My missing point is, Rome does not have the Faith, therefore don't wait for Rome to say ... "accept under the pain of SIN"

By the way, if it is not a matter of one's salvation whether or not someone is the pope, why do sedevacantists so stubbornly hold to their position? ...And this "all-important" claim of theirs could have disastrous eternal ramifications for them and their followers if it is in fact incorrect!

It's not really a contradiction.
  Well, what you meant to say may not have been but what you actually wrote is contradictory.
 I'm saying that God will not damn someone for accepting an anti-pope as pope in a situation of confusion,
 Not necessarily, and quibbling about who does the "damning" is another subject. For example, siding with an antipope that one knows is such. 

as long as there has not been an official decree by the Church

And, speaking of the following "GWS", just how would that determination be made exactly in such a situation? Kinda hard to sort out just who and what really holds the offices, and therefore determine just who really does the talking for the Church, no? That was the problem, right?


 on the matter. St. Vincent Ferrer sided with and anti-pope

So?

during the Great Western Schism, and don't even try to tell me that there shouldn't be an "st." in front of his name.

Why would I do that? 

 On the other hand, God may

Right. "May"

punish someone for rejecting the publicly accepted pope in a situation where the alternative side is no pope at all.

Without again quibbling over specific terms, by reflex principle alone that is the default, no? In ANY papal election, there is only one pope elected, unless I missed some "alternates" rules for elections like sports or something. If not, then, again, you are really saying anything. 

After all, being "under the same vicar of Christ" is a condition for membership in the Church isn't it?

Being subject to the pope is absolutely necessary for salvation. Yet again, "so what"?

Let's not forget what Pope Boniface the VIII had to say on the matter,
 quote from the solemn bull Unam Sanctam:
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Right. Do I need to ask it again?

First off, thank you for admitting that new Rome does not command us to abandon the Faith, under pain of sin.  Therefore, we can conclude that they do not FORCE anyone to abandon the faith, but they TEMPT people as does the pied piper, by playing a nice tune and leading them to destruction, like Satan does.  But these temptations are not from the church, officially, but from the churchMEN.
 

Exactly what?

DISTINCTION time again. I get THAT you're agreeing, which isn't the same (question) as to WHAT you are agreeing with/to. I don't care WHO said it in this case if it wasn't the Church.

What isn't clear is what all that has to do with anything, again, (not your doing this time), as if a well placed "Exactly" just wraps it all up in a bow.

It's the white guy version of "word!"

In other words, I fail to see how it is even relevant, even IF otherwise correct, let alone "exact".

Rephrase two. What are you all even talking about, and where does the Church say so?