Because if sedevacantism is true, after sixty two years, there is no Church left on earth, having not only no pope, but no Bishops with authority from God through the pope. All that is left is a handful of laymen playing make believe and praying the rosary.

No Sean, you don’t just lower the status of the papacy, you border on hating it. Frankly, I find it repulsive. If I thought Bergoglio was a real pope, I would obey him unquestionably. Obviously, I can’t because he’s a heretic and a heretic is not a Catholic and someone who is not a Catholic can’t possibly be the head of the Catholic Church.

Stubborn, but it is not just the Theologians. The Popes themselves say that the Ordinary Magisterium is to be regarded as being protected by the promise, "Whoever hears you, hears Me". This is the way it is explained by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis. The theory that doctrine taught even by the non-infallible Magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs or of the teaching Church is nonetheless at least safe even if not immediately infallibly true dogma comes from that. Your thoughts on those words of the Holy Father Pope Pius XII?
Well, the two are inter-connected. Loss of Papally Authorized Bishops=Loss of Ordinary Jurisdiction=Defection of the Church's Apostolicity.

Unless you wish to argue that Ordinary Jurisdiction can be transmitted to the Bishops apart from the Pope, but that seems to contradict doctrine of the Authentic Magisterium of Pope Pius XII, who taught, in Ad Apostolorum Principis, in 1958: "bishops who have been neither named nor confirmed by the Apostolic See, but who, on the contrary, have been elected and consecrated in defiance of its express orders, enjoy no powers of teaching or of jurisdiction since jurisdiction passes to bishops only through the Roman Pontiff as We admonished in the Encyclical Letter Mystici Corporis in the following words: ". . . As far as his own diocese is concerned each (bishop) feeds the flock entrusted to him as a true shepherd and rules it in the name of Christ. Yet in exercising this office they are not altogether independent but are subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff, although enjoying ordinary power of jurisdiction which they receive directly from the same Supreme Pontiff."[13]

40. And when We later addressed to you the letter Ad Sinarum gentem, We again referred to this teaching in these words: "The power of jurisdiction which is conferred directly by divine right on the Supreme Pontiff comes to bishops by that same right, but only through the successor of Peter, to whom not only the faithful but also all bishops are bound to be constantly subject and to adhere both by the reverence of obedience and by the bond of unity."[14]"

http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061958_ad-apostolorum-principis.html No Pope in history perhaps had taught this doctrine as clearly as Pope Pius XII, whom sedevacantists now consider to be "the last Pope". Yet, if you agree (1) the Church cannot lose Apostolicity, and (2) at least some Bishops with Ordinary Jurisdiction are necessary for the Church's Apostolicity, then you must hold that (3) Ordinary Jurisdiction can be transmitted to Bishops other than through the Successor of St. Peter, which seems to contradict Pope Pius XII word-for-word. Cardinal Ottaviani and Msgr. Fenton also confirmed this doctrine of Pope Pius XII in their writings. If you want to discuss this in more detail, we can do that in the "Oldest living Bishops" thread.

Ladislaus, I agree with Bp. Athanasius Schneider almost completely. Bp. Athanasius has also been very strong on the necessity of explicit faith in Christ for salvation, identifying that as one of the key issues of the day: yet I support Abp. Vigano also, and believe both Bishops are on the same side, fighting for the same end, trying to correct the abuses that have cropped up. These issues have to be discussed by the Church Authorities, especially Bishops, and I believe that will be done correctly at something like a future Third Vatican Council. One of the early traditionalists Priests - I forgot his name; he wasn't SSPX, though - was a proponent of a Vatican III. It is at such a future Council, which will be dogmatic and infallible, that some of these issues can be corrected/explicitly defined.

It is absolutely and unambiguously clear that the Conciliar sect teaches that salvation can be obtained through any religion and even no religion.  So, if Bergoglio is the pope, one can legitimately ditch all religion, lead an entirely secular life, just be a "good person", be environmentally conscientious, and one is pretty much assured heaven.

Stubborn, this is Humani Generis: "20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official docuмents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians." Agree or disagree?