CathInfo.com

You are correct. But I would like to point out that the sede interpretation of Bellarmine is actually incorrect. Bellarmine argues R&R - He said a heretical pope should be "resisted" and "who will depose him since he is a sovereign?" and "an ecuмenical council cannot even do it". If you don't believe me, then go read the pertinent chapters of "On the Roman Pontiff"

Yet here we have laymen who will depose him, and uncharitably attack those who actually hold the position of the Saint they claim as their own. Others take it even further and make it a new dogma that you must hold and even change the canon of the Mass. How isn't that the slyest manifestation of Modernism in existence?

All this over what? As has already been pointed out ad nauseam - there isn't a practical difference between the R&R and sede approaches to the crisis. R&R already knows that Rome has lost the Faith. They already operate outside the Conciliar Church. Maybe the sedes should go bark at the local Novus Ordo church, or FSSP if they want to evangelize. But I have a feeling evangelization isn't what this is really about...

 Also.....what about the idea that if only enough trads adopt the sede view, then Rome will be forced to become Traditional? A lot of sedes think this. R&R do not, of course.

Now sedes will generally say that R&R do not follow Scripture and Tradition, because we do not in reality follow the Pope. But even though this has some truth in it, it still does not mean that Sedevacantism is the way to go.