The previously discussed article by Aldo Maria Valli ((in English here at 1P5) was immediately reposted by multiple Catholic media outlets, making his words their own: Rome is without a Pope.
The progression of the schism went more or less like this:
1. unjust criticism of Pope Francis
2. ever harsher accusations, including propagating heresy
3. assertions that Francis has taught heresy, and is guilty of apostasy or idolatry
4. Recognize and Resist — where Francis is recognized as the Pope, but is opposed at every turn.
5. Maybe Francis is the false prophet associated with the Antichrist, or is the Antichrist, or is an immediately or close precursor
6. And now we have the utter rejection of Francis as Pope: “Rome is without a Pope”.
Throughout all of these accusations, there is very little theology. They just have no interest. While claiming to represent Tradition or to be defending the perennial teaching of the Church, they simply proclaim their judgement against the Pope, idolizing their own understanding.
To say that Rome is without a Pope is not merely sedevacantism, as if sedevacantism were merely one of many theological positions. It is public obstinate schism.
Canon 1364, n. 1: “an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”
Can. 915 “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”
Anyone who says that Rome is without a Pope may not receive Communion under both Canons above. They are schismatics, and they are obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin by their false accusations against the Pope, such as accusing him of idolatry and heresy. It is also schismatic to put oneself above the Pope to judge him at all, since such judgment implies a rejection of his authority over you.
This is a new stage in the rebellion against Pope Francis. Previously, they tried to claim that Francis is the Pope, but that he could somehow be Pope and also be a heretic or apostate or idolater. That is of course contrary to the unanimous opinion of all the Church fathers, who held that manifest heretics cease to be members. A Pope who is a manifest heretic would cease to be Pope. So finally, they admit what is obvious in their position, that they cannot so accuse the Pope and also claim that he is a valid Pope.
This new position is that Pope Francis is an antipope. It is a false position, since no valid Pope can lose his authority, except by death or resignation. But at least they admit that they are schismatics.