Not true, I am a sedeplenist, and I do not hold the NO bishops as legitimate.  I believe the new rites are valid, and that NO bishops may be valid because of that, but legitimacy is another thing.  It is a distinction that is lacking in the traditional world.  

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/irish-bishops-feature-lesbian-lgbt-activist-in-world-meeting-of-families-vi

The so called "Bishops" in this country are pathetic. Think about this, if you're not sedevacantist, you hold these heretics to be the legitimate hierarchy of the church. This is only a small piece of evidence to add to the big picture that they are not Catholic!

sean 1846 - I am thoroughly familiar with dimonds.  And, I repeat, I am a sedeplenist.  If I were not a plenist, then perhaps my validity reasoning would be flawed.  But, a pope can change the rites of the church despite the damaging effect it may have.  That means it would be still be valid, yet illicit.  This theology has been that of the sspx for many years, however only minimally applied.  And, it needs to be broadened.  Only the pope is protected from judgment by the church, the bishops outside of the diocese of rome are not.  They may be valid, but too much suggests that they are not legitimate.  As such, they do not belong int he canon of the mass.  Conversely, the pope always belongs in the canon of the mass, despite his defaults.  Because, his defaults are infinitely more desirable than the free for all conclavism that would result without.  Schism and heresy would be the norm.  Thank God that Our Lord prays for Peter, even in the midst of his thrice denial.  Temporal authority and obedience is believe it or not, one of the things that makes life an "advent"ure.