If the pope is not the pope does that mean there are only 8 commandments and 6 beatitudes and 3 cardinal virtues?
If the pope is not the pope does that mean that everything Frantic says is heresy?
If the pope is not the pope does that mean that all the popes before John XXIII were perfect?
If the pope is not the pope then how will we know if the pope is the pope again?
If the pope is not the pope does that mean the sedevacantists are infallible?

I agree. I, too, think that this is an example of what Matthew is concerned about, though perhaps he will participate more on this thread, and address it. It does indeed seem to be a personality flaw to view that everyone around them is a danger to the Faith. It's somewhat paranoid. Certainly not all Sedes think this way, of course. Hopefully, it's only a few.

The thing is, we can hardly step outside of our front door without encountering something that contradicts the Catholic Faith. But if we have a strong faith, rooted in truth, and a strong prayer life and devotion to Our Lord and Our Lady, then we can survive it, though it isn't easy.

Meg, it's as if you didn't even read what I previously wrote you. I never said anything of the sort that you are now attributing to me. Let me quote myself:

The danger is in proportion to the influence and attraction. The number one danger is clergy, even if they never personally preach the error.

The best example is given by the followers of St. Athanasius who refused to attend the Masses of the priests who were in association with Bishop Arius' error. This was before the Church condemned Arianism. Arianism was one subtle philosophical error against the teaching of the Trinity, and the true Catholics at that time wasted no time in refusing communion based on their own judgment. Even though a priest was associated with, but didn't personally preach, the error. The true Catholics at that time refused to go to their Masses, even though they were valid Masses and had valid Sacraments.

Today, this means the R&R mass centers, which are associated with multiple errors against the holiness and constitution of the Church and the nature of the papacy and magisterium.

Catholic laymen are a danger in proportion to the strength and scope of influence and the frequency and zeal in pushing their errors, OR giving a huge public podium to errors even though they have the full power to stop them.

What I am saying is based on Church moral teaching, not personality.

There's a difference between an "occasion of sin" and a "near occasion of sin". Sometimes what is a near occasion for one person may not be for another. But where it is a near occasion of sin, one would sin simply by not avoiding that occasion, even if that occasion did end up with that particular sin.

"Since heresy, and any kind of infidelity, is a mortal sin, they also sin
mortally who expose themselves to its danger, whether by their association,
or by listening to preaching, or by their reading." - St. Alphonsus Ligouri


It statistical today that going to a Mass just because it's valid most often ends up where the person accepts the doctrinal errors the priest is associated with.

The only "religion" applicable should be simply Catholicism.  The tricky part is that events of the past 50+ years have blurred and confused just what exactly that is.  When I was born (1958, while Pope Pius XII was still alive), everyone positively knew what a Catholic was, regardless of whether they agreed with Catholicism or not.  If a person merely claimed to be a Catholic that claim could pretty much be taken at face value.  God, I miss those days!
But I do note that there has always been room for discussion and disagreement on specific topics upon which the Church has not pronounced, even where the answer to a question might be objectively contained in Divine Revelation.  Every facet of the Novus Ordo religion which in any way sets it apart from traditional Catholicism has already been condemned (admittedly in varying degrees) by the various Popes of the Church, and classically a Catholic was defined by a number of specifically visible characteristics, worship at the Catholic Mass, no meat on Fridays, prayers to saints, and so forth.  By that standard Novus Ordo followers are not visibly Catholics, which is not to say that there wouldn't be at least some among them who are "Catholic-at-heart," justified before God but handicapped by invincible ignorance, in the same category as some sincere Protestants.
But traditional Catholics must all be regarded as Catholics, for they show themselves visibly to be so, regardless of their opinions on things the Church has not ruled on.  Van Noort, in his Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, pages 127-128 writes "For as long as there does not exist a clear and explicit statement of the Church about some point or other, even though it may perchance be contained objectively in the sources of revelation, it can be freely discussed without any detriment to the unity of the faith, provided that all the disputants are ready to bow to a decision of the Church's teaching office, should one be forthcoming.  Obviously the unity of faith does not extend beyond the limits of the rule of faith."
Though it is trivially demonstrable that, given the known history of our ecclesial circuмstances during and since Vatican II, the Sede Vacante finding is "contained objectively in the sources of revelation," the fact remains that "there does not exist a clear and explicit statement of the Church" confirming this finding.  I flatly disagree with the thought that "Francis I" can be considered to be a real Roman Catholic Pope, a Successor of Peter, the rule and guide of our Faith, in any sense whatsoever, whether legal, visible, ceremonial, figurehead, material, or even by "common error, and I am quite prepared to prove that such a view absolutely has to be the Church's ruling, once one is to be made."  But I gladly receive as my full brother (or sister) in Christ any traditional Catholic, whatever the stripe, as he practices the Faith of his (or her) baptism visibly and fully as a Catholic, in the sense that everyone could visibly recognize a Catholic on the day of my birth.