Yeah idk, the Crisis has left us in a real mess. It's impossible to try and convert people to Catholicism when I basically have to claim to be more Catholic than the pope, which they (fairly) consider to be utterly ridiculous. I also have to try and explain why the Church post-V2 is contradicting itself and its pre-V2 tradition, and how that doesn't contradict indefectibility when I'm not even certain on the answer to that myself.

Someone could quite fairly call me a hypocrite - saying that I can't even explain my own position fully. And I can't. But for me it's really a case of, even during the confusion and absurdity of the Crisis, I still think Catholicism has less problems in its positions than Orthodoxy or Protestantism, or any other religion for that matter. Protestants can't even explain how they know the Bible is infallible - it was the Church that decided which books were gospel, which books were apocryphal, etc. Protestants can't tell you why the Gospel of Thomas isn't in their Bible but the Gospel of John is. Orthodoxy can't tell you how they know a council is ecuмenical or not. They quite literally can't even explain their rules of faith. At least we can still explain how we know what is gospel and what isn't, and what is dogma and what isn't.

Of course, attacking logical problems with other denominations while being unable to explain all the problems with my own is not conducive to successful conversion. In my own mind I chalk the problems with the Crisis to - "We're on the eve of either the Great Chastisement or the End Times, it's meant to be a time of confusion and apostasy where nothing goes as normal" and hope that I live long enough to see the problems resolved and explained, but that's a lame and unconvincing explanation to give to a non-Catholic in a debate.

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.

It's impossible to try and convert people to Catholicism when I basically have to claim to be more Catholic than the pope, which they (fairly) consider to be utterly ridiculous.

Actually, "r&r" is the Catholic position.

Maybe the r&r is more like the Eastern Orthodox position?  The pope doesn’t have the primacy, he has the semi-primacy where we obey him only when he is conforming to what we think is Catholic.  And when he doesn’t conform we only recognize him.  But if Bergoglio isn’t the pope then r&r is merely confused about Catholic theology and they have no obligation to obey a non-Catholic heretic. So it completely depends on whether or not Bergoglio is objectively the pope.

It is usually conceded that R&R's disobey the Pope, but when do they actually do so?  Before this is conceded, I think we need some examples that demonstrate it.

And let's not forget that most sedevacantists disobey/reject the revise Holy Week liturgies that were promulgated by Pius XII, the last pope they accept. How is that not recognizing and resisting Pius XII?   And every sedevacantist bishop is guilty of rejecting the teaching of Pius XII, who forbade bishops to be consecrated without a mandate.  It was already forbidden in the 1917 code.  Pius XII just attached the more sever penalty of excommunication to those broke the law.  If everything contained in an encyclical "demands assent," as the sedes always say (quoting Pius XII in Humani Generis), why did every single sede bishop, without exception, refuse to give his assent to Pius XII teaching in Ad Apostolorum Principis, which forbade bishops to be consecrated without a mandate?

The Holy Week changes were obviously made as a stepping stone toward the new mass. Pope Pius XII was very sick at the time as well. Put those together and it doesn't take much to say that the law is doing or did more harm than good and that we're better off going back to the old Holy Week.