And by what authority do you plan on deeming positions you disagree with as "heretical"?  What's your master plan for enforcing such views?

Far from being a recipe for blazing a "way out of the current crisis", what you propose just amplifies the dysfunction in the trad world.

If you want to disagree with someone on an issue that hasn't been resolved by the Church, well and good.  Knock yourself out.  But you have no right to declare anything "heretical", or condemn any person or group you disagree with unless they actually reject a clear doctrine proposed by the Church for our belief. And looking through your list, only one item (possibly two, depending on how you read it) qualifies as a question of heresy/doctrine. The rest are simply practical positions you don't like.

The sheep want to save the sheepfold by usurping the authority of the shepherds.  A prime example of what happens when the shepherd has been struck... the sheep not only scatter, they go batshit crazy.

I really wish people would stay in their lane and stop trying to solve the crisis.  That's God's job, not ours.

I agree all is God's will and I am not trying to "step-in" and "become a leader of a triumphant movement" as many may believe. I will be the first to admit that I neither possess nor want any authority. And unlike some members on this forum, I do not wish to condemn any person a "heretic" nor wish to officially declare anything "heretical."

If you read my initial post on this thread, you will see that I am just putting this movement out there as merely "an idea". After being a Traditional Catholic for many years, I just compiled a list of issues that I have noticed all of us are divided on and, regardless of any of those issues, I also realized that Vatican I was never officially concluded by a legitimate pope and that over 90 years later, a false pope "falsely concluded" it with what, and I think we can all agree on this, was the biggest "robber council" along with the worst event in Church history that is Vatican II.

With those facts being stated, I cannot help but think and believe that Vatican II was not "the root of the rot" but rather Vatican I for the simple reason that not only was it an "incomplete council" but it also failed to condemn the most pernicious error of the time (and our time) of "Marxism/Communism."

And since The Council of Trent ended in 1563 (and we still celebrate the Tridentine Latin Mass), why not just focus much more on that council, thereby being true "Tridentine Catholics" as opposed to simply calling ourselves "Traditional Catholics" who are against Vatican II?

Since most or all of us admit that Vatican I is unfinished and that Vatican II (which claimed to have finished it) is a false council anyway, I just think we would all be better off focusing on Trent as the "last complete and necessary council" since Vatican I will always be connected with Vatican II (by modernists at least) in the first place. I do not believe in rejecting Vatican I but, instead, I think it would be a good idea if Traditional Catholics stopped focusing on it since it wasn't really necessary or beneficial due to its incompletion.

Also, since The Tridentine Council ended in 1563, there were many heretical movements that sprung-up until Vatican I began in 1869. So for more than 300 years of not officially addressing any of these heresies by way of an Ecuмenical council, a Vatican Council was finally called and, unfortunately, its most famous decree of "Papal Infallibility" (which any devout Catholic always knew was true in the first place) seemed not only unnecessary but imprudent since Marxism/Communism and all of the other heresies that had sprung up in the 300 + years since Trent were all in full-swing at that time (the Manifesto, for example, being published in 1848). That famous yet unnecessary decree then became sort of a laughing stock to the secular press (it is still ridiculed and laughed at today, sadly). Add to that the facts that the Council was never finished and that most people (especially Novus Ordo Catholics) honestly believe that the "false council" of Vatican II finished it, it seems that Traditional Catholics would be much better off to just ignore BOTH Vatican Councils and focus primarily on Trent as Tridentine Catholics.

Again, these are just ideas.

Please look up the ORCM started by Father Fenton in 1973.
Your idea is not new.

I know about and have listened to recorded speeches by Fr. Fenton. Fr. Fenton referred to his movement as "Orthodox Catholic" which, while synonymous with the word "Traditional", was even more confusing than using the word "Traditional" since the members of the Eastern Orthodox Church publicly believe and proclaim themselves to be "Orthodox Catholics."

Fr. Fenton, as far as I know, did not see Vatican I as an imperfect Ecuмenical Council that paved the way for the robber council of Vatican II for reasons I have already mentioned. These are the main differences between what I am proposing and what he advocated. That is why I am proposing a Tridentine Catholic Movement.

Your views on Vatican I are… unique. And your approach (especially the “strict adherence to all 19 Ecuмenical Councils”) comes across less as fidelity to tradition and more as a veiled rejection of Vatican I itself.

I simply believe that Vatican I is an "imperfect council" albeit "valid." For reasons given above, I simply find it best not to focus on either of the Vatican Councils.

If Vatican I was not legitimately concluded prior to Vatican II, it's not the council's fault.  Blame Pope Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, and Pius XII.  They chose to keep it in the state it was.  It was their call, not ours.

Your theory is something like a husband blaming the meal itself for being unfinished, rather than recognizing that his wife (for whatever reason) didn’t finish cooking it.

So when the great deception came, whose fault is it that it was welcomed with such enthusiasm, facing virtually no opposition?

Bad Catholics.

I respectfully disagree. Your above statement is akin to saying that Popes Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII were all "Bad Catholics." 

Your attitude is impious, and such disdain for revealed truth should never be found on the lips of a Catholic.

I simply believe the failure to address the most serious issues first at Vatican I (such as Marxism/Communism) and then to end the council without reconvening it (from 1870 until the 1929 Lateran Treaty, the popes stayed at the Vatican anyway and could have easily finished the incompleted Council) made the Vatican I council "imperfect" at the very least and it is my right to believe that after carefully assessing the facts. 

I do not disdain the decrees and revealed truths of Vatican I, I just believe that those decrees and revealed truths should have been dealt with later on while much more important issues were at hand (such as the error of Marxism/Communism which primarily contributed to the in-Church heresy of Modernism that many clergy publicly adhered to without being properly censured).

To not even reconvene Vatican I to formally address and oppose Marxism/Communism which lead to in-Church Modernism (which Pius X called "the synthesis of all heresies") after being "prisoners of the Vatican" from 1870 to 1929 and therefore having many great opportunities to do so, is why I have every right to believe what I believe and to offer simply ideas.

The Church Crisis we are all experiencing right now (and have been experiencing for over 60 years) goes back to the imperfect Vatican I Council. Had it been properly concluded and had not been unnecessarily left open for over 90 years when Modernism and Marxism/Communism was running rampant throughout the Catholic world, then we never would've had the robber council of Vatican II which was called for and finished by those same Modernists and Marxist/Communist clergy whom Vatican I failed to properly address and censure.