Now I've become confused again.

Always remember that Pope Pius IX at The First Vatican Council, defined when the pope teaches infallibly, V1 did *not* teach that the pope cannot teach heresy. Starting with a premise that's true makes all the difference.

There's a difference in theory but, in practicality, there's very little difference, if any at all.

Just remember, your salvation isn't dependent upon whether recognizing Francis is legitimate or an imposter. It's dependent upon living the traditional Catholic Faith handed down since Pentecost up to Vatican II Council.

It's good to resist Francis the imposter & destroyer, but trads shouldn't make it central to their Catholic faith.

Always remember that Pope Pius IX at The First Vatican Council, defined when the pope teaches infallibly, V1 did *not* teach that the pope cannot teach heresy. Starting with a premise that's true makes all the difference.

.
The "office of inspection or direction" is the notion that the pope's office is a merely supervisorial one-- that his authority is limited to evaluating his subordinates and directing them.  This is contrary to the notion of universal jurisdiction which, though including inspective and directive rights, also includes the right to command or compel every member of the Church.  That's all that's happening here. 

.
The "office of inspection or direction" is the notion that the pope's office is a merely supervisorial one-- that his authority is limited to evaluating his subordinates and directing them.  This is contrary to the notion of universal jurisdiction which, though including inspective and directive rights, also includes the right to command or compel every member of the Church.  That's all that's happening here.  

It doesn't make sense to me that such teaching destroys the papacy. V1 defined when the pope is infallible, namely, when he defines a doctrine from The Chair, i.e. Ex cathedra. *That* is the Church's doctrine on papal infallibility.

When you read V1, you will find that it is as Fr. Wathen says in his book, The Great Sacrilege:

"...In fact, papal infallibility covers a most rigidly and specifically circuмscribed area, the most narrowly-defined, I might add, of all the areas of his sovereignty......The doctrine of papal infallibility, by stating in what respect the pope cannot err, admits, in effect, that in all other areas of his vast prerogatives the pope is completely fallible."

Because this (above) is truth, the papacy does not get destroyed by heretical popes, rather, it is the popes and the people who foolishly follow them into the pit that destroy themselves. But the Church lives on, papacy and all. Consider that in spite of everything, we have the true faith and are here to persevere in it and hand it down, this itself is a testament to the indefectibility of the Church. They cannot take from us that which we will not give up.

Also, when one attempts to expand upon V1's definition, what they *should* find, is that they are granting the pope infallibility he does not and never did have no matter how they expand upon it, as such, they should see that doing so contradicts or changes the dogma as decreed at V1.

But they cannot see this because they wrongfully believe the doctrine of papal infallibility basically teaches that "popes speaking as pope, cannot teach or fall into heresy". They think this because this is what was taught by some of the theologians of the last few centuries. But this is not the doctrine of the Church, V1's definition is.  

We doubt or deny the Novus Ordo sacraments, magisterium, canonizations and etc. since V2 because they are not Catholic and some are even blatant heresy, the status of the pope really has nothing to do with it.

Pray for the pope daily, that is the duty of every Catholic. Lex Orandi, lex credendi

I really don't see evidence, whether in Vatican I, or anywhere else, for the kind of ultramontanism that I see some sedevacantists (and some pro-conciliar sedeplenists like the Where Peter Is crowd) advocating.  I think its completely reasonable to take a position that's skeptical of the New Mass, skeptical of Vatican II (or *at least* its prudence), being skeptical of Vatican II canonizations, and yet still accepting Francis as the Pope.

Where the problem comes in for me is the sheer level of rebelliousness I see from the SSPX Resistance, where it really does seem to me that there's no practical meaning to having a pope, yet they still have one.

Speaking for myself (and I know I'm not the standard for anything), I don't attend the New Mass, and I don't venerate the post Vatican II saints.  But I also freely and willingly state that I don't do those things because I have *doubts* about them, doubts which I think are  grounded in good reasons, yes, but I also don't go around judging people for doing something that Rome, at least at the moment, is allowing.  I'll express my reservations about say a JPII, if it comes up, but I don't tell people they're sinning if they venerate him.  Same with attending the NO, for the most part.

Lefebvre, it seems, whatever his exact opinions (and as we all know, his opinions aren't infallible) seemed to have his back against the wall.  There was no general permission for the Latin Mass like today.  Assisi had just happened.  There was no impending regularization for the SSPX, there was not even an FSSP.  If Lefebvre had died without consecrating any bishops, the Novus Ordo would very likely have become the ONLY Western Rite mass.... the Western Tridentine Rite would effectively have been gutted.  I also... don't get the impression that hermeneutic of continuity (however naive we may or may not think that is) was even a live option at the time.  I'm not singing his praises, or saying he was the best thing since sliced bread, but a lot of these corrections were made by Benedict XVI.  Benedict XVI allowed the Latin mass to be celebrated everywhere, and he also seems to have (both by lifting the SSPX excommunications and trying to argue for hermeneutic of continuity) allowed for a lot more skepticism of Vatican II.  That's not to say that Benedict was a great pope or that he was a trad, but I really have a hard time comparing the situation in 2019, as much as the pope and many of the bishops are liberal, with the situation in 1988.  It really does seem like Lefebvre did what he had to do.  And occasionally disobeying authority to obey a higher authority is justified.  The Pope is not God, he can be wrong.

But the Resistance attitude really does seem to be like "Yes, the Pope is the Pope but we want nothing to do with him."  Not even, like "We won't compromise for him" but like really, wanting nothing to do with him, and not thinking he has any authority at all.  That seems problematic to me, and inconsistent.  

But I don't think its inconsistent to have doubts about certain things, or to not just accept something that seems like a fairly obvious deviation from the past.

Trent specifically anathemises anyone who would call a mass or ceremony of the Church, or the vestments used therein, unholy, impious, or blasphemous. R&R get around this by saying the NOM isn't actually a mass of the Church but rather a mass of the "Conciliar Church". Which is a ridiculous position as it proposes that while the pope stated in the docuмents that he promulgated it for the Catholic Church, he somehow accidentally promulgated it for a separate entity he doesn't know or believe even exists. The NOM is also the mass said by the pope and 99% of the clergy, so by that alone it's pretty ridiculous to say it's not a mass of the Church.