic principles. 

In fact, why not teach a few aplogetics courses to the priests and laity. We would love it.

This statement reflects my own positions except I do not subscribe to the Siri Thesis. Not that I reject it outright, rather I am not convinced. I am open to the thesis were more evidence brought forward.

Yeah, the Siri Thesis isn't even a "position" really, but more an interpretation of fact.  I just threw that in there to distinguish that while I believe in principle that sedeprivationism makes the most sense as a theological position, in reality, in point of fact, due to my interpretation of historical events, I don't hold that these V2 papal claimants even qualify as popes materialiter.

My oh my, aren't you quite the independent Catholic thinker! Maybe all of us, both the clergy and the laity, should simply look to you in order to follow "The True Catholicism".

People could do worse, by say looking to YOU for answers.  

But that statement typifies the problem of these sectarian Trad groups where they set up a false dichotomy where if you look up to +Lefebvre, now you must hold +Lefebvre as some rule of faith and can't disagree with him on anything while remaining a "true Trad", or +Williamson (I respect him a great deal but disagree on a number of issues), or +Sanborn or SSPV or Fr. Jenkins, etc.  In fact, they try to enforce this all-or-nothing mentality in some cases by refusing Sacraments if you don't accept all of their positions.  Very few people can actually think, "Well, I admire Archbishop Lefebvre, but I think he got this wrong."  Or, I think that Bishop Kelly and Fr. Jenkins were closest to my position, but they're totally wrong about the CMRI and the +Thuc line.

Yet another of the idiocies of many Trads that you put on display in your post above is that having disagreements about specific, concrete issues entails "The True Catholicism", as if Catholicism is to be defined by some combination of positions on issues ... as if the Dominicans haven't disagreed with the Jesuits, the Thomists with the Molinists, this theologian vs. that theologian in pretty much every issue of every area of theology, and that they cannot at the same time all be truly "Catholic", but that Catholicism reduces to the right permutation of a collection of views about certain lower-level issues.

Sound Familiar ?
I Corinthians III:

3  For, whereas there is among you envying and contention, are you not carnal, and walk according to man?  4 For while one saith, I indeed am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollo; are you not men? What then is Apollo, and what is Paul?  5 The ministers of him whom you have believed; and to every one as the Lord hath given.  6 I have planted, Apollo watered, but God gave the increase.  7 Therefore, neither he that planteth is any thing, nor he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

"I am of +Lefebvre, I of Jenkins, I of +Kelly, and I of +Williamson.  I am of SSPX, I of ICK, I of FSSP, and I of CMRI."

Your type of moronic thinking expresses perfectly what's wrong with the Trad movement.  In that sense, you are doing a great service.

We'd all be much bettter off if we didn't adhere dogmatically and with a sectarian mentality to a specific group, where we realize that no Trad leader is "infallible" and could be wrong, realize that no Trad leader constitutes some kind of rule of faith and that there's no requirement or even compelling reason to accept every single position of whatever group you most closely align with in order to be a Catholic.

My oh my, aren't you quite the independent Catholic thinker! Maybe all of us, both the clergy and the laity, should simply look to you in order to follow "The True Catholicism".

Since you are so opinionated and know far far more than the rest of us, would you be so kind as to take the time to teach the traditional clergy the truthful Catholic positions since you "disagree on one point or another with every one of them"?

That way, they can pass the truth onto their flocks. Apparently, their seminary training failed them since they disagree with you and you with them on essential Catholic principles.

In fact, why not teach a few aplogetics courses to the priests and laity. We would love it.

Yes, you'll find that His Holiness Ladislaus won't allow anyone to stray too far from what he believes is the truth. He rules here. As you have found out, he will hurl names and accusations toward anyone with whom he strongly disagrees. His word is TRUTH (according to him).

I might agree that H.H. Ladislaus should teach apologetics, but just think of that would look like from the student's POV. A horrible experience for anyone who disagrees with H.H.L. that student would have to put up with being bullied, and who likes that?

I now await the wrath of H.H.L.