CathInfo.com

The difference is that the SSPX admits they believe violating a law promulgated by a Pope is permitted in circuмstances circuмstances, such as the present crisis. The sedevacantists insist that it is not permitted, and then do it anyway.  

LOL, that's a good real world example of "the pot calling the kettle black". That's funny. No insult intended. Maybe because I am a spectator on the sidelines I see it for what it is?

I don't follow these threads on RR vs Sede vs N.O. indult, but I assume what is going on here is that the sedes are calling the SSPX hypocrites for accepting the pope and then disregarding him to consecrate bishops, and the SSPX is calling the sedes hypocrites for consecrating bishop when they teach that you can't do that. Anyhow, the sedes believe there is no pope and so they can consecrate bishops.

All this says is that Catholics should not limit their obedience to their pastors to the acceptance of Catholic dogmas.  Notice that he is not speaking only of the Pope, but to all pastors.    Just as this teaching does not prove that other pastors are unable to error on faith or morals, neither does it prove that a Pope is unable to error in faith or morals when he is not defining a doctrine.

.
Fair enough. So do you give obedience to Francis and his pastors even in things that are not a dogma of faith, as this says you must? And we agree that Catholics must accept the teachings of their pastors, even in things that are not dogmas of faith, and not even just to the pope but also to other pastors. So before we even get into the question of whether a pope can err in such a matter, I think it's important to ask if you accept that you owe obedience -- and in fact give such obedience -- to Francis and his teachers in the way described here.
.

Once again, this does not say a Pope is unable to error when he is not defining a doctrine.  What this quote is saying is that the magisterium was instituted so that deposit of faith could be perpetually retained by a body of living men, who could present them to men of all ages, and define dogmas when necessary to preserve it from the attacks of heretics.

.
Well, to be precise, he is saying the teaching authority of the Church is exercised through the pope and the bishops who are in communion with him. So, if there is no pope at the moment, there can't really be any bishops in communion with the pope anyway. I'm not saying that definitely the case, as there are various opinions on whether that's the case or not and I admit the matter is very obscure, but I can point out as an obvious fact that none of the bishops in the Novus Ordo Church, that I am aware of, uphold the Catholic Faith. And before you say this is impossible, there are numerous theologians that have said the Church can exist for many years without a pope without any violation of the promises Our Lord made to St. Peter. And they said this long before Vatican 2.
.

So, my question to you is, where is this teaching authority today?  Where is the body of “bishops who are in communion with” the Roman Pontiff that this papal teaching says will exist forever?

.
No, you misread the quote. It says, "For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men..." It's the revealed doctrines that will remain intact forever. And they have, among traditional Catholics of all kinds, while they have not all remained intact among members of the Novus Ordo Church, who believe in large numbers that abortion, contraception, divorce, etc. are not sins, and many of whom do not believe in transubstantiation, to name just a few examples.
.

No where does this say a Pope cannot error in faith or morals when he is not defining a doctrine.  And just as the 72 disciples from Luke 10:16, to whom Jesus said, “He who heareth you, heareth me,” were not infallible, neither is the Pope infallible when he exercises his ordinary teaching authority.

.
Okay, so do you accept the encyclical letter Amoris Laetitia, which says that divorced and remarried people can receive Holy Communion? The quote I provided says that you can't say, "I don't have to accept something in an encyclical because the pope is not using the supreme power of his teaching authority."
.

All this says is if two Popes issue contradictory directive, the one currently in force is to be obeyed, and cannot be disobeyed in favor of the latter.  What it doesn’t say is that a Pope cannot err in faith or morals when he is not defining a dogma. 

.
Well, I don't know exactly what your position is since I don't believe I've discussed stuff like this with you before, but a lot of people say that they need not accept the errors of Vatican 2 popes since they go against what prior popes have taught. This quote says that one may not "set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them."
.
To answer your questions as to why sedevacantists go against some provisions of the 1917 code of canon law, in general, there is a principle of law that it does not bind when it becomes harmful to souls. So, Catholics would be deprived of bishops and eventually of priests if they could not consecrate without the permission of the pope, since there isn't any pope to grant that permission, and therefore because of the necessity of having bishops they apply that principle and consecrate bishops to maintain episcopal orders.