I can only speak for things I've seen in my own local SSPX parish.

When I was still in catechesis (at the Ukrainian Rite Byzantine Catholic Church) I visited the SSPX once and I asked the priest at my local SSPX whether it was sinful to attend the NO and his answer was "if you know what's wrong with it."  He did say he wouldn't say not to attend a Motu mass though he kinda seemed to somewhat caution against it somewhat though, so maybe you'd see that as a sign of modernization.  No, I've never specifically heard a sermon against the NO, though I've only been attending there regularly since May of this year, though I'd visited a couple times prior.  I have heard at least some parishoners speaking against attendance at the NO, when the subject came up during conversations.  I don't believe I've seen Vatican II specifically addressed either.

Still, having a formal position in opposition to V2 even if one isn't specifically bringing it up seems different than being for it.

Furthermore, I think there's still a difference between the indult and the NO.  Yes I get that FSSPers would technically say the NO is "acceptable" but the reality is they still arent offering a mass created by a freemason as a compromise with Protestantism.  I think this stuff does matter.  And I think I can say it matters without saying their position is ideal.

I'm still not seeing this big difference between the indult and SSPX.  Having a formal position on something and not actually doing anything about it are two different things.  The indults are also against Vatican II, but don't speak about it.  Wasn't that the original agreement between them and JPII when allowed to form within the Novus Ordo structure?  

As an organization, has the SSPX recently spoken out against Bergoglio, Vatican II and the connections between the two?  I have not seen anything.  Feel free to post it if they have and I have missed it.

"The pope's status" is derivative of his manifest actions and statements—"automatically," "immediately," "without need for any further declaration," etc.
We certainly have the right and obligation to judge manifest outrages against the Faith.
We have no right or obligation to depose a Pope, but that is irrelevant because a heretic deposes himself.

The popes' status is by law, established upon him accepting his election, once he does that, the law states that: "the man
elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world". So according to the law, if his status is a derivative of anything, then his status is derived from the pope accepting his election, and not from the approval of his subjects or speculations of some of the Fathers of the Church.

I absolutely agree that, as you said; "we certainly have the right and obligation to judge manifest outrages against the Faith" - to which I add that we have this obligation no matter who does it, or where it comes from. The reason that we have this obligation is to pray for the offender because to die in that sin means eternal punishment, but also so that we do not lose the faith ourselves, and also in order to keep, grow and persevere in the faith, but this obligation does not exist in order to decide the status of popes.

I also agree we have no right or obligation to depose a pope, yet if his heresies cause him to self depose, we can never know it without a declaration from a future pope stating as much, lest, like Ibranyi, we gravely err in claiming true popes are not popes at all.

So there is much we agree on.

I judge men by their fruits, for fathers, their fruits are their children and how they turnout, for priests it is their faithful and how they turn out.  I've seen expert book writers and lecturers in subjects like sedevacantes, Jews, NWO etc. that have been a disaster as fathers, spending all their time on their subject. It's like the saying, "the shoemakers children have holes in their shoes". The shoemaker spending all his time working on other peoples shoes and not on his family. Really, it is like straining gnats and swallowing camels.

To me, the details how a Vatican II pope can be or can't be a heretic and is or isn't a true a pope, is not something that anyone will ever conclude with absolute certainty, for it is an unprecedented situation. If the whole world goes to pot, while I do my job raising my children to LIVE the faith, to be examples to others, the question of sedevacantes will be as nothing.

P.S. - I'm of the thinking that that love of sin leads to loss of the faith (heresy, blindness of faith, apostacy.)

I cannot disagree, yet is it not also a sin in and of itself to lose the faith, which once lost, feeds the inclination toward more sins, i.e. heresy, blindness of faith, apostasy. It seems to me the faith is a type of shield, without the faith, without the shield, we are basically defenseless against these other sins - then these sins become our shield against the faith we lost - which is a reason why conversions can be so difficult.

Another Captain Obvious.  What, because my opinion isn’t worth more than anyone else’s I’m not allowed to post it?  What exactly is your point?  I’m convinced that I’m right and am advocating on behalf of my position.

You do the same thing.  So you’re allowed to advocate for your position, but when I do so it’s because I think I’m special.  Get lost, Meg.

You’ll notice that I’m actually indifferent to the specifics of resolving the Pope issue.

I actually believe and have stated that Fr. Chazal’s position is as legitimate as the sedeprivationist one because it is not inconsistent with any Church teaching.

So you’ll notice that I am not even against R&R per se, but merely against some articulations if the position.  I have zero problem with +Lefebvre or Chazal.

You do nothing but whine and make personal attacks and snide comments.  You add nothing of value to any of these debates.  Return to the kitchen where you belong.

Do you believe that you have been given a grace by God to fully understand the Crisis in the Church?

The difference is fairly simple

SSPX has certainly valid holy orders.  They use the old Roman ordination and episcopal consecration rites.

Indult/FSSP doesn't have certainly valid holy orders.  They trust Paul VI's new rites.  

The difference, for the time being at least, is if the conciliar authorities decreed that they will shut down all of the indults tomorrow, then as of tomorrow there would be no indults within the conciliar church. If they wanted to shut down the SSPX, the SSPX, at least in my neck of the woods, would continue on business as usual. Not sure how long this will stay true tho.
 

Unless that happens, this does not prove a major difference...now.   

The Resistance does not believe itself to be the ONLY right and proper position to take.

What are the other "right and proper positions," Poche?