...It's just that trads can't really agree on where the Church is exactly, or who belongs to it....

Bingo

Having a dysfunctional hierarchy still leaves a possibility for a future conclave, and pope, to judge the the heresiarch who held office. Going the route of some sedevecantist positions (I'm not saying this is you, necessarily) would leave even that route out of the question. Hence your appeal to Sts. Peter and Paul prophecy (reminds me of the BODer appeal to an angel baptizing someone if they truly wanted unity with the Church). I mean, how many of those "hardline" sedevecantists would accept +Vigano's calling out Francis and electing another pope- even if it were done? Not many, I'd guess.

Dysfunctional?  Really?  Are you kidding?  A few weeks back I went to a trad gathering on Gaudete Sunday.  There were several people who used to be ardent anti-sedes who recently went over to the Bennyvacantist position (Benedict is the true pope).  I wanted to know what caused them to change positions and I was basically expecting the Pachamama incident to be the last straw.  But no!  It was the Traditiones Custodes thing.  That's right, the pope can worship idols and still be recognized as pope.  But if you cramp Fr Indult's style, the pope has gone too far and needs to be sacked.  That just sums up the utter madness of the R&R position.  Millions of Catholics died rather than do what Bergoglio did with the Pachamama idol.  But no one cares anymore.  It's all about maintaining the comfort of their little Mass center.  Don't get me wrong, I'm glad people are finally starting to realize that Bergoglio has no authority.  But I'm not very impressed with the reasons why.  And I also think it is ridiculous to think that somehow Ratzinger or Woytyla or Montini or Roncalli where innocent of the very same crimes that Bergoglio has committed.  If you are Bennyvacantist, you must believe that V2 was a perfectly fine council too.  Because that was the overriding theme of his entire "reign".  Even Vigano has repudiated V2 so how can the Novus Ordo "popes" be legitimate?  Why would you expect a church/sect which is less Catholic than the High Church Anglicans (whose clergy are more likely to be valid than the NO clergy) to produce a Catholic pope?  There's a better chance that Justin Welby is the true Archbishop of Canterbury than that any of the Novus Ordo "popes" were true popes.

Joe Rogan is more Catholic than Bergoglio.

So was Billy Graham.

No, Traditional Catholics agree with where the Church is.  That's nonsense.  We disagree on various legal matters, but Archbishop Lefebvre clears it up.

To stay inside the Church, or to put oneself inside the Church—what does that mean? Firstly, what Church are we talking about? If you mean the Conciliar Church, then we who have struggled against the Council for twenty years because we want the Catholic Church, we would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic. That is a complete illusion. ...

Obviously, we are against the Conciliar Church which is virtually schismatic, even if they deny it. In practice, it is a Church virtually excommunicated because it is a Modernist Church. ... That is no longer the Catholic Church: that is the Conciliar Church with all its unpleasant consequences. ...

This talk about the “visible Church” on the part of Dom Gerard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the “visible Church”, meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. I am not saying that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me with ever having wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church.

One Year After the Consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre, interview published in Fideliter, July-August, 1989.

Archbishop Lefebvre repeatedly stated that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the Catholic Church, and that Traditional Catholics are the ones who have them.

This talk about the “visible Church” on the part of Dom Gerard and Mr. Madiran is childish. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the “visible Church”, meaning the Conciliar Church as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. I am not saying that we are the Catholic Church. I have never said so. No one can reproach me with ever having wished to set myself up as pope. But, we truly represent the Catholic Church such as it was before, because we are continuing what it always did. It is we who have the notes of the visible Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. That is what makes the visible Church.

How are these two bolded statements not contradictory?  If the traditional Catholics have the marks of the Catholic Church...and I happen to agree with that...., how can he also say they are not the Catholic Church?

He's making a distinction between we "are" the Church, legallly and juridically, and we "represent" the Church, in terms of having the notes of the Church, in so far as we have the notes.  If you look at the world, what's left of the Church can be found and identified in the Traditional movement, but that doesn't make the Traditional movement have the canonical reality of the Church.  Conciliar Church is no longer identifiable as Catholic, but Traditional Catholis are, but that doesn't mean that have the jurisdical reality of being THE Church.

This, the "pope is human" answer is one of the least Catholic things I've seen here in a while ... in how you're applying it.  We're not talking about pope as human being but the pope as the Rock of the Church, in his Magisterium, which has always been taught to be protected by the Holy Spirit.  Obviously the pope is human, but he's also the Vicar of Christ, and with that come certain promises of Our Lord regarding the indefectibility of the Magisterium.

These stupid "pop" armchair theological maxims do a lot of damage and they're applied in a decidedly un-Catholic manner.  Your "EASY" ends up being heretical in its implications.

Do you even believe in the indefectibility of the Church and the protection of the Holy Spirit over the Church, or do you believe it to be a PURELY human institution that can fail and falter as any human being might.

If Bergoglio and his predecessors were going around worshipping in pachamama temples on their own and Vatican II and the NOM had not happened, most of us would hardly care less; it's not our problem and let the Cardinals and bishops deal with him.  Where it becomes our problem is when they're trying to impose a false Magisterium and blasphemous Rite of Worship on the entire Body of the Church, and we're left in the position of determining whether we can stay subject to them, as there's no salvation without subjection to the Holy Father.

If my "pop" answer seemed gratuitous , maybe you should circle back to the question. "A gratuitous question deserves...". Something like that. You know the rest.

As far as the idea of "armchair theological maxims", I've noticed sedevecantists on this forum seem to engage in them rabbidly(again see the question in question, please). In the past few days of browsing through here again I've found plenty of examples of this. I imagine no one normally responds in kind so they don't have to engage in the endless polemics sv'ers are so often known for (I.e. Your reply). 

I didn't come here for a full blown debate. I responded to a one liner with a one liner.  And that's okay. Sometimes you have a friend with an especially annoying habit. You normally overlook it because, well, you're friends. It's always good to ask yourself if you're that annoying friend. I find I often am.