That is why it is important to study your catechism. That way you can tell who is the imposter and who isn't. Then there is no problem.

The two prior posts say it exactly right.  Remember the case of Nestorius.  He was a bishop and had the full backing of the Emperor.  He was even the "legal" holder of the office of the bishop at the time.  But when he declared a single heresy at the Christmas Mass (that Mary should not be called "Mother of God", but only that she should be called "Mother of Christ"), the layman, Eusebius, stood up and declared that we have an emperor but we have not a bishop!  

Many people refused communion with Nestorius and, until Rome confirmed this declaration, he meted out severe punishments against those who rejected his authority; punishments that were given the full weight of the secular law (as there was no such concept of "separation of Church and State in those days).

The Church did not condemn those who remained in communion with Nestorius prior to Rome's confirmation that he had fallen from office, but the Church did praise Eusebius and others who rejected Nestorius's claim of the bishopric due to his fall from office for heresy.  Furthermore, we should note that this was not even an issue about which the Church had formally declared at the time but one that could be logically reasoned if one knew the faith!

The problem of imposters who claim authority in the Catholic Church is tremendous and most of them have the "legal" claim to that authority according to the docuмents presented through Roman officials.  But the fact is that most of those very people have not the Catholic Faith.  How many traditional bishops are out there claiming jurisdiction?  I don't know of any, though I don't doubt the possibility.  But one must reject the so-called authority of the faithless, or should I say perfidious, bishops.

The case of the priestesses is much easier.  Since women cannot be ordained (this is divine law) they cannot have authority even in the confessional.  Many of these priestesses claim to have been ordained by a bishop "in good standing" with Rome.  That may be so (they refuse to reveal his identity) but even he has lost the faith just as most of the clergy that reside, currently, in Rome.  Unfortunately, one cannot simply rely upon "a website" to confirm or deny the authority of any particular bishop.  One must know the faith!

The problem is at least a great as it was during the Arian Crisis of the early Fourth Century.

Follow your "sensus Catholicus".  I did, and it helped to lead me directly to the Holy Catholic Faith.  It also shielded me from the false Novus Ordo religion.

I'm not trying to diminish the importance of that.

However, the reason the Vatican II religion is not in continuity with Catholic Tradition is not just a matter of sensus Catholicus.

It's a matter of reason, and it's pretty clear really.

It cannot be better expressed than by Archbishop Lefebvre:

The more one analyzes the docuмents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, ecuмenism, religious liberty, collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism. A book just published by a German theologian is most instructive. It shows how the Pope's thinking, especially in a retreat he preached at the Vatican, is subjectivist from start to finish, and when afterwards one reads his speeches, one realizes that indeed that is his thinking. It might appear Catholic, but Catholic it is not. No. The Pope's notion of God, the Pope's notion of Our Lord, come up from the depths of his consciousness, and not from any objective revelation to which he adheres with his mind. No. He constructs the notion of God. He said recently in a docuмent  - incredible  - that the idea of the Trinity could only have arisen quite late, because man's interior psychology had to be capable of defining the Trinity. Hence the idea of the Trinity did not come from a revelation from outside, it came from man's consciousness inside, it welled up from inside man, it came from the depths of man's consciousness! Incredible! A wholly different version of Revelation, of Faith, of philosophy! Very grave! A total perversion! How we are going to get out of all this, I have no idea, but in any case it is a fact, and as this German theologian shows (who has, I believe, another two parts of his book to write on the Holy Father's thought), it is truly frightening.

Now the fact of the matter is that young trads being taught neo-traditionalism by the treacherous priests of the neo-SSPX no longer seem to know this about the conciliar church.  They don't understand it, they don't express it.  On the contrary, they praise Francis, Benedict and John Paul II without reservation or hesitation, or any apparent sense that there is something wrong.

Have they rejected Tradition on their own, or have they been deceived by the cowardly minions of duplicitous and vicious Fellay clique?

 :heretic:
Anyone can put something on YouTube and claim to be anything!  There's a man who walks around the Grand Central Station neighborhood.  He wears a Superman costume.  I won't believe he's Superman until I see him fly!  St. John tells us to "Test the spirits, whether they be of God."  This fellow failed the test.