Anyone who attempts to answer that question ends up answering a different question:

"What good is Traditional Catholicism?"

But that's not the question I asked.

Traditional Catholicism is defined as: "The movement by which Catholics deal with the Crisis in the Church (an unprecedented split between Truth and Authority) by cleaving to Truth rather than Authority which has abused its power and over-stepped its bounds. Specifically and practically speaking, this consists of leaving the Conciliar Church structure (the Novus Ordo Mass) completely, and seeking out sure priests and sure sacraments(1) wherever they can be found, with the aim of keeping the Faith and saving their souls. Permission to do this is not sought from said Authority, since such permission is not required.(2)

(1) The Novus Ordo Mass is a doubtful Rite, at least opening itself up to invalidity. The Tridentine Mass is a sure thing. The Church teaches that when you have a choice between "100% sure" and "75% sure" you are morally obligated to go with the "100%" option.
The same goes for priests. They did change the Rite of Ordination and the Rite of Consecration. Why risk invalidity, when the old Rite is 100% certain? Therefore we are obligated to stick with the safer route.

(2) This part of the essential definition of "Traditional Catholic" necessarily leads to the conclusion that Indult and Diocesan fans of the "Latin Mass" or "Extraordinary Form" are not true Traditional Catholics -- which is correct. They can be called conservatives, fans of the Latin Mass, but they lack understanding of the Traditional Movement, its purposes and justifications.

Likewise, when people try to attach Bishop Williamson/Archbishop Lefebvre's position on the Novus Ordo Mass, they end up preaching the virtues of the Traditional Catholic position. But, again, that was not the topic of discussion.

My question: what virtues are SPECIFIC to the Sedevacantist position, and its consequent beliefs about the Papacy, the visible Church, the restoration of the Church, the status of the N.O.M., and the status of all Catholics in the Conciliar Church.

People seem to confuse the Pope question (quite optional, and best left alone) with the essential (saving our souls, which requires true priests and true sacraments -- i.e., Traditional Catholicism)

One of these is clearly God's will for each one of us (saving our souls), while the other is quite debatable (personally, I think it's above our pay grade -- especially for those of us in the Lay state!)

That has to be the question, because the discussion is certainly not about "To Tradition or NOT to Tradition" -- I think we can all agree that Traditional Catholicism is the way to go. The debate is about going the next step, and deposing the Pope and the entire Conciliar structure as absolutely, simpliciter, literally "not Catholic".

Wow Matthew, by framing it in utilitarian terms, you've convinced me that Jorge Bergoglio is the pope. :D

I'm not being utilitarian. I'm being rational. And yes, I'm being a bit practical and grounded in reality.

To rephrase the question, "Why is sedevacantism necessary, or why would a person be wise to choose that path?"

Or, "What does Sedevacantism add to Traditional Catholicism, in the work of saving our souls?"

That's what I meant by "What good is sedevacantism?" I didn't mean, "How does Sedevacantism add to my income?" Or "How does Sedevacantism help with my housework?"

By being sarcastic in this manner, it makes me wonder why you are changing the subject. Is it because I'm exposing sedevacantism for the dead-end that it is?

Yes.  You have exposed sedevacantism as practically worthless, and as we all know, what is not useful is not true.

Well, that might be my eventual conclusion, but I'm giving you a chance to explain why a Sedevacantist Catholic has a better chance of saving his soul than a non-Sedevacantist Traditional Catholic.

I know, it's a hard question, to the point of impossible to answer. So I'm not surprised you're dodging the question.

Nah, I'm just having some fun.  But you're asking the wrong question.

The question is not one of utility, but of truth.  That's something all traditional Catholics can get behind.  The question, "why are we traditional Catholics?" can be answered legitimately by pointing to the fact that traditional Catholicism is true, and that God made us to apprehend the truth.  So the only question that we should be concerned about when approaching sedevacantism from a non sedevacantist position is whether or not it is a true allegation.  Come what may from there.

I have answers-- regarding the practical benefits of sedevacantism-- I just don't think that they're the primary reason that anyone should end up concluding that the conciliar claimants aren't popes.  The primary reason is distillable to truth; in this instance, a theological truth that is intertwined with the nature of Christ's mystical bride, an organization which is a visible unity of faith and charity, and one from which those who have severed themselves (from either bond) do not belong.

Even if there were no practical advantages to acknowledging these non-papacies at all, the fact of the matter would remain undisturbed.  I think it's important to acknowledge this.  If we evaluate usefulness before truth, what does that say about us?

Anyways, those who acknowledge the state of sede vacante have clarity.  They are not pre-occupied with looking at what the "pope" says and figuring out what is true or not.  They're also not pre-occupied with the sedevacantist question, either, which is something sedeplenists find themselves frequently anxious about.  Practical devotions become clearer, because you have a "deadline" after which you know that no pope has canonized a saint, approved a Litany, instituted a change in sacramental rite, etc.  You can actually focus on your spiritual life instead of being absorbed in controversies.  You can tell your children, "that man isn't pope, so don't listen to him."  Now, one could say, "I'm not a sedevacantist but I do all this anyways."  Heh. 

What do you call a man who doesn't teach as pope, doesn't legislate as pope, doesn't canonize as pope, and doesn't actually do anything a pope does?  To invert the old saying: if it doesn't walk like a duck, or quack like a duck, well...

Now of course, one needn't be a sedevacantist to go to Heaven, but if we're distilling things to the minimum prerequisite to be saved, once again: what does that say about us?  If a person judges that they can discuss the matter, then let's discuss the matter; let's not focus on pragmatics at the expense of ontology.

Honestly Matthew, sounds to me like you're convinced of sedevacantism and you're asking the age-old (valid) question: where do we go from here?  Maybe you can share with us how you think the SSPX, or Bishop Williamson, could restore the Church.

Honestly Matthew, sounds to me like you're convinced of sedevacantism and you're asking the age-old (valid) question: where do we go from here?  Maybe you can share with us how you think the SSPX, or Bishop Williamson, could restore the Church.

Now you're asking the wrong question.
Or you've demonstrated how many sedevacantists "miss the point".

The problem is, we don't know with anything greater than "moral certainty" that sedevacantism is true, and neither do you.  
We can act based on moral certainty though, so that isn't a condemnation of you, or others like you.

But we don't have the certainty of faith, or metaphysical certainty, or the certainty of dogma, on the Pope question. From this truth comes the conclusion that we can't impose our THEOLOGICAL OPINION on others. And that is the principle by which I criticize Fr. Cekada, the Dimond Bros., and other "dogmatic" sedevacantists. They attempt to condemn non-sedevacantists.

Others go half-way, and say "Oh I don't condemn non-Sedevacantists. Some of them are in ignorance..." But let me ask you: am I in ignorance? Anyone who's been a member of CI longer than a few weeks knows better. So such persons could only conclude that I am malicious.

I don't know how Bishop Williamson and the Resistance are going to restore the Church. How the Church will be restored is a MYSTERY and I'm OK with that.

Sedevacantists, on the other hand, want cut-and-dried, simple, humanly understandable solutions they can wrap their minds around. Mystery is ANATHEMA to them. Some even know with certainty how the Church will be restored: a miraculous apparition of St. Michael, or Sts. Peter and Paul. See what I mean? No mystery.

I, on the other hand, acknowledge the mystery.

Well...I see your point but I can think of at least one group that did reconcile with Modernist Rome: the Fraternity of St. Vincent Ferrer (a quasi Dominican religious order). Yet the majority have not.

Yes, but while we talk about "how various Trad groups go off the deep end", it should be pointed out that Sedevacantists, by their very nature, are not inclined (or tempted) to "make a deal with Rome" because they believe the Pope is not the Pope and the Church is not the Church. (As an aside, it should be pointed out that Sedevacantists are almost always Ecclesia-vacantist as well as Sede-vacantist)

The ways Sede groups go off the rails are simply different. They are not SAFER or in a MORE PRUDENT PLACE -- they simply picked a different poison. They go off the rails, percentage wise, just as often. They have just as many problems in their chapels. The problems are just...different.

For example, Sede groups are more likely to end up in SCHISM with other Catholics, or end up dogmatic "we're the last Catholics on earth" home aloners. 

How is that any better than going back to the Conciliar Church? Recall that the devil is just as happy to grab you FROM THE RIGHT as well as FROM THE LEFT.

The Pharisees were a demonic distortion to the Right, just as the Sadducees were the deviation to the Left. Both were condemned by Our Lord.

Yes, but while we talk about "how various Trad groups go off the deep end", it should be pointed out that Sedevacantists, by their very nature, are not inclined (or tempted) to "make a deal with Rome" because they believe the Pope is not the Pope and the Church is not the Church. (As an aside, it should be pointed out that Sedevacantists are almost always Ecclesia-vacantist as well as Sede-vacantist)

The ways Sede groups go off the rails are simply different. They are not SAFER or in a MORE PRUDENT PLACE -- they simply picked a different poison. They go off the rails, percentage wise, just as often. They have just as many problems in their chapels. The problems are just...different.

For example, Sede groups are more likely to end up in SCHISM with other Catholics, or end up dogmatic "we're the last Catholics on earth" home aloners.

How is that any better than going back to the Conciliar Church? Recall that the devil is just as happy to grab you FROM THE RIGHT as well as FROM THE LEFT.

The Pharisees were a demonic distortion to the Right, just as the Sadducees were the deviation to the Left. Both were condemned by Our Lord.

Again, you are simply wrong on the facts.  Nothing you are saying is "more likely" for sedevacantists, just some of the sedevacantists you know.  And no, sedevacantists are NOT almost always "Ecclesia-vacantist".  That's just calumny.  You're either making things up or are just listening to people who are telling you stories; at best you're attributing to all what a few have told you.

By the way, every single sedevacantist I know is willing to consider looking at Rome when the man claiming to be pope at the Vatican is actually a Catholic.

What good is Sedevacantism?

Ask our Lady of Fatima...
As far as I know, she only requested that we pray for the Pope for he will have much to suffer. I personally believe that if the sedevacantist position carried any weight, Our Lady would have suggested something in the line of praying for a "True Pope" to be appointed. 
So as far as I'm concerned, in regards to the question, there is no good.