It is absolutely clear that you are obstinately and knowingly entrenched in heresy.

That's my personally position, but I would nuance it a bit. To clarity what I wrote previously, I wouldn't say he lacks the authority.  He always possesses full supreme authority as an undivided and inseparable habit; but being a pertinacious heretic and a manifest wolf in sheep's clothing has the unfortunately effect of preventing him from licitly and validly exercise certain aspects of it (in certain circuмstances), such as excommunicating those who resist him or preventing the Bishops from gather at an imperfect council.

I could go in any direction about the detailed quibbling, but what I cannot accept as a matter of faith, is that the Church's Magisterium could go so badly off the rails as to be leading souls to hell, that the Church's Universal Discipline, the Mass, can be harmful to faith, to souls, and must be avoided by Catholics to please God.  Those propositions are anathema to me.  And that really is the problem most sedevacantists have ... it isn't Bellarmine vs. Cajetan vs. John of St. Thomas disputing the finer points of how many heretics can dance on the head of a pin.

I believe what follows in the depths of my soul, and this can never be dislodge from me -- (from Msgr. Fenton)

Quote

... 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.

To me, this isn't just Msgr. Fenton's opinion, but I hold this to be true de fide, with anything else being an implicit rejection of the Church's indefectibility.

Ok, fair point.  But still, I don’t think your quote applies to the question at hand.  No one is denying that the true pope has full powers/jurisdiction.

Yes, this is the only logical position. This is what gives us the axiom of "papa dubius, papa nullus", as Ladislaus points out.
I think the UPA argument can be refuted simply by thinking about a time in the Church when all are agreed that the pope was universally and peacefully accepted. Let's take the year 1950, when Pius XII was reigning gloriously. How many people were on internet forums (or whatever equivalent existed back then) torturously discussing whether he was the real pope? How many good Catholics simply could not believe he was the real pope? How many people thought they had to choose between believing in the Catholic Faith and believing in the teachings of Pope Pius XII, and that the two were diametrically opposed? How many good Catholics simply did not believe he was the pope at all, or thought Pius XI was still alive somewhere, and he was somehow still the pope? I could go on.

The answer is that in the in 1950 the answer to all those questions is "nobody", and now the answer to all those questions is "many thousands of people."

That should suffice to answer the question of whether Francis is universally, peacefully accepted as the pope.

EDIT: formatting

There is no universal peaceful acceptance of Jorge Bergoglio as the pope. I posted an answer to this idea in another thread. Let me copy/paste it here:

In any case, there is no universal public acceptance of George Bergoglio as pope on the part of Catholics, so the question is moot anyway. If someone is appealing to the mass of people who call themselves Catholic today, most of them don't believe that abortion, divorce, contraception, sodomy, etc. are mortal sins. Most of them don't believe in transubstantiation. People who don't accept these teachings are not Catholics, therefore their opinions are not relevant to a discussion of whether most Catholics accept George Bergoglio as pope.

Now, once you eliminate all those heretics from the discussion, the people you are left with are basically the ones we would call traditional Catholics, broadly speaking. Among those people it is true that a majority of them, probably, believe Francis is the pope, but the fact is that significant numbers of them don't. Probably many of them think George is likely the pope but are confused about how he is able to be such an open heretic and pope at the same time, and may be unsure in their own minds about the question. Then you have some who think Ratzinger is the pope. Then you have the sedevacantists. But however you look at it, among people who profess the Catholic Faith and do actually accept its teachings, there is nothing even remotely approaching a universal consensus that George is pope. So I think the UPA discussion is irrelevant to the current situation. Whatever acceptance George enjoys, it is far from being either universal or peaceful among Catholics.

This is very well articulated.  I'd add to the other heresies of the Conciliar adherents that the vast majority of them do not so much as believe in the fact that the Catholic Church and the Magisterium are the rule of faith.  Theologians who treat of UPA state that the principle derives from the fact that the Church cannot adhere to a false rule of faith.  But 99% of Conciliarists are so-called cafeteria Catholics, those who think they are their own rule of faith and can pick and choose whatever they like from among Church teaching.  So they do not even admit the existence of a rule of faith.

UPA has [nothing] to do with the discretionary judgment.