I find it very telling that every schismatical sedevacantist i.e. those who hold their personal opinion as a dogmatic, absolutely certain theological conclusion so as to exclude other Catholics from the Church, flees from the more penetrating questions into their position.
For instance, no schismatical sedevacantist has ever answered the refutation that their position rests upon the certainty or lack thereof regarding the level of censure applied to any given proposition. That is to say, a proposition which they deem 'heretical' could in fact be 'proximate to heresy' or 'theological error' or some other degree of censure. If the propositions which they deem heretical are in fact of a lower grade, then their entire thesis falls flat on its face and all their bold declarations of juridical abdication are hollow and vain.
Secondly, they never address the legal fact of the loss of office. They focus on the moral question of pertinacious heresy and ignore the fact that only a legal and binding declaration from authority can make the determination as to who in actual fact has abdicated his office. Who will make this determination? Fr. Cekada? Gerry Matatics? Any number of opinionated laymen?
Thirdly, regarding the notion of declaring other Catholics as schismatics and heretics based upon the notion that they have refused to make this determination of law is a mortal sin against justice. For it is authority that must make these determinations because the Catholic Church is ordered by law. Actually, schismatical are anarchists in this respect, refusing to await authoritative decision. But in fact, they cannot do so because they have already declared that ordinary jurisdication ceases to exist. The deceptively simple position thus becomes immeasurably more complex and impossible to resolve.
They fail to understand that it is only after an authoritative declaration could a Catholic incur such a censure because it demonstrates pertinacity. It is against the law that we must form ourselves, not our subjective opinions, short of such a determination, they are obligated to keep silent. To treat another as vitandi without a declaration and then to blame others for not acting the same absent said declaration is legally and morally reprehensible.
The only thing we are obligated to do is to seek out where the traditional Catholic faith is maintained and sanctify ourselves there.
If you do not wish to err, cease making such judgments. If you feel the compulsive need to make such judgments about legal facts, then at least have the virtue to keep them to yourselves.
And to "Catholic Martyr" I say that so outrageous are your claims, so baseless and without merit according to the most basic reason, it seems that you must be some sort of troll who simply wishes to cause trouble. It seems that either you are insane, or you don't believe these things and are just trying to stir things up, or you are lying.
To implicitly accuse St. Thomas of being an heretic is to imply that the Church has formally and authoritatively erred century after century for there are many, many authoritative declarations regarding St. Thomas and his works. Thus not only does such an opinion constitute schism objectively, it also constitutes something which is at least proximate to heresy. But maybe you suffer from some form of psychological compulsion thereby lessening your guilt.
So if any of you schismatical sedevacantists wish to become honest, go ahead and answer these charges.