Yeah, this is all nonsense, made up to justify the R&R position.  In actual Traditional Catholic theology, the Magisterium determines what is consistent with Tradition and what is not.  This doesn't mean every single word that emanates from the merely-authentic Magisterium is infallible, but the Magisterium must be regarded as generally safe.  If there are some minor mistakes that creep into the Magisterium, they must be respectfully challenged ... from within the Church.

This is not a question of infallibility but, rather, of indefectibility.  If all we had was a problematic statement here or there in V2, that would be one thing.  But we now have a completely corrupt Magisterium over 60 years which is leading souls to hell, and a public worship that is displeasing to God and harmful to souls.

Sedes seem to argue that we should not think and merely mindlessly follow whatever comes from the Pope. Of course they do not do that. They judge what comes just as R&R do. With the R&R saying the pope is mistaken and the sedes the pope is not the Pope. But the judgment is the same. Neither look to the papacy the way that the sedes demand the R&R do. For in that case, when the Popes started declaring that black was white and white was black in the sixties, the sedes would have conformed their judgment to Rome no matter what, as Saint Ignatius said the Jesuits should, and believe white is black and black is white, rather than thinking for themselves. For even if the pope was false, the lack of trust according to the sede model condemns them. What is the meaning of gaslighting? I want to use that word here but am not sure if it is proper.

Just a question. How can one trust the Pope absolutely as the sedes demand? If at any time the Pope could teach heresy and fall from his state unknown to all? So you can never know if the pope is real and his teaching is true, or if he is false and is teaching lies? The sedes even reject the Papacy of John XXIII who was accepted by the whole world and all Catholics and there weren't even traditional Catholics for six or seven years after he died, let alone sedevacantists. It would make sense to follow blindly if we knew that what happened today is impossible because God would not allow it. But it happened so that model is dead. I mean if a true Pope were elected tomorrow and was accepted by the sedes and he declared BOD was a heresy, they would reject the Pope again and declare a sede vacante again.

Where it comes to faith, there's one role that reason plays, as Vatican I taught, and that is whether or not we find the AUTHORITY behind Catholic teaching to be credible; these are known as the "motives of credibility".  We've decided that this Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the True Church, and therefore we do not submit to its authority.  Once you've decided that this Church speaks for Christ, then you have to submit and give internal assent.  Now, that is the same as absolute assent, in that it's possible  for the pope to err here or there, but not substantially.  To posit a Magisterium, as R&R do, that is thoroughly corrupt and harmful, and a Public Worship of the Church that is offensive to God, that's a blasphemy against the Holy Catholic Church and the Holy Spirit, Who guides her.

THIS is all sedevacantism is rooted in:

Msgr. Fenton:

To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth. 
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.

I honestly don't think it is a strawman. I think it is what sedes say, but don't actually follow.

Who cares if you "THINK" it is what they say -- PROVE it by citations, etc., or admit your representation is a straw man, inaccurate and unjust.

Thank you in advance.

Sedes seem to argue that we should not think and merely mindlessly follow whatever comes from the Pope. Of course they do not do that. They judge what comes just as R&R do. With the R&R saying the pope is mistaken and the sedes the pope is not the Pope. But the judgment is the same. Neither look to the papacy the way that the sedes demand the R&R do. For in that case, when the Popes started declaring that black was white and white was black in the sixties, the sedes would have conformed their judgment to Rome no matter what, as Saint Ignatius said the Jesuits should, and believe white is black and black is white, rather than thinking for themselves. For even if the pope was false, the lack of trust according to the sede model condemns them. What is the meaning of gaslighting? I want to use that word here but am not sure if it is proper.

Just a question. How can one trust the Pope absolutely as the sedes demand? If at any time the Pope could teach heresy and fall from his state unknown to all? So you can never know if the pope is real and his teaching is true, or if he is false and is teaching lies? The sedes even reject the Papacy of John XXIII who was accepted by the whole world and all Catholics and there weren't even traditional Catholics for six or seven years after he died, let alone sedevacantists. It would make sense to follow blindly if we knew that what happened today is impossible because God would not allow it. But it happened so that model is dead. I mean if a true Pope were elected tomorrow and was accepted by the sedes and he declared BOD was a heresy, they would reject the Pope again and declare a sede vacante again.

Well said.

And to me, that's why I now believe that why Sedeism tends toward evil. The sedes and sedewhatevers will never themselves do what they, in their severeness and excessiveness, hold R&R to. They absolutely demand a standard from R&R that they will never themselves adhere to, and cannot adhere to. And they want everyone else to be the same way, but some of us still want to be honest, and will not go down the road of treachery which is Sedeism. 

Well said.

And to me, that's why I now believe that why Sedeism tends toward evil. The sedes and sedewhatevers will never themselves do what they, in their severeness and excessiveness, hold R&R to. They absolutely demand a standard from R&R that they will never themselves adhere to, and cannot adhere to. And they want everyone else to be the same way, but some of us still want to be honest, and will not go down the road of treachery which is Sedeism.

You make a lot of bold accusations and presumptions about the motivations of what sedes do and do not desire. Perhaps you need to check your own eye before you start pointing out the specks in the eyes of others.

What led to them being well established if not for the Popes, councils, and OUM?

In Catholic ecclesiology, your system does not work.

The Ordinary magisterial teachings are the usual day to day teachings of the Church, taught to her members through parents, priests, nuns, teachers, catechisms, hierarchy etc,. The Church's  Universal Magisterium is merely, as PPIX puts it, "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith". Councils are relatively rare yet their place as regards the UM cannot be over stated.

Deo Gratias they've all done their job, how else could we know V2 is wrong? Yet 1000 - 2000 years ago souls were saved without the Council of Trent, V1 and many other Councils, how did they do it? How do we do it? - resort back to my previous post here. 

In may not work in your idea of Catholic ecclesiology, but in reality that's the way it is.