Maybe we can agree that everyone should be good. The Roman officials, bishops, and priests should be good and follow Christ. The Protestants should. And the strict SSPX folks should. No one gets a pass. So if we all have this universal measure, then we can say that we needn't look to one another for the standard. And we can't say this group is exempted because that group misbehaved. The SSPX-SO is not judged by wayward priests, but by the Faith. And wayward priests are not judged by the SSPX-SO, but by the Faith. And with that measure, the Faith, it just happens to be the purview of the Holy Father to guide the Church in faith and morals, and lead in governance and discipline. So cafeteria folks who want to prescind from this need to reopen their "strict" catechism and review.
And while we see Protestantism 500 years down the line, we need to remember it started with a reform movement, from a monk-priest who was scrupulous-rigorist, who's church could have been called evangelical Christianity, Strict Observance. Now the powder keg was lit in that time to set that thing off, but the strains are roughly the same as a SSPX-SO movement. Resistance to the Holy Father. Resistance to Councils. Resistance to clarification of doctrine. It doesn't take long for the wheels to come off, though. The SSPX itself is so tied to its founder that they can't waver at all from his "magisterium" to find a way to reconcile. According to Fellay were back in the 70s lock step with Lefebvre. One bishop's view is weighed over Popes and Councils and magisterial documents like the Canon Law and the Catechism. Just look at and let the scales fall away. Whatever crazy thing anyone is doing, if you believe in Catholicism, then you can find a way to accept universal Councils, universal laws, universal teachings, and universal rites. Das ist das.
I agree with the first paragraph. Well said.
I don't entirely agree with your assessment of the Reformation. For a basic assesment that I more or less adopt, please see Belloc's "How the Reformation Happened." It's probably too basic for your level, but it will save me a lot of time typing! In short, I think the Reformers had a different view of doctrine, placed against a view that had not changed. Lefebvre had a view of doctrine that had not changed, placed against a view that did.
Before you flame on me, please understand that for me, the matter doesn't end there.
To clarify, I take a view that is neither yours nor Father Cekada's, nor some of the Lefebvrists here on FE. I am comfortable with the idea that the Church makes mistakes at very high levels. My reading of history leads to believe that it happened before, and the problems were eventually solved. Hence, I don't feel the need to explain error through sedevacantism. But I also don't believe in magic that makes black turn into white because of the office of the speaker. Putting these two things together means that I don't feel the need to follow a bishop into error just because he is a bishop. It also means that insofar as he is not in error, then I don't challenge his right to rule. As far as people rely on their bishop, I don't condemn them as heretics.