CathInfo.com

Anti-sede, but not anti-Catholic. I myself am growing "anti-sede" in the sense that it now entails an entire set of beliefs and practices set apart from the rest beyond merely not believing these Popes are legitimate.

I would be accused of being anti-R&R and starting "trad wars" if I just posted Fr. Cekada videos too. You can't simply discuss anything on a Catholic forum without being accused of offending idol A or B. To hell with it all.

I think you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater here.  There are some, mostly the radical dogmatic SV types that you've had a bad experience with, but this doesn't mean that Jorge Bergoglio is the pope.  He's clearly not.  There are some more balanced positions out there that don't lead to the excesses of the dogmatic sedevacantists, not excluding that of Father Chazal.  Your association this entire "set of beliefs and practices" is to give in and allow the dogmatic SV to define what it means to be a sedevacantist.  There are many moderate SVs out there who overlap with the moderate R&R ... at least as far as their attitude of being somewhat tolerant regarding things that fall short of settled Catholic doctrine.

You don't have to declare everybody and his uncle a heretic in order to hold that Bergoglio is no pope and that the papacy is protected by the Holy Spirit from grave error (something that even Archbishop Lefebvre affirmed).

You don't have to de-canonize and de-Doctorize Saint Alphonsus.  This thinking comes from the binary mentality where someone is either 100% right about everything or else a bad-willed malicious heretic.  It's possible to disagree respectfully with a St. Alphonsus without reviling him.

I'm largely ignorant of this liturgy but have seen it thrown around with disdain here. The area im looking to move would have a Maronite Church right in town (https://maps.app.goo.gl/5jUfrDSennhUJBsB6), but is it valid like the Tridentine or Eastern liturgies? Or to be avoided like the NOM?

I have looked for Eastern Rite possibilities in the past, and never succeeded. I found that these parishes are very liberal, and pray in the vulgar tongue. They are pretty much NO venues with a Mediterranean twist. 

I don't think the NO hierarchy is going to let any official organ in communion with their sect remain integral and intact. But if you find something to the contrary, I'm all ears; because I would run this way in a heartbeat if I could find orthodoxy in belief and liturgy. 

Anti-sede, but not anti-Catholic. I myself am growing "anti-sede" in the sense that it now entails an entire set of beliefs and practices set apart from the rest beyond merely not believing these Popes are legitimate.

I would be accused of being anti-R&R and starting "trad wars" if I just posted Fr. Cekada videos too. You can't simply discuss anything on a Catholic forum without being accused of offending idol A or B. To hell with it all.

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.