Like the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, Ladislaus would be quite happy with that position, because it had the "virtue" of toleration of the schismatic sedevacantist position.
Lisping: "Just towerate uth!"
But never lose track of this:
A popeless church for 602 years and counting (forevermore), and no way ever to re-establish an hierarchy.
That's the dope the sedes are smoking.
They are not merely pope killers: They are church killers.

I mean, I'm nowhere near a sede, but IDK... some of the sede hatred seems irrational to me.  Is Sedevacantism seriously worse than modernism?  The Pope literally just brazenly violated natural law and said ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ civil unions should be allowed.  Is everyone who questions whether he could be a pope of bad will?

Keep in mind Lefebvre did doubt the pontificates of Paul VI and JPII, though he never went sede.

A lot of this feels procedural to me.  I've said before that my biggest critique of sedes is procedure rather than theology.  I find the Sedeprivationist approach to be a cop out (though it theoretically provides a solution to the problem you describe) and the straight sedevacantist position even more so.  If there's truly no pope, the sede bishops need to gather together and elect a pope.  the fact that they won't does bother me.

But this seems like a procedural problem.  Accusing them of killing the church seems silly to me.  It seems more like the modern hierarchy is killing the church.  The best you can accuse the sedes of is not fixing it, but then, we aren't fixing it either.

Is God really going to send someone to hell for getting a procedural question wrong?  That seems kinda unfair to me.

I mean... if St Pius X was pope, both "R and R" *and* Sedevacantist would be guilty of "refusal to submit to the Roman Pontiff" but in this case, both sides for grave reason aren't submitting (at least fully) to the man the entire world recognizes as pope.

I don't know... none of the solutions seem particularly appealing.  I don't even call myself R and R really.  I more just try to ignore him as much as possible, save my daily prayers for him, unless someone brings him up or I have to address him in some capacity in my efforts to present the faith to Protestant family members and friends which is really what I care about.  I have a seriously hard time God would condemn somebody for accidentally picking the second or third least bad of a series of bad options.  That doesn't make sense to me.  And that goes for the strong Sedes who condemn everyone else too.

Yeah, but you have the authority and right to declare their Councils, Mass, Sacraments, Canon Law, universal disciplinary laws, Canonizations and Encyclicals null and void.

We're not declaring the V2 council, new mass, sacraments, canon law or encyclicals to be null/void, but we declare them to: 1) be legally valid, in the sense that they happened in a historical way and were legally docuмented.
2) but they are illegal to follow/practice, because they violate the requirements/commands of Quo Primum.
3) all of the above were not ordered as binding, nor are they obligatory, nor is there any pain of sin attached to ignoring them.
4) None of these things are part of the "universal discipline" which term presupposes that they are a) binding on the whole church, b) under pain of sin.  They are neither, so the correct term is a "non-universal option".
.
So, there is no sin, nor crisis of conscience in sticking with Tradition/Quo Primum, and ignoring all of V2's nonsense.  In fact, if one DOES NOT stick with Tradition/Quo Primum, they commit many grave sins and violate church law.
.
The "pope question" is a wholly separate matter than the above, which is a matter of Church law.

3) all of the above were not ordered as binding, nor are they obligatory, nor is there any pain of sin attached to ignoring them.

Except your Pope, “Saint” Paul VI declared the following at the close of Vatican Council II:

 “…we order and command that all that the Council has decided in synod be sacredly and religiously held by all of Christ’s faithful, unto the glory of God… These things we edict and prescribe, decreeing that this present letter must ever be and remain firm, valid and efficacious and obtain and retain its full and integral effects…Given at Rome, under the fisherman’s ring…”

Byzcat, I too would like to understand Lad's position better, but he never goes deeper than what he wrote earlier.  I think the topic gets him riled up, so he tries to avoid it.
.
It's hard to have a honest discussion of these matters; too many are entrenched in their opinions already.  I'd love a honest critique/discussion of my views, by someone who is searching for the truth, not for the "kill shot" against the "other side".  PM me if you're interested.

PM sent.

Mark, in your earlier post, you admitted that cuм Ex was abrogated by Pope St Pius X (and again by Pius XII), who both allowed the excommunicated Cardinals to vote/win a papal conclave.  ??  You're going around in circles here.  If cuм Ex doesn't apply anymore (at least to a pope), then quit quoting it.

No circles.
AS I POSTED (please re-read it), the language of the abrogation referred ONLY to election, NOTHING ELSE.
Unless someone can adduce a more encompassing abrogation, we are left with an [admittedly bizarre] heretics-can-be-elected, but "automatically" and "immediately" depose themselves "without need for any further declaration."
If there is more extensive abrogation, someone should put it on the table.

We're not declaring the V2 council, new mass, sacraments, canon law or encyclicals to be null/void, but we declare them to: 1) be legally valid, in the sense that they happened in a historical way and were legally docuмented.
2) but they are illegal to follow/practice, because they violate the requirements/commands of Quo Primum.
3) all of the above were not ordered as binding, nor are they obligatory, nor is there any pain of sin attached to ignoring them.
4) None of these things are part of the "universal discipline" which term presupposes that they are a) binding on the whole church, b) under pain of sin.  They are neither, so the correct term is a "non-universal option".
.
So, there is no sin, nor crisis of conscience in sticking with Tradition/Quo Primum, and ignoring all of V2's nonsense.  In fact, if one DOES NOT stick with Tradition/Quo Primum, they commit many grave sins and violate church law.
.
The "pope question" is a wholly separate matter than the above, which is a matter of Church law.

What about those new environmental sins against Gaia?

4. I do not have the competence or jurisdiction to have a dispositive opinion on these matters AND NEITHER DO YOU.

Exactly!

It's great to discuss and argue theology on forums, but in the end we can't bind consciences, or compel others under pain of mortal sin, because no one of us is the Pope.