Good-willed Catholics currently exist in many groups. Below are the arguments that WOULD JUSTIFY a Catholic of good will attending any of these groups. There are other arguments, and I don't have all day, but I'm giving a quick sample so you know what I mean:

Conservative Novus Ordo: "We must stay within the authority and framework of the Catholic Church. Obedience is important. Christ promised perpetual successors to St. Peter. I do my best to do and believe everything a Catholic should. I obey my priest, bishop, and Pope unless they are clearly in error, which some of them are at times."

FSSP: "What Conservative Novus Ordo said, but also the New Mass is defective and dangerous at least. We will play it safe and only say the Tridentine Mass and use the Rites that were used before Vatican II. Vatican II was extremely problematic at best. We will train our priests in separate seminaries so they get a fully Traditional or pre-Vatican II formation. We're OK with the new Rites of consecration and ordination, however."

SSPX: "What FSSP said."  <----- Note how useless the SSPX is now, but I digress!

Resistance: "Vatican II is heretical and destructive of souls, and we have 50 years of evidence to prove it. We should stay away from the Modernist contagion, lest we ourselves become infected. It is permitted to disobey a Pope when he steps outside his authority. God expects us to save our souls, and we need the Sacraments to do so. We have the right to cling to the Catholic Faith as it was always taught. We don't need the Pope or anyone else to give us permission to stay Catholic. But we can keep the Faith and pre-Vatican II religion without denying the papacy of the current Pope. Besides, the Pope has been validly elected and universally accepted by the Catholic Church. Also, the idea of a 60 year interregnum (period between popes) is ludicrous."

Sedevacantists: "What Resistance said, except the stuff about the Pope. The Catholic Church can't promulgate a Mass noxious to souls. And what's the point of Our Lord's promise to St. Peter if his successor could actually be harmful to, and dismantle, the Catholic Church? The last several Popes aren't even Catholic, therefore they can't be heads of the Catholic Church. They are heretics. We know heresy when we see it."

Home Aloners: "I stopped going to Mass after 1970 when the Catholic Church embraced Modernism and error. Yes I've heard about so-called "Traditional Catholics" here and there, but they have no authority from the Pope to operate independent churches. They have no authority to say Mass, much less hear confessions or witness marriages. These groups are like cut-off branches not connected to the main tree, which means they are dead. You can't get life (grace) from dead branches. So I stay at home with my Rosary, and live like the Japanese "hidden Christians" praying for God to end this chastisement."

Indeed, the "who is right" can be argued about, and we can even reach moral certainty (enough to act on), but we don't have enough certainty OR AUTHORITY to be able to compel others, for example.

We're all hoping that when God comes down and solves the Crisis, the group we joined is the closest to the truth. While good will and prudence certainly enter into it, nevertheless right now we each have to "pick our poison" about which unanswerable question is the least disturbing to us. And which position will outfit us the best to rejoin the mainstream Catholic Church when the whole mess is sorted out -- or give us the best shot at going to Heaven, if we will die during the Crisis. (How many Catholics have died since 1970?)

I'll give you a hint: it probably isn't the home aloners. They believe the Traditional Movement is not legitimate, but also see the evils of the Novus Ordo. So they aren't used to attending Mass, so their children will probably all be apostate by the time the Crisis is sorted. "Religion is a habit of life."

God gave us Reason, with which we exercise the virtue of Prudence. If we love the truth, acknowledge and attack error, always call a spade a spade, and "give the devil his due", there shouldn't be any huge surprises in store for us. Nor any worries that we'll go full Old Catholic when the Church is restored.

"By their deeds you shall know them".

Those seeking truth without seeking fortune, popularity, fame, accolades, relief from guilt of sin...….. will find truth and spiritual success in themselves and their children (their deeds), that is the sign I look for in groups like Novus Ordo, Indult, Fraternity, SSPX, Sedes.

The success % in the Novus Ordo is atrocious, like maybe 1%

The success in the Indult and Fraternity was considerable less than in the SSPX, but the SSPX today is going the way of the Fraternity, in a few years there will be no difference.

The success of the SSPX is less than the Sede groups.

FSSP: "What Conservative Novus Ordo said, but also the New Mass is defective and dangerous at least. We will play it safe and only say the Tridentine Mass and use the Rites that were used before Vatican II. Vatican II was extremely problematic at best. We will train our priests in separate seminaries so they get a fully Traditional or pre-Vatican II formation. We're OK with the new Rites of consecration and ordination, however."

Does the FSSP go that far?  I didn't think they were permitted to teach that the Novus Ordo is, as you put it, "defective and dangerous", nor that Vatican II was "extremely problematic".

SSPX or Resistance?

This response to SeanJohnson is all that's needed to negate what he wrote.  Even R&R is divided, so how can R&R be the Ring?

Maybe I'm in the minority, but there's nothing about the crisis in the Church that perplexes me, and no unanswerable questions - i.e., apparent contradictions between Catholic doctrine and what is taking place - that disturb me.  Perhaps there are unanswerable questions that I just haven't thought of, and which would perplex me if I did?

I'm curious if most people here are struggling with such difficulties, and if so, what they are?

Seriously?  There's the core question of which is worse, a 60-year vacancy of the Holy See or a Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church that has gone completely off the rails and has been leading souls to hell for 60 years.  That's the chief fight between R&R and the sedevacantists.  R&R think the former is a worse problem for the Church's indefectibility, while the SVs think that the latter is the worse problem.  But both are absolutely a problem, and it takes a lot of arrogance to think that you're above it all.

It's a grave problem, as +Lefebvre puts it (he himself was perplexed):

…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…

But I guess that you've succeeded in solving this problem where +Lefebvre failed.