Plenty of catholics have benefited from the sspx even if many of their priests are liberal. Those laity who aren't strong in their faith, only have themselves to blame. The mass outweighs other concerns...at the moment.
A Catholic has an obligation to attend mass, under pain of mortal sin. Right now, the sspx offers valid mass/sacraments and people have an OBLIGATION to attend, if they have no other alternatives. One CANNOT stay at home if there is an sspx mass available.
If/when the sspx becomes an indult/rome mass, then your arguments apply. Until then, the obligation of attending mass trumps all other concerns.
That is a matter of opinion.
You are not the Pope. Please stop pretending to rule on practical, prudential matters. You have no authority to issue Papal proclamations, or issue encyclicals to settle and clarify disputed matters.
I appreciate that this is a hot issue for Trads (like the status of the Pope) -- one side calls the other schismatic, while that side calls the other compromisers/fence sitters.
Neither of those things is good. They both can't be right. It's an important matter of the Faith, etc.
Nevertheless, the objective truth on the matter is not within our reach. We have enough info to reach a prudential decision for ourselves and our families (which isn't saying much; a prudential decision has no minimum info requirement!), but
we don't have the certainty to be able to bind the conscience of others.
It's not as simple as you think. If it were, then those who disagree with you would be bad-willed people voluntarily choosing hell. I assure you that isn't the case. There are those abstaining from the SSPX and staying at home who love God every bit as much as you -- perhaps even more -- and have made *greater* sacrifices and commitment to God. Let's just say there are some on "the other side" from you who are holier and less inclined to give up their soul than you are.
The same goes for the eternal Sede vs. R&R debate.
If you don't believe me, then too bad, because you're simply wrong.