I am intrigued by what you said because I see problems with both too.

Yes, I've struggled with this for years.  Anyone who's honest in seeking the truth (and not just grinding an ax or going off emotion) has to see the real problems with both.  But I finally came to the conclusion that I did NOT have to solve it.  I do, however, need to come up with a Catholic position on the matter.  I cannot embrace non-Catholic principles to justify being a Traditional Catholic.  I see only two such viable positions:  1) subjecting myself to the Vatican II popes (and not just by way of lip service as Stubborn does, but in reality) or 2) sededoubtism (which I came up with).

This is similar to the position taken by Resistance Priest Fr. Francois Chazal ... and following the thinking in large part of the theologian John of St. Thomas.

Maybe I can start a thread about it sometime.

I am intrigued by what you said because I see problems with both too.

And so did Bishop Guerard des Laurier, a theological heavyweight himself, professor at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome, who helped Pius XII draft the dogma of the Assumption and later co-authored the Ottaviani Intervention; he made some distinctions and came up with what became known as sedeprivationism.  IMO that's not a bad approach, FAR superior straight SVism (resolving the ecclesiavacante problem) but still does formally reduce to SVism and has a few of the same problems I found with SVism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel-Louis_Gu%C3%A9rard_des_Lauriers

C'mon. The baby didn't receive Holy Communion either - will that be your next silly query?

Being as the the Church is assured via the parents and God Parents' profession of faith at the baptism that the infant wants to be in the Church, as such, being a member includes being subject to the pope before the pope died.

So then the intention to be subject to a PAST pope suffices for salvation?  [PS -- I'm not questioning the vicarious intention through the godparents.]

Would it make you feel better if I said it was your personality and not the issue that causes this?   :P

Undoubtedly, but in this case, it's actually both.  As you know well, I can rub people the wrong way.  But even when I'm being calm about it, people get really emotional about this issue.

Of course, I would have you note that my reputation currently stands as +6142/-868 ... a ratio of about 7.07 to 1, whereas yours is only 6.6 to 1  :P   

So then the intention to be subject to a PAST pope suffices for salvation?  [PS -- I'm not questioning the vicarious intention through the godparents.]

I would say yes, but only as long as the past pope(s) was never rejected as pope(s).

The crazy thing is, it is so totally simple that once it hits you, it's almost like that feeling you have after having lost your glasses, you find them sitting right on your nose the whole time - it is really almost that simple.
Those who are bad willed, are those who constantly take papal teachings (of all things) and try to use them to vindicate their sedevacantism - after having been repeatedly corrected and asked to cease doing that.

my turn 

But seriously, it is an issue that people ought to have strong feelings about.  The Pope is the Vicar of Christ.

Archbishop Lefebvre:

“Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the pope is heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church it is the pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

 “…a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved? This question must one day be answered…” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

I read Archbishop Lefebvre as a sededoubtist --
http://www.fathercekada.com/2012/09/04/pro-sedevacantism-quotes-from-abp-lefebvre/