Indeed. Conservative NO's are the closest to the Catholic position in that false church. If sedevacantism were proven undeniably false, I would have no choice but to humble myself and go NO conservative. And even then, if that were the case, according to the NO I can be saved being literally any religion imaginable, so there's no point in even doing that when you can choose an easier religion.

Being a sedevacantist is honestly the most logical position. If I'm wrong, then I lose virtually nothing because I can still be saved according to the NO. But if I'm right, I gain everything because I would be firmly on the right path following the Catholic religion in this apostasy

Right.  If I became convinced that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church, I would make haste to rejoin it somehow.  I might even appear on Marcus Grodi's "The Journey Home" program 

I say that because he's apparently some huge apologist for the Neo-SSPX
I don’t know. This is the first time I've ever seen him outside of a single photo. Maybe he does extreme penances? He looked thin, but not ill to me.

He didn't look well to me at first.

Do the Dimonds receive the sacraments from anyone? Do they have a priest there?

It was my understanding that they received the sacraments from an eastern rite Catholic priest since they knew he was validly ordained.

They did for a while, but I think they may have stopped.

I do wish the debates would focus less on the "heretic pope" question and more on the broader questions of ...

Is the Conciliar Church the Catholic Church?

and

Is it possilble for a legitimate Pope to destroy the Church, pervert the Magisterium, institute a (bad imitation of a) Prot liturgy as the Church's public worship, canonize bogus saints, etc.?

Cassman actually set that up as a softball in his earlier remarks, where he claimed that the Papacy is there precisely to be the rock on which the Chuch is founded and to prevent all these evils to befall the Church.  Yes, indeed, and that's why we say these men can't be popes.

You can argue until the cows come home about Bellarmine vs. Cajetan / John of St. Thomas (Bellarmine's opinion is much stronger in that any alternative entails judging a pope and having the declaration serve as a cause of the deposition, and those views are both heretical).

Indeed. Conservative NO's are the closest to the Catholic position in that false church. If sedevacantism were proven undeniably false, I would have no choice but to humble myself and go NO conservative. And even then, if that were the case, according to the NO I can be saved being literally any religion imaginable, so there's no point in even doing that when you can choose an easier religion.

Being a sedevacantist is honestly the most logical position. If I'm wrong, then I lose virtually nothing because I can still be saved according to the NO. But if I'm right, I gain everything because I would be firmly on the right path following the Catholic religion in this apostasy

I don’t find this argument convincing because BOTH sides believe people who pick the wrong position CAN be saved but nevertheless believe that it makes it more difficult for them.  Most sede clerics believe there are some true Catholic laypeople in the NO churches, while I believe 83 canon law leaves it ambiguous whether sspv, CMRI, etc can have valid confessions.  I feel like either way you’re making the best decision you can and trusting God if you’re wrong. The mere fact that you CAN be saved if you’re wrong doesn’t mean it’s just completely irrelevant or has zero spiritual consequences. 

They did for a while, but I think they may have stopped.

If so, I wonder if they think the true Mass has stopped.

I do wish the debates would focus less on the "heretic pope" question and more on the broader questions of ...

Is the Conciliar Church the Catholic Church?

and

Is it possilble for a legitimate Pope to destroy the Church, pervert the Magisterium, institute a (bad imitation of a) Prot liturgy as the Church's public worship, canonize bogus saints, etc.?

Cassman actually set that up as a softball in his earlier remarks, where he claimed that the Papacy is there precisely to be the rock on which the Chuch is founded and to prevent all these evils to befall the Church.  Yes, indeed, and that's why we say these men can't be popes.

You can argue until the cows come home about Bellarmine vs. Cajetan / John of St. Thomas (Bellarmine's opinion is much stronger in that any alternative entails judging a pope and having the declaration serve as a cause of the deposition, and those views are both heretical).

The schismatic Conciliar sect is NOT the Catholic Church. The errors/heresies promoted come from this schismatic sect NOT the Catholic Church. The NO Mass is a schismatic rite for instance. The conciliar/modernist heretics are NOT members of the Catholic Church by their sin of breaking with the Faith. They do not profess the True Catholic Faith. However, they can possess their office until they are deposed by a general council or future pope, because their holding of an office is a separate matter separate and apart from their membership with the Church. Catholics are duty bound to avoid these heretics and their errors. Fr. Chazal’s Contra Cekadam addresses many of these questions. One can say there are similarities to sedeprivationism, but there are important differences. Ultimate there is more agreement among Cajetan, Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas, Billuart, etc (though not unanimous/perfect agreement) about how this crisis is handled. But it is definitely NOT sedevacantism or conservative Novus Ordo’ism (which is what the neoSSPX is becoming except worse because they claim the Catholic Church can promulgate poisonous rites/teachings).