CathInfo.com

No worries.    R&R actually agree with these statements from Bergoglio:  heretics, apostates, it matters not, they're all within the communion of saints (aka the Church).

Of course, let me distinguish here, as R&R is not monolithic.  Here are some schools of R&R:

1) He's certainly a legitimate pope (it's dogmatic fact), and we obey him when we can and reject him only when we can't obey in good conscience.
2) He's probably the pope, and, just to play it safe, we should obey him when we can ... etc.
3) He's probably not the pope, but we don't have the authority to decide the matter (Archbishop Lefebvre's true position).
4) He's almost certainly not the pope, but we don't have the authority to decide the matter, but let's play it safe and obey him when we can.
5) He's a manifest heretic who lacks all authority and can and must be ignored entirely, but he remains visibly in possession of the office and only the Church can remove him from it (Fr. Chazal)

#5 of course is effectively privationism.

I myself am somewhere in betwen #4 and #5.

By this definition I am RnR, I can accept this because I'm squarely #5 with other Privationists. This is why I also made the distinction earlier that Matthew and I are both Privationist so I agree with his statements, I just draw RnR as ending at #3 where you may not. He is clearly oscillating in the latter half of the continuum, as this is the Resistance position. With a lot of this thread I'm not disagreeing with poster's opinions as much as the classification of their beliefs. I think very few people on this forum (if any??) draw a hard line at #3.  It is good you articulated this as I'm getting at this point. I don't even see Meg or Sean as #3s.

It's about intellectual pride; about being right more than anything. And this isn't just found on one side either, it's present on both. Which is why we can't agree to disagree until the restored Church settles the matter.

And I hold to a sede vacante position myself, mind you (more or less closer to Cassiciacuм or Fr. Chazal's position).

The point is I think almost everyone is in near agreement (and hold much closer positions than we'd like to admit to each other) and almost everyone is a #4 or #5 or SV. How we define RnR is actually interesting because I think everyone (on this forum in particular) has diverged from the "pure +ABL position" (which isn't as clear cut as we'd like to think but is articulated fairly well as #3). It's even more interesting when you look at Indult, which is almost de facto #2 but in actuality is leaning #3+ among most laity. I think there's a chance that we don't even actually have to "agree to disagree" if we all agree on almost everything because there is barely even a disagreement. After that point, I agree, the disagreements that do arise are pride (tribalism).

If these have been legtimate popes, then the Church has suffered a black eye from which she can never recover, and the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Church.

They are legitimate quoad nos and de jure today.

But it’s also possible they will be declared illegitimate in the future, and that would remove the black eye.