My point is that if one wants to make the argument, like Fr Cekada, that post V2 officials have lost their offices, then the proof must be VERY strong, with a consensus of theologians, and very, very little doubt etc.  Because the charges are grave and the implications of the church being pope-less and bishop-less are huge. 

Fr Cekada points to cuм Ex as a 'strong proof'.  If Fr Chazal shows that cuм Ex's proof is not strong, or is debatable, then the default position is that V2 officials still hold their offices, because they do, in reality, still hold them.  Sorta like "innocent until proven guilty".  In the absense of an official Church process or procedure to remove someone from office, said person retains the office.  This is practical logic.  Fr Cekada is proposing a very unique, theoretical and extreme position.  Unless proof is undeniable, then we cannot act or accept measures which are separate from ecclesiastical due process.  The effects of such rash decisions lead to confusion, chaos and spiritual disarray.

And the charges are grave and implications huge for claiming that someone is the Pope and yet continuing to operate outside of Communion with him, rejecting his Magisterium, etc.  

What exactly are the grave and huge implications for those of us who claim that Francis is the Pope?

To break communion with the hierarchy and Magisterium is no small matter.  The fact that you don't understand this tells me all I need to know about you.  You do realize, right, that refusal of submission to the Pope is the very definition of schism.

So I'm a schismatic because I believe that Francis is the Pope? I'm pretty sure that you aren't supposed to call those of us who are R&R schismatics. We are not schismatics.

Read my post again, put on your thinking hat, and apply basic reading comprehension skills.

Okay, so those of us who are R&R are not schismatics, in your opinion?

Traditionalists reject V2 and the NOM, neither of which are required by the magisterium to be accepted under pain of sin.

Traditionalists are entirely out of communion with and not in submission to the purported hierarchy.  Stop it with the "pain of sin" nonsense.  No theologian has ever applied the "pain of sin" litmus test to distinguish different types of Magisterium.  With the exception of explicit anathemas, no pope has ever used the expression "under pain of sin" to qualify his teaching.

Any official teaching proposed by the Magisterium as doctrine MUST be held under pain of sin, by definition.  If one denies doctrine, they go to hell as a heretic.

Such teachings which are not doctrine, such as the idea of limbo, do not have to be held to get to heaven, therefore the magisterium does not require doctrinal submission to this teaching.  V2 does not require doctrinal submission, as ALL of the popes have confirmed and all theologians interviewed about it have confirmed.  Therefore there's nothing to submit to.

Your interpretation of the level of teaching authority of V2 is in error.

So 99.5% of the Magisterium could theoretically be wrong ... according to you.

We do refuse submission to our local bishops, but their authority is not the same as the pope, so it is a different scenario.

In matters of the Vatican II doctrines, refusing submission to the Bishops is exactly the same as refusing the pope. in that they teach and agree with the pope on this, they are a one teaching authority, to which you are refusing submission.

You can only kick the can so far down the road, before you have to deal with whether or not he has the authority of a pope.
You have to stand and say that he does or he does not. It is the illusion that R&R has generated and maintains that you can put this question on hold indefinitely. To do so is not and honest way of being.

I do not agree with the sedes on there ultimate goals and aims but at least they face this question honestly and answer it and live by that standard.  Calling sedes names and disputing them brings you no closer to your answer. It is only another reason to put off the inevitable reckoning.

And the charges are grave and implications huge for claiming that someone is the Pope and yet continuing to operate outside of Communion with him, rejecting his Magisterium, etc.  

It's totally hypocritical to claim that he is the pope when they do not believe it themselves. One has to be honest with themselves, there's no way Bergolio is a pope, how that could be is a mystery to me, so I say I have serious doubts. The total answer is not coming from the Cekada's  or the R&R, they both have a niche business to protect.