someone please explain difference between sedavacantist and traditionalist (for all us morons)

stupid me, i thought they were about the same thing

How s that Rosmary ?     That should give you something to think about 

Sedevacantists accept the truth that the See of Rome is currently vacant, that is, there is no valid reigning pope at this time.  I don't personally know of any sedevacantists who are not also traditional Catholics.

Traditional Catholics are Catholics who worship according to the traditional rites of the Church and believe the traditional doctrines of the Church.  Traditional Catholics recognize the truth that the New Mass, sacraments, and doctrines of the Conciliar Church are not Catholic.

someone please explain difference between sedavacantist and traditionalist (for all us morons)

stupid me, i thought they were about the same thing

 
There is no such thing as a 'sedevacantist'...

Answers to the Most Common Objections Against Sedevacantism

This article contains content used from authors: Brother Peter Dimond and Brother Michael Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery / mostholyfamilymonastery.com

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: “… we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)…”1

There are many objections launched against the sedevacantist position – that is, the position expounded in this book according to which the Chair of St. Peter is vacant because the post- Vatican II “popes” are not true popes, but non-Catholic antipopes. We will now address all of the major objections that are launched against this position.

Objection 1): The Gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church, as Christ (Matthew 16). He said He would be with His Church till the end of the world (Matthew 28). What you are saying is contrary to the promises of Christ.

Answer: No, indefectibility (the promise of Christ to always be with His Church, and that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it) means that the Church will, until the end of time, remain essentially what she is. The indefectibility of the Church requires that at least a remnant of the Church will exist until the end of the world, and that a true pope will never authoritatively teach error to the entire Church. It does not exclude antipopes posing as popes (as we’ve had numerous times in the past, even in Rome) or a counterfeit sect that reduces the adherents of the true Catholic Church to a remnant in the last days. This is precisely what is predicted to occur in the last days and what happened during the Arian crisis.
+
St. Athanasius: “Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”2

Further, it should be noted that the Church has defined that   heretics are the gates of Hell   which Our Lord mentioned in Matthew 16!

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: “… we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)…”3

Pope St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053: “The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter… because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.”4

St. Thomas Aquinas (+1262): “Wisdom may fill the hearts of the faithful, and put to silence the dread folly of heretics, fittingly referred to as the gates of Hell.”5 (Intro. To Catena Aurea.)

Notice that heretics are the gates of Hell. Heretics are not members of the Church. That’s why a heretic could never be a pope. The gates of Hell (heretics) could never have authority over the Church of Christ. It’s not those who expose the heretical Vatican II antipopes who are asserting that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church; it’s those who obstinately defend them as popes, even though they can clearly be proven to be manifest heretics.

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”6

St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306: “Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church...”

There is not one teaching of the Catholic Church that can be quoted which is contrary to the fact that there is presently a counterfeit sect which has reduced the true Catholic Church to a remnant in the days of the Great Apostasy, which is presided over by antipopes who have falsely posed as popes. Those who assert that the Vatican II sect is the Catholic Church assert that the Catholic Church officially endorses false religions and false doctrines. This is impossible and would mean that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Catholic Church.

Notice that heretics are the gates of Hell. Heretics are not members of the Church. That’s why a heretic could never be a pope. The gates of Hell (heretics) could never have authority over the Church of Christ. It’s not those who expose the heretical Vatican II antipopes who are asserting that the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church; it’s those who obstinately defend them as popes, even though they can clearly be proven to be manifest heretics.

1. Novus Ordo Catholics who are jaded about the current modernist conditions of the Catholic Church, and half-heartedly pine for "the good old days."
2. Catholics who attend diocesan Tridentine Latin Mass.
3. Catholics who attend the Rome-approved FSSP (Fraternal Society of Saint Peter), where they hear Latin Mass, but are in danger of receiving little bits of poisonous modernist teaching.
4. Catholics who attend the non-Rome approved SSPX (Society of Saint Pius X), which exists thanks to a loophole, though is constantly blackballed by Rome.  The SSPX has "kept the pilot light on" when it comes to Catholic Tradition, and it is solely thanks to their efforts that the Latin Mass has survived to this day.  They are ridiculed and derided by most Catholics who do not understand Traditionalism or the problems with Vatican II.  
5. Sedevacantists.  Residing on the far right of the spectrum, sedes believe that all of the popes since Vatican II were false.  

Again, this is the spectrum of Traditionalist Catholics going from Left to Right.  

I'm sure there's more I've left out.  But I don't have much time to type this reply.

I am somewhat a sede
i say somewhat b/c.. and i dont think many have figured this out so I am far from alone here, but, well, let me just do some thinking "out loud" here.. (thinking while typing.. what a concept!) LOL
I say some of the post V2 popes were false. I have not read anything by Pope JP II that sounds heretical (formally heretical), but then again, i have this vague memory of reading something he allegedly wrote and so... I wish I could remember what it was.. but anyway... Oh, i do recall something. It just popped into my head, probably thanks to the Man Upstairs. :)   
I remember he kissed the Koran!!!!!!
AHHHHHHHHHHH
and didn't he belive that all religions can lead to God? I believe so
OK, so here is where I am at.. I say they were all false after Pius XII
but Jesus promised that His CHurch would prevail over the very "gates of Hell" (mt 16:18 
so no pope can destroy the Church no matter how heretical he is. I have felt the Presence of Christ in the NO Churches. On the other hand, i have felt the tangible presence of the evil one as well. Does that mean much? I mean, Jesus has always been quite acquainted w/ the devil... Even so, you wouldn't expect to feel the presence of both while inside  THE CHURCH!!!!!!!!  Well, I myself didn't expect that... You?
 but it has happened & others say the same thing... So anyway, i am a little confused about how a heretical pope can even be legitimately called "Catholic" much less "pope"? I mean, my sense of logic tells me that if someone is not Catholic, he cannot be the pope. I mean when they are selecting a pope, they do not consult  Billy Graham or the Ayatollah of Iran... 
that may be coming down the pike soon, but for now... 
so if females cannot be priests much less pope
and protesters cannot be pope
how is it that a non-Christian can be pope? Oh, he calls himself Christian? Well, I sometimes like to fantasize and call myself a millionaire... but so far, that has not worked out too well for me..
 

How did you arrive at the belief that they are the same thing?

I wasn't thinking, that's how
it happens
not often but it happens. I mean I could have just thought about it and figured it out but for some reason, thinking about stuff in other than a superficial way was not on my brain's agenda that day... :)