I was born and raised in an area which has about 9 million inhabitants. A plus - we had about 20 hockey arenas within 20 minutes drive. And a whole lot more within an hour. And the weather was a whole lot better than here in Iowa...
As re the sedevacantists holding with Church teaching on Scripture but the succession of the Popes, they actually think the chair has been empty since either the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958 or Pope John XXIII in 1963, due to the embrace of Modernism, or of having otherwise denied or contradicted solemnly defined (as they see them) Catholic dogmas
They see Vatican II and the years leading up to it as a repudiation of true Catholicism.
As re SS type, it means sola (not solo) scriptura.
May I ask how you quantify the difference?
As for "solo" versus "sola," the former would require the Scriptures to be the only ecclesial authority, versus Scripture being the only infallible ecclesial authority and supreme formal rule of faith. (I myself wold not push the formal sufficiency too far. Though it is like a perfect food, yet it requires picking and digestion, etc., but it may be said to be formally sufficient.)
The former a rejects any aids to interpretation, such as commentary, history, ecumenical creeds, etc, and any authority of church Teaching Magisterium (TM) - perhaps like a Harold-2nd coming Camping - while the latter recognizes such means, but that all must be subject or answer to the Scriptures. Recommended but yet unread apologetic here.
Thinking this through, it may be argued that sola Scriptura effectively rejects the authority of the TM, but it no more does so than the fact that conditional submission to civil rulers negates their authority. What it does is disallow absolute or autocratic authority, and required obedience to rulings which rests upon such presumption rather than manifest Scriptural warrant and conformity.
While this allows for dissent and extremists - and thus the appeal of dictators or absolute monarchy - yet the fact that Christians can submit to civil rulers (even apart from the means of persuasion given them), and that far more Christians are unified in the basic core truths than dissent from them (and consider those that do to be heretics) shows that holding a document to be formally superior to that of men can work.
While this makes unity more difficult, (i would argue) it is of a higher quality than that which is either compelled or is by implicit trust in men.
Moreover, as the Scriptures substantiate, God has empowered the TM to dissuade unholy dissent. This is not done by physical power (though the state can punish physical acts of immorality), but spiritual, by both the passive means of dis-fellowship (Mt. 18:17; Rm. 16:17; 1Cor. 5:11,13; Titus 3:10) as well as binding a soul such as per 1Cor. 5:5. 1Tim. 1:20 and like use of the shepherds "rod," (1Cor. 4:21)
And as this is how the church is constituted to work it forces the true church to be that of their lioving God, with a gospel that produces transformative conversions and hearts full of worship and works led by the Spirit. Unlike the civil powers, Romans 13:3-4; Romans 13:3-4Pt. 2:13,14) being not constituted to wage war after the flesh (John 18:36; 2 Corinthians 10:3-4; 2 Corinthians 6:6-7; Ephesians 6:12; 1 Corinthians 5:12) the church must do so by the Spirit, and the lack of the latter is often evidenced by quest for the former.
The authority of the apostles was not established by self-proclamation but by spiritual virtue and power, and the greater the claim to authority the more such is needed, versus self-promotion, For the kingdom of God is not in word [mans say-so], but in power." (1 Corinthians 4:20) And i certainly need to seek more purity, passion and power, and daily so.