Indeed it's confusing. If people can use the terms like "post-conciliar church" as if it's another church or say it's a new religion, meanwhile I'm getting scolded for making sure if I can pray with them. Also how is it they're not formal heretics, so praying with them in private - OK, but you can say a Pope or some clergyman is a heretic, yet not formal heretic, but praying with them - not OK.

Well, i think of the NO church as a parallel church within catholicism.  

Questions are never to be scolded and people are wrong to do so.

I find it confusing sometimes, too.  I just do the best I can and ask God to know my heart. 

Well, i think of the NO church as a parallel church within catholicism.

I think of it as a body eclipsing the true Church. As a counterfeit church could never actually be PART of the one, Holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. Some can see the true Church in the corona surrounding this body, but many mistake it for the Church out of ignorance.

Well, many of the dogmatic sedevacantists think this way, but, generally speaking, the moderate ones do not.  Sedevacantism is driven not by the question of Jorge Berogliogo's personal orthodoxy.  Question is whether the Magisterium could teach this degree of error and whether the Church could promulgate a Rite of Mass that displeases God and harms souls.  Whether that means full sedevacantism, sedeprivationism, or even Father Chazal's position that their heresy strips them of teaching authority, that's debatable.

I disagree that most SVs are ecclesiavacantists.  You can count the dogmatic ones (the anti-"una cuм" folks on a couple of hands).  By far the vast majority hold to something akin to sedeprivationism.

I thought Bishop Sanborn of the RCI holds to the Thesis which is sedeprivationaism, yet I recall seeing a video of his voicing out against going to "una cuм" Masses, unlike the position of Bishop Pivarunas of the CMRI.

I think of it as a body eclipsing the true Church. As a counterfeit church could never actually be PART of the one, Holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. Some can see the true Church in the corona surrounding this body, but many mistake it for the Church out of ignorance.

The term "Conciliar Church" was actually coined by the Cardinal Benelli. And the response of Archbishop Lefebvre? "To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church." To me it is like a cancer affecting the members and even the visible Head.

I thought Bishop Sanborn of the RCI holds to the Thesis which is sedeprivationaism, yet I recall seeing a video of his voicing out against going to "una cuм" Masses, unlike the position of Bishop Pivarunas of the CMRI.

Indeed he does. Yet he also adheres to dogmatic non una cuм, which honestly isn't out of line with his position since both came from Bp. Des Lauriers.

What's una cuм?

"...which we offer Thee firstly for Thy holy Catholic Church. Be pleased to grant her peace, to guard, unite and govern her throughout the whole world, together with Thy servant our Pope N. and N. our Bishop, and all those who..."

The sedes remove the part of the canon of the mass that I struck a line through, when the name of the pope is removed, they refer to this Mass as a non-una cuм Mass.

I assumed members on this forum are mostly Lefebvrists if not sedes, and with this quote here I don't understand why some replies keep emphasizing the members of the conciliar church are catholics too.

Members of the Conciliar Church CAN be Catholics.  It's only a minority of Traditional Catholics who deny that.