You say that it is a masterclass of deceit that I present you as disrespecting the traditional order, while I reject the traditional order.

But.....Sedevacantist doctrine is not part of the traditional order. It never has been. Sedevacantist doctrine is a novelty, and therefore not binding on anyone.

You set yourself up as a priest or bishop would - as the final arbiter of what is Catholic, and you believe your pronouncements as binding on all who hear or read them. Since when is it "traditional" for a layman to bind anyone? Well, in the Church of Vatican ll, the layman is God, and it is laymen who will save us. Our Lord only has a secondary role in our salvation, in the Church of Vatican ll. You have that in common with the Modernists.

The so-called sedevacantist doctrine is just the Catholic belief in the papacy.

The Sede vs. R&R debate has no end.

I am not a fan of either. Both seem somewhat unsatisfactory to me.

Will I be condemned if I don't pick one?

By men surely, on both sides of the fence, but I don't think that the good Lord will close the doors to Heaven if I don't make a clear and final decision on this matter.

The sense and the scope of schism. The requirement for determining at law the delict of pure schism is: I. that someone withdraw from the sphere of authority [obedientia] of the Roman Pontiff and separate himself from the ecclesiastical communion of the other faithful, either directly or expressly or indirectly or with implicit or tacit consent [factis concludentibus], even if he may not attach himself to a separated schismatic sect; — II. that the withdrawal be connected with pertinacity or rebellion; — III. that the withdrawal be done with respect to those things on which the unity of the Church is founded; — IV. notwithstanding formal disobedience and denial of being subordinate, that the schismatic acknowledge that the aforementioned Roman Pontiff is the true pastor of the universal Church and that obedience must be offered to him in accordance with the teaching of the faith: but if he says [the Pope] is not [the true pastor of the universal Church], heresy will be added as an ingredient to schism.
Wherefore the delict of schism, in the strict sense, is not committed by him who withdraws from his own bishop and from the communion of the faithful of his own diocese, but [by him who] refuses to be under the Roman Pontiff and to be in communion with the rest of the faithful of the universal Church. Nor is someone determined to be a schismatic by means of a simple transgression of pontifical law; otherwise, all violators of universal ecclesiastical laws would also prove to be schismatics — something that is plainly absurd. Finally, those cannot be regarded as schismatics who refuse to obey a Roman Pontiff because they are suspicious of his person or because of unfavorable reports [rumores] spread abroad that [he] was doubtfully elected, as happened after the election of Urban VI, or [those who] may resist him as a civil ruler and not as shepherd of the Church.

I am not a fan of either. Both seem somewhat unsatisfactory to me.

I wonder what Bishop Williamson will say wrt the Vigano happenings.....

And what if we don't start listening to him?

I can understand the thrill of having a sedevacantist in the mainstream news - how often does that happen? Never!

We don't have to deny the Pope in order to keep our Catholic faith. Bergolio/Francis isn't going to keep me from practicing the Catholic faith as it should be practiced. God gives us the Pope we deserve, and things must be pretty bad, from God's perspective, to allow a Pope like Bergolio/Francis.

No, but you may be depending on WHY you pick something.  That's the problem with R&R as articulated above; it undermines and destroys Catholic doctrine/dogma about the papacy, to the point that one could not condemn the Old Catholics or Eastern Orthodox or even Prots.  If the papacy is capable of going corrupt in faith and morals, to the point of justifying and even requiring the separation of communion with it, then how can we say it didn't go corrupt already during the time of the Prots or the Old Catholics?  So if that's what you mean by R&R, yes, you're rejecting Catholic doctrine.

If you have some other rationale for why you think Bergogio et al. might be popes (at least materially) that doesn't destroy the papacy, then it's just a question of theory.  So, for instannce, Father Chazal considers himself R&R but he articulates a position that does not destroy the Catholic papacy and the Catholic Church ... though I'm not sure I would consider him R&R in that sense of the term.