Sedevacantist?
I think there is a fallacy in a general implication (not yours, just the way the word is used) that sedevacantism is an either-or, all or nothing thing. One can accept certain tenets and changes and not others. I don’t believe I am much more in schism than say the average Catholic in 1955, who wasn’t at all. Do I believe popes can be wrong or mislead when not ex cathedra? Yes, I do.