CMRI's beginnings began when Vatican II left them staying firm to the teachings they have learned from the beginning as did other groups scattered.  Yet, Lad clings to the idea that somewhere there has to be a head, he doesn't know where but somewhere in his fantasy because he forgets that Jesus Christ is the head of His church, and the Popes are His representatives on earth, he forgets that a doubtful pope is no pope, yet he clings to his mirage.

They interrupt conversations, acting like Communist informants, in an effectively de facto effort to control freedom of speech within property limits. This is made obvious by the fact that their priest will later approach you and request a private meeting in the back office, when he will inform you that certain things cannot be discussed on their property, which see, and if you don't conform to this rule, you will be forbidden from attending the chapel. That is because the priest was informed by one of his groupies of the conversation you were having with a friend.
.
Their behavior is far more like a trepidatious cult than like a truly Catholic group.

Sedevacantism had nothing to do with my criticism of the CMRI.  I don't fault them for that.  Talk about flawed logic.  No, "CMRI's beginnings began" as a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ network which then obtained doubtful orders from Old Catholic schismatics.

Also you state here --->I stated the fact that the CMRI published this heretical-sounding article twice.  Readers can draw their own conclusions.  Whether the CMRI agree with it or not doesn't matter.  Had they disagreed with it, of course, they could have simply added an editorial footnote.  Yet the fact is that they published it.  It's just as reprehensible as if they had printed an article questioning the perpetual virginity of Mary ... even if they didn't "agree with" it.  

If you ever read the article past the Title you might have a different opinion, I would hope so!

I've read the thing, and the body is as heretical as the title itself.

Lad again ... My point, which is not misleading, is that the organization's foundation was immersed in sins against nature and the affiliation with schismatics.  Later regularization can never undo that history.  Rarely has the Church approved any religious organization that had been riddled with such scandal.  And, as Neil observes, the cult-like behaviors that were there in the early years have left a lasting mark on the group.  Yes, we are all born in sin, but not many founders of approved religious organizations have been perverts.

Well, maybe Bishop Williamson doesn't consider Feeneyism to be heretical as you do.

Another "black n white", "either-or", "binary" mindset from a sedevacantist.  You lack the ability to admit, or recognize, distinctions.

You either deny the Council of Trent or you don’t. Pretty cut and dry. If you think that Baptism or the desire thereof is a debatable topic then you believe the canons of the Council of Trent are a debatable topic. And yes, that makes you a heretic. Clear cut and easy to see.