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".

Truly absurd... and the cherry on the top of their scandalous/false narrative is that they refuse to lift the slightest finger to fill their imagined vacancy, as they seduce gullible souls like Mithrandylan, see: https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/new-traditional-catholic-chapel-mn/msg543934/#msg543934

There is no good quality to sedevacantism.  Sedevacantists try to concern Catholics that they are obeying an heretic.  I can assure every single sede in the world that Francis has not asked me to do a single thing.  

Resistance to the Pope and the hierarchy has been shown many times over the centuries, usually the resisters became saints too. 

Ah, Bumph... here's a little tp, you got some bs comin out your keyboard.

Is that a fact?
I invite you to listen to this 40 minute conference. It touches on this very subject you have affirmed.
"Resisters"..