Sedevacantism and Romans 3:3

I myself have never had much interest in Sedevacantism, unless it would be discussing whether Josef Ratzinger could be said to still be pope. My guess is that some future pontiff will declare Ratzinger's quasi-abdication/retirement/whatever-you-call-it to have been invalid, and thus that Bergoglio -- an obvious heretic, if ever heresy was practiced, preached, or professed -- was (past tense, since this is a future pope talking) an anti-pope.

But of course I don't know that will happen, and though I can clearly know "Bergi" is a heretic, and a rank one, especially odious in that he has no time to answer the Dubia Cardinals, nor the collection of theologians and laity who have asked him pleadingly to clarify his teaching on divorce and remarriage, and God-knows-what-else, but yet he somehow he manages to find the time to give lengthy interviews to old Eugenio Scalfari, that ridiculous Communist "journalist". Whatever. He may validly be pope, or not; but he's definitely a heretic. For what that's worth. 

So, I understand the Sedes' frustration. Declaring the popes since (who? John 23, Paul 6? Or...?) whomever to be invalid popes solves one aspect of the absurd Modernist Church. But it creates even worse ones, such as I wrote to a Sede at OnePeterFive:

Will you just stop about the Sedevacantist garbage? Just. Stop.

The Vatican II Church is a mess, true. But Sedes throw the Infant Lord out with the dirty bathwater. You, and all Sedes, need to re-read the opening of Romans chapter 3, especially the context of that chapter's verse three, which famously says, "For what if some of them have not believed? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid." That is what should be the engraved-in-gold motto of all Trads regarding even the most absurdly celebrated N.O.

You write, "Maybe the [New] Mass created by enemies of Christ isn't even valid." Subtle, as a brick. Oh, yeah, and like you KNOW that, do you? You blaspheme God, actually, for you're writing that the unbelief of the servants of the New Covenant are making God's side of the Covenant, His signature on it, without effect. Outrageous.

It's as simple as that, and what St. Paul wrote about those Jews of his day who rejected the New Covenant through their unbelief, applies to all Sedes.

Most Sedes are just desperate Catholics trying to hang on to their Faith in an Age of Heretics in High Places. Some of them, though, do commit both Blasphemy and Protestantism. I.e., they say God is not faithful, and they say that they themselves somehow have the authority to assert this and that. They don't. 

But St. Paulo had it right, in spades. So what if a bunch of these clowns are unfaithful. Does that invalidate God's side of the Covenant? Not. One. Iota.

An Préachán