Great summary, Drew.  By and large, personal sedevacantism (i.e. outside of a Church decision) is an extreme over-reaction to the extreme errors of heresy.  It is a human attempt to deal with spiritual chaos.  While it is psychologically and emotionally understandable, it is not catholic because it views supernatural things - the Faith, the Mass, and Divine Truth - through a natural lens.  It attempts to fix a Divine problem without following God's Divine Plan - which is to wait for the Church to act.  As has been said many times by various posters, it is proven that personal sedevacantism is fruitless, both on a practical level and from God's point of view, when the result of accepting this view leads to the final and unanswerable question:  "So we've gotten rid of the bad pope...now what?"

Wait for the Pope who actively preaches heresy and celebrates a false rite every Sunday to condemn himself? A Pope who, by virtue of his heresy, is not a member of the Church he leads. A Pope who is still somehow apparently valid and yet you completely ignore and reject all his authority.

.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVVh2vdhDeQ&feature=youtu.be&t=660

Within the first several minutes Fr. Hesse says: "I am not today discussing if the sedevacantists are right or not. I personally believe that the pope is the pope because he is not yet in formal heresy."

This is the meat and potatoes of the Recognize and Resist position. It was, as far as I know, the official position of the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre. John Paul 2 had a distorted notion of Tradition but believed he was acting in accordance with Catholic Tradition. I can understand this position.

However, some of those in the Resistance claim that they are the only ones continuing in the true path blazed out by Archbishop Lefebvre just because they are militant anti-sedevacantists (sometimes apparently more so than anti-modernists or anti-Feeneyites). This doesn't help the Crisis but only adds to it because they attack their fellow Catholics on the grounds in the name of being true to Archbishop Lefebvre, which if examined closer doesn't exactly seem to be the case.

Most recently and especially with the alleged pontificate of Bergoglio we see those of the Recognize and Resist position come out as being dogmatic sedeplenists. Books are written entitled "the heretical pope" affirming that a pope can indeed fall into (or always have been) a manifest and formal heretic. Sean Johnson argues in official Resistance publications that the identity of the pope is a dogmatic fact and applies this to the alleged pontificate of Francis, thus excommunicating his fellow Traditional Catholic brethren from the tiny remnant in which he finds himself.

Suddenly, those claiming to be the only true spiritual sons of Archbishop Lefebvre, while casting into doubt the Catholicity of all other Traditional Catholics, waste great energies to defend the alleged papacy of Bergoglio because, they claim, a formal and manifest heretic continues to be pope and it is a dogmatic fact. You have to be extremely ignorant or foolish to truly believe that Fr. Hesse, Bishop De Castro Mayer and Archbishop Lefebvre would support such claims had they been alive today.

Within the first several minutes Fr. Hesse says: "I am not today discussing if the sedevacantists are right or not. I personally believe that the pope is the pope because he is not yet in formal heresy."

This is the meat and potatoes of the Recognize and Resist position. It was, as far as I know, the official position of the SSPX and Archbishop Lefebvre. John Paul 2 had a distorted notion of Tradition but believed he was acting in accordance with Catholic Tradition. I can understand this position.

However, some of those in the Resistance claim that they are the only ones continuing in the true path blazed out by Archbishop Lefebvre just because they are militant anti-sedevacantists (sometimes apparently more so than anti-modernists or anti-Feeneyites). This doesn't help the Crisis but only adds to it because they attack their fellow Catholics on the grounds in the name of being true to Archbishop Lefebvre, which if examined closer doesn't exactly seem to be the case.

Most recently and especially with the alleged pontificate of Bergoglio we see those of the Recognize and Resist position come out as being dogmatic sedeplenists. Books are written entitled "the heretical pope" affirming that a pope can indeed fall into (or always have been) a manifest and formal heretic. Sean Johnson argues in official Resistance publications that the identity of the pope is a dogmatic fact and applies this to the alleged pontificate of Francis, thus excommunicating his fellow Traditional Catholic brethren from the tiny remnant in which he finds himself.

Suddenly, those claiming to be the only true spiritual sons of Archbishop Lefebvre, while casting into doubt the Catholicity of all other Traditional Catholics, waste great energies to defend the alleged papacy of Bergoglio because, they claim, a formal and manifest heretic continues to be pope and it is a dogmatic fact. You have to be extremely ignorant or foolish to truly believe that Fr. Hesse, Bishop De Castro Mayer and Archbishop Lefebvre would support such claims had they been alive today.

Centroamerica,
 
You may be right about Archbishop Lefebvre but not about Fr. Hesse.
 
I am grateful for what Archbishop Lefebvre did but I also recognize two great errors that he saddled traditional Catholics with that are still present in those he formed in the priesthood which have led many of them into S&S. Firstly, he did not hold Dogma as his rule of faith.  This is evident in his belief that a Jew as a Jew, a Muslim as a Muslim, a Hindu as a Hindu, a Protestant as a Protestant, etc., by virtue of trying to be "good" Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Protestants, etc., could be invisible members of the Catholic Church, in the state of grace, temples of the Holy Ghost, and heirs to the Kingdom of Heaven.  He followed the error of the 1949 Holy Office Letter which taught that every Dogma that touches upon what is necessary for salvation as a necessity of means, that is, explicit faith in a divinely revealed Truth, reception of the sacraments, membership in the Church and submission to the Roman Pontiff are subject to being reinterpreted by the magisterium and taken in a metaphorical or non-literal sense.  He actually followed the error that treated these revealed Truths as mere commands that did not bind anyone in cases of necessity, excessive physical or moral difficulty, or any of the other conditions that mitigate or excuse from the obligation of obedience to a superior.   
 
The second error of Archbishop Lefebvre is that he held that the Divine Liturgy was a matter of mere discipline. In +Lefebvre's defense it should be added that there has been a wealth of liturgical publications since 1990 that he had not seen which may have changed his views on this important matter. And even though he did not accept Dogma literally, he had enough innate Catholic sense to recoil at the Prayer Meeting of Assisi which lead to his consecration of the four bishops.
 
Both of these errors ultimately make defending the Faith and our ecclesiastical traditions impossible. Dogma is the proximate rule of faith.  Dogmas are Truths "fallen from heaven."  They are immutable in both there form and matter, that is, in the Truth they define and the words by which they are defined. Dogmas are divinely revealed Truths in the category of truth/falsehood and not ever to be treated as if belonging to the category of authority/obedience.  Immemorial ecclesiastical traditions are necessary attributes of the faith that make it knownable and communicable to others. They therefore cannot be matters of mere discipline.
 
Canon Gregory Hesse did not follow these two errors.
 
Pope Francis is a manifest heretic but so were his conciliar predecessors. There is no more reason to become a S&S under Francis/Bergoglio than there was with his predecessors.  It is in fact disappointing to see conservative Catholics recoil at Pope Francis/Bergoglio and wish for the return of Pope Benedict/Ratzinger. They are the ones that traditional Catholics should be recruiting but that will only happen when we make an open appeal to the immutable Catholic Dogmas as our rule of faith, and uphold the right that every Catholic possess to the immemorial "received and approved" rites of the Church.
 
Lastly, there is no real reason a manifest heretic cannot be pope. Heresy itself does not materially remove a baptized person from the Church. Every Church Father held that in the parable of the cockle and wheat that the cockle represents heretics. Our Lord counsels that they remain until the harvest, but the Church, which is her right, has determined that in her judgment, if the individual cockle is more harmful to the wheat, it may be uprooted before the harvest. The heresy of Pope Francis is his personal sin and those who recognize him as pope, although we suffer under his sins, are no more tainted by his heresy than Jesus Christ was by the Pharisees and Sadducees who were sitting on the "Chair of Moses". The conciliar popes are punishments for our sins and only by prayer and penance will we obtain the mercy of God to cleanse His Church.
 
The only thing you have to do is keep the faith and do all you can to insure that those for whom you are responsible for do so as well. S&S leads necessarily to heresy and schism and to justify this disaster they corrupt the Magisterium, Dogma, the liturgy, the moral law, and canon law. They end up in a church of their own making that cannot be the Catholic Church because it has no pope, no Magisterium and no intent to ever get one.  They have no intent because they have no material means or instrumental means to ever correct the problem. The S&S church is permanently deficient of necessary attributes that identify the Catholic Church.

Drew

5) The Bishops around the world in union with the Pope do not need a gathering of a General Council in order to teach infallibly. These teachings are free from heretical error, also and Catholics must give assent.

This doctrine is strictly Novus Ordo Cantarella. This NO doctrine you keep referencing entirely ignores that universality in time is also necessary for a doctrine to be guaranteed infallible. V1 decreed that “all those things are to be believed as found in scripture and tradition...”
 
All the "Bishops around the world in union with the Pope" teach the new and novel teachings of V2, a new and novel teaching, by definition, cannot be “found in tradition.” A novel teaching is a teaching that has not been taught in all times and therefore lacks universality, therefore is not infallible.

Why on earth do you keep promoting this NO doctrine when you do not even believe it yourself?

Do you realize that if you actually believed it was a teaching of the Church, that you and all the rest of us would be bound to be in league with all those people who actually *do* believe the NO doctrine you keep referencing, and who actually *do* give their assent to the V2 teachings? - the reason they wrongfully give their assent is because unlike you, they actually they believe that  "These teachings are free from heretical error and Catholics must give assent."?
 
You are very confused Cantarella, you are in a terrible situation with your loss of faith in everything - even the NO doctrine you keep referencing. 

To bring things back on topic, does Fr. Ringrose believe in Flat Earth? ;D :o ???

We're working on it.....

Coming from the man who disagrees with Cantarella that everything from a council is infallible, it’s the height of contadiction for you to declare Drew is in the wrong, when you would be as well.

Cantarella never said that. What she said is what the Church teaches, that all matters of faith defined at Ecuмenical Councils are infallible. Disciplines are not, because disciplines are not matters of faith or religion. They are neither fallible or infallible. They're just rules of Church governance that may be changed, and therefore can neither be true or false. They are just either in effect or are not. And if they are in effect they must be obeyed until revised. 
But all teachings and doctrines of an Ecuмenical Council are infallible. 

Yep, I know, and Ladislaus disagrees with you, while still saying your arguments are good.  Nonsensical of him.

What Sean Johnson hasn't figured out is that the Salza/Siscoe critique of Fr. Kramer's interpretation of Bellarmine is based on the totally gratuitous and false assumptions that, 1) Fr. Kramer does not understand Cajetan's argument, which Bellarmine refutes. (Although Salza & Siscoe speak only of Bellarmine's "attempted refutation" of Cajetan.) Cajetan's argument is presented in my book. I know perfectly well what Bellarmine was refuting; and I present a much more in depth critical examination of Bellarmine's doctrine on this point than anyone else who is writing on the topic at the present time; and 2) that Fr. Kramer fails to take into account Bellarmine's refutation of the Second Opinion; according to which a pope who is put into the papacy by men is not removed from the papacy without the judgment of men. I have fully explained this point in Part III of my soon to be published book; which is that a secret heretic cannot simply fall from office in the manner of a manifest heretic who publlicly defects from the faith and ceases by himself to be pope. Only when the formal heresy becomes publicly manifest can an officeholder in the Church fall from office automatically (ipso facto); without any declaration (sine ulla declaratione), and without any judgment by authority, but by operation of the law itself (ipso jure); as is explicitly set forth in canon 188 n. 4 in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and is so explained in the 1952 Commentary the Pontifical Faculty of the University of Salamanca, (and remains the same in the 1983 Code, as Ecclesiastical Faculty Canon Law of the University of Navarre explain in their 2005 Commentary). Salza & Siscoe have exhumed a defunct opinion that was totally abandoned after Vatican I (Pastor Æternus) solemnly defined that the pope is the supreme judge in ALL CASES THAT REFER TO ECCLESIASTICAL EXAMINATION , and condemns the proposition that anyone can reject his judgment or judge against his judgment; or appeal to an ecuмenical council against his judgment:

Constitutio Dogmatica «Pastor Aeternus» Concilii Vaticani I: Et quoniam divino Apostolici primatus iure Romanus Pontifex universae Ecclesiae praeest, docemus etiam et declaramus, eum esse iudicem supremum fidelium (Pii PP. VI Breve, Super soliditate d. 28 Nov. 1786), et in omnibus causis ad examen ecclesiasticuм spectantibus ad ipsius posse iudicium recurri (Concil. Oecuм. Lugdun. II); Sedis vero Apostolicae, cuius auctoritate maior non est, iudicium a nemine fore retractandum, neque cuiquam de eius licere iudicare iudicio (Ep. Nicolai 1 ad Michaelem Imporatorem). Quare a recto veritatis tramite aberrant, qui affirmant, licere ab iudiciis Romanorum Pontificuм ad oecuмenicuм Concilium tamquam ad auctoritatem Romano Pontifice superiorem appellare.

   The definition makes no allowance for any exception; and its wording positively excludes such an interpretation; ERGO: The Salza/Siscoe doctrine which professes against the above quoted dogmatic definition, to wit, that papal heresy is an exception to the doctrine of papal injudicability defined in the quoted text of that Dogmatic Constitution, is HERESY.