No. And I tire of your witch hunt.

And I'm tired of your hypocritical stance regarding the divisions caused by the Trad wars when you had no issue posting a video that is clearly anti-sede. 

The real question lies with the Episcopal orders , yes?

This really answered my own question.

Upon further reflection of this article, my outrage is comparable to the hack job they did to the Roman rite with the NOM. There were elements, such as the recitation of Psalm 50 which had existed in the liturgy since the 5th century, that were completely removed to accommodate for Bugninian opposition to repetition.

Even if it were valid (in the sense of Holy Orders, technically a post-BXVI NOM would be "valid" if performed by a traditionally-ordained priest), I couldn't in good conscience attend it knowing now how they butchered the liturgy.

Though I have a moral conviction that the novus ordo is NOT the Catholic Church, and that these "popes" of the VII council are not Catholics, and therefore not legitimate Vicars of Christ, I steadfastly refuse to call myself a sedevacantist.

A Catholic is a real being; hence it is logically and metaphysically proper to call oneself a Catholic. But properly speaking, there is no such thing as a sedevacantist. The term does not signify any real being. Thus it is improper and false to call oneself a sedevacantist; because by doing so one identifies with non-being.

Most unfortunately, this truth/distinction is never discussed; and Catholics are endlessly lured into the trap of making themselves out to be something they are not, and can never be.

It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the See of Peter is occupied by an anti-pope. But this conclusion is an intellectual judgment, and no more. It is a judgment upon which one may base their practical and intellectual actions, but no more. A judgment is an act of the intellectual faculty. It is not a real being. The term sedevacantist, which is derived from a judgment that the See of Peter has been usurped or occupied by fakers, nevertheless cannot designate any real being; whereas the term "Catholic" most certainly designates a real being, namely a member of the Mystical Body of Christ.

Because people have fallen into the intellectual error of equating "sedevacantist" with real being, many of those calling themselves sedevacantist have made a mere judgment - and a merely human judgment at that - into their very religion. In certain persons who call themselves sedevacantist, this judgment has become a false identification which has supplanted the true identification of Catholic. 

It is metaphysically impossible to identity with a judgment. But how may there are who do so identify themselves. How can this not be a terrible source of division within the ranks of Catholics who strive to hold the Faith? It is just as harmful and divisive as anathematizing anyone who questions the legitimacy of the VII papal poseurs.