I might be talking nonsense here (again!) but I would say materially schismatic, perhaps, but not formally, at least for most of them.

Yes, these have been posted here by you and by man others (myself included) many times here on CI.  You'll notice that the reason that R&R refuse subjection to the Roman Pontiff is not listed among the exceptions, namely, because the Pope's Magisterium has become corrupt.  That's precisely the claim made by the Protestants, Orthodox, and Old Catholics.

I have posted this several times in the past:


Canonists have told us that sedevacantists are not schismatic if they recognize the papacy, do not intend to reject a true pope and act with good reason.

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)

De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)

I have posted this several times in the past:


Canonists have told us that sedevacantists are not schismatic if they recognize the papacy, do not intend to reject a true pope and act with good reason.

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)

De Lugo: “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded [‘probabiliter'] doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refers to Sanchez and Palao].” (Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8)

Good quote, Meg. I agree, I think that that condition, him being suspect, is taken for granted in the quotes I posted above.

I have posted this several times in the past:


Canonists have told us that sedevacantists are not schismatic if they recognize the papacy, do not intend to reject a true pope and act with good reason.

F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal: “Finally they cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation.” (Ius Canonicuм, 7:398, 1943)

Rev Ignatius Szal: “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, 1948)

The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics 


the name of Christian, nevertheless refuses obedience to the 
Supreme Pontiff or refuses to communicate with those members 
of the Church who are subject to him. 2 There is here involved 
no denial of any article of divine or Catholic faith. Strictly 
considered, a schismatic professes belief in the sovereign power 
and primacy of the Pope, but out of malice refuses to be subject 
to him and to obey him as the Head of the Church and the Vicar 
of Christ on earth. Such schism is called pure schism. 

To constitute the delict of schism in the strict sense, the 
following conditions are required: 

1 ) One must withdraw directly (expressly) or indirectly (by 
means of one’s actions) from obedience to the Roman 
Pontiff, and separate oneself from ecclesiastical com¬ 
munion with the rest of the faithful, even though one does 
not join a separate schismatical sect; 

2 ) one’s withdrawal must be made with obstinacy and rebel¬ 
lion ; 

3) the withdrawal must be made in relation to those things 
by which the unity of the Church is constituted; and 

4) despite this formal disobedience the schismatic must rec¬ 
ognize the Roman Pontiff as the true pastor of the 
Church, and he must profess as an article of faith that 
obedience is due the Roman Pontiff. 3 

As a consequence there is no schism involved if one separates 
from his bishop and the communion of the faithful of his diocese, 
but remains subject to the Roman Pontiff and the Universal 
Church. However, today such a position would be impossible 
to maintain in practice. Nor is there any schism if one merely 
transgress a Papal law for the reason that one considers it too 
difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects 
the person of the Pope or the validity of his election, or if one 
resists him as the civil head of a state. 4 

(4 Reiffenstuel, Jus Canonicuм TJniversum (5 vols. in 3, Maceratae, 1760, 
Lib. V, tit. 8, n. 5 (hereafter cited Jus Canonicuм); Schmalzgrueber, Jus)