If, he is indeed the Pope. I'm beginning to wonder if the Chair of Peter is indeed empty.
Now this is something. Why is the impulse to become a sedevacantist rather than recognizing that the problems of the Roman Catholic papacy are endemic to the office as conceived of in Traditional (which in this context I suppose means pre-Vatican II, not pre-Schism) Roman Catholic ecclesiology? You don't allow yourselves to properly remove Popes who teach heresy because by the innovation of infallibility that is rendered an impossibility. So when someone comes along with some new doctrine or new idea that he'll force on the communion, the reaction isn't "Let's call the synod together to depose this guy for introducing novelties that are against the faith", but instead that the 'real' Pope must be somewhere else. Granted, he is
(in Alexandria), but it just seems weird. You make it worse because you preserve the ecclesiology that begets further schism rather than taking advantage of your situation to consider how it might reshape your way of relating to the Church, so you're still stuck playing "Papal Russian Roulette" (y'know, maybe you'll get a good one, maybe you'll get a bad one...just spin the chamber and find out, and if it ends up blowing up in your face you can just run to the safety of the SSPX or similar), even as you think you've freed yourself by siding with other people who don't like Pope Francis.
There was a time when new dogmas that are generally accepted by the Traditionalists were themselves the proverbial straws that broke the camel's back with regard to setting in motion other schisms (e.g., the "Old Catholics" who formed in opposition to Papal Infallibility). I suppose if Pope Francis succeeds with the remaking of the RCC as warned by Charles Martel, there will be a time in the future when all those who stayed with the mainstream RCC will tell us, like the Traditionalists of today do regarding the innovations they accept as true doctrine, that such-and-such a piece of once-contentious dogma is what they've always believed, and the evidence of what came before will be sidelined, covered up, etc. Sure it's sad, but on the other hand from an Orthodox perspective I can't help but wonder why it is that Pope Francis will be blamed for ruining the RCC and not the many, many, many others who also declared whatever they saw fit in their day. It's essentially the same phenomenon at work, and it all goes back to having so much power tied up in one man and the mythologies surrounding some kind of uniquely 'Petrine' office that makes him unquestionable...until he does or says something you don't like.
Weird. I would've thought that if it is wrong for Pope Francis to be overreaching in his attempt to remake the Church in his own image, it would be just as wrong for his predecessors to have done the same, whether in 1054, 445, or whatever year something we don't like happened. But I guess consistency and Rome don't mix, unless it's the indestructible belief in Roman ecclesiology that somehow lets the man destroy the Church but not the beliefs about the office that allow the man to destroy the Church. Hmm. Thank God for Orthodoxy.