Quick simple reply, if your position needs a deep exegesis of private revelation it tells you that your position is wrong.
Private revelation entails that your interpretation of it is infallible, in order for us to be able to diagnose and accept your position. Just because something is approved private revelation does not mean it can't be wrong, stick to the public deposit of faith. If private revelation is used as a means to solve all the "mysteries" of our faith, then you can be sure that it is being harmful to your faith. If it leads into believing that the end of the world is imminent at the moment, then it is leading you astray etc... Generally the Church recommends more of the pious works, such as the readings of the Passion of Catherine Emmerich and so forth. Its more of an aid to devotion, and a strengthening for those who are already firmly rooted in the Mind of the Church. I can give you just as much private revelation in favor of the Sedevacantist position, but I never do that because at the end of the day it ends up being a your opinion vs mine opinion.
I have never ever ever seen one case of someone where they get any private revelation right, it always goes on into some crazy theories. These folks are obsessed with it, and it is usually spiritually detrimental by that point. The casuist has an excellent article on it.
Hence for the resistance camp, the world is not working like how its suppose to, because we did not follow heaven's peace plan, this is usually the Fatima Gruner message. So they will wait until the Parousia and bombard the Vatican with letters/videos petitions to make Bergoglio consecrate Russia... Never mind the fact that Pius XII did it, its not his fault that the Bishop's all over the world did not follow accordingly.
Briefly to answer your question, there is several other private revelations that have mentioned the name Pope which referred to anti-Popes. Secondly, remember that he is experiencing a vision not heavenly commentary on everything he sees. Thus, if you were to see a man dressed in white, you would conclude that he is a Pope. Similar to Catherine Emmerichs vision of the Pope and another "Bishop dressed in white." Which is how they put it, but they were both dressed the same. Now even remember those who receive this revelation can misinterpret it, we know this has indeed happen MANY times.
Proper attitude to take, is to simply use private revelation as it was originally intended merely as a general guide. Its not so much the details and particulars but the message in general that we are to use for profit. Therefore Fatima must be understood as Heaven's call for penance and reparation for your personal sins and those of others. It gives us ways in which we can personally do something, such as the First Friday and First Saturday devotions. No, you can't personally go consecrate Russia yourself or expect these anti-Popes to do it either. Its absurd... A little common sense can go a long way my friend, how can you expect a marxist/arian/sodomite approver to somehow do such a task? Its like asking Obama, to consecrate the United States to the Kingship of Christ the King and the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Now suppose that even for a second such an event is possible and does happen. How long do you think that Obama will last? Excepting Divine supernatural intervention, these sorts of scenarios we cannot expect. The Great Western Schism was not solved through supernatural means, quite the contrary. St. Vincent Ferrer came to the conclusion that Pedro de Luna was a schismatic not through Divine revelation, but through theology. Therefore, we see the practice of the Saints when it comes to resolving issues dealing with a Crisis. They go back to the theology, and what does the theology tell you?
Heretics are ipso facto, not members of the Church. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13satis.htm
"Heresies and schisms have no other origin than that obedience is refused to the priest of God, and that men lose sight of the fact that there is one judge in the place of Christ in this world" (Epist. xii. ad Cornelium, n. 5). No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.
Now we know that in order to be in communion with Peter you must have the faith of Peter. It is totally alien to the mind of the Church, that those outside can command inside. In addition to that, you must concede that Bergoglio is not only a schismatic, but totally refuses to be the supreme judge. In every single possible instance, in both private and public. He has done everything possible to say that he is just an advisor, kind of like your guru. Just general tips on how to live your life.
Their is total unanimous agreement that a schismatic Pope, even if he not be a heretic loses his office. No one disputes this, not even those who think that somehow a heretic retains his office. Now please note, what small examples they give of what schism is. Ohh boy the sort of stuff we have on these other anti-Popes is nothing compared to the trifling examples they give of what schism looks like.http://www.sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1290&p=13021&hilit=da+silveira&sid=7e74466c34724d6153d3c28a4a7112ba#p13021
Cardinal Torquemada, Summa de Ecclesia, pars I, lib. IV, cap. 11, p. 369 v, quoted by da Silveira:
1 - (...) by disobedience, the Pope can separate himself from Christ, who is the principal head of the Church and in relation to whom the unity of the Church is primarily constituted. He can do this by disobeying the law of Christ or by ordering something which is contrary to natural or divine law. In this way, he would separate himself from the body of the Church, while it is subject to Christ by obedience. Thus, the Pope would be able, without doubt, to fall into schism.
2 - The Pope can separate himself without any reasonable cause, just for pure self will, from the body of the Church and the college of priests. He will do this if he does not observe that which the Church Universal observes on the basis of the Tradition of the Apostles according to the chapter Ecclesiasticarum, di. 11, or if he did not observe that which was universally ordained by the Universal councils or by the authority of the Apostolic See above all in relation to Divine Worship. For example, not wishing to observe personally something from the universal customs of the Church, or the universal rite of the ecclesiastical cult. This would take place in case he did not wish to celebrate with the sacred vestments, or in consecrated places, or with candles, or if he did not wish to make “The Sign of the Cross” like the other priests make it, or other similar things which have been decreed in a general way for perpetual utility, according to the canons Quae ad perpetuam, Violatores, Sunt Quidam and Contra Statuta (25, q. 1). Departing in such a way, and with pertinacity, from the universal observance of the Church, the Pope would be able to fall into schism. The consequence is good; and the antecedent is not doubtful, for the Pope, just as he could fall into heresy, could also disobey and pertinaciously cease to observe that which was established for the common order in the Church. For this reason, Innocent says (c. “De Consue.”) that one ought to obey thePope in everything as long as he does not turn against the universal order of the Church, for in such a case the Pope must not be followed unless there is reasonable cause for this.
3 - Let us suppose that more than one person considers himself Pope, and that one of them be the true Pope, but considered by some to be probably dubious. And let ussuppose that this true Pope comported himself with such negligence and obstinacy in the pursuit of unity in the Church, that he did not wish to do everything he could for the reestablishment of unity. In this hypothesis the Pope would be considered as a fomenter of schism, according to the way many have argued, even in our days, in connection with Benedict XIII and Gregory XII.
Suarez, De Caritate, disp. XII, sect. I, no. 2, pp. 733-734, quoted by da Silveira:
Schism may come about not only by reason of heresy, but also without it, as takes place when someone, conserving the faith, does not wish to maintain the unity of the Church in his actions and his manner of practicing our religion. And this may come about in two ways. In the first way, separating oneself from the head of the Church, as one reads in the chapter “Non vos”, 23, question 5, where the Gloss says that schism consists in not having the Roman Pontiff as one’s head - not denying that the Roman Pontiff is the head of the church, for this would be schism united to heresy, but either rashly denying some Pontiff in particular, or behaving oneself in relation to him as if he were not the head: for example, if someone tried to convoke a General Council without his authorization, or elect an anti-pope. This is the most common mode of schism.
There could be schism of a second mode if someone separated himself from the body of the Church not wishing to communicate with it in the participation of the Sacraments. Saint Epiphanius narrates an example of this (“Haeres.”, 68), in respect to the sect of Melecius, who dissenting with his Patriarch, Peter the Alexandrine, separated himself from him in all the sacrifices, and was accused of schism, there not existing between the two any divergence in matters of faith, as Epiphanius attests. And in this second mode the Pope could be schismatic, in case he did not want to have due union and coordination with the whole body of the Church as would be the case if he tried to excommunicate the whole Church, or if he wanted to subvert all the ecclesiastical ceremonies founded on apostolic tradition, as we observed by Cajetan (ad II-II, q. 39) and, with greater amplitude, Torquemada (1. 4, c. 11).”11
This is why +Lefebvre called the new mass schismatic, and he admits that it is schism. Well just think of what a normal catechism, any theology manual says what the effects of schism are... Yes, expulsion from the Church and that includes even Popes. We have historical precedent, and on top of that no one even disputes this point.
The Conciliar Anti-Popes:
1) Excommunicated tradition through +Lefebvre who wanted to do this solely for the good of the Church. That is working against the unity of the Church.
Note* That the chief job of the Pope is to be the principal chief of unity in the Church. That is his whole raison d'etre, this is why all of them unanimously agree that a schismatic Pope has 0 jurisdiction.
2) They invented their own canon law, liturgy, de-canonized saints, accepted schismatics without converting/repenting, borrowed from condemned anathematized sects such as the Orthodox (hence Collegiality).
Now they are making you think that there can be such a think as a Pope and a Pope emeritus... Before, even during the reign of several anti-Popes, they all understood that they had only one head, not multiple heads. So now when Bergoglio decides to take a vacation from his duties, we will have two Pope emeritus and another impostor.
The list is truly endless...