CathInfo.com

Absolutely.  So, it's one thing to look at an isolated decision or command to be disobeyed, but entirely a different matter when the entire body of the Magisterium are so polluted and the Mass, the Public Worship of the Church, and things get so bad that we're REQUIRED to refuse submission categorically to the putative (doubtful) Pope in order to profess our faith and to save our souls.  I think that people easily get lost in trees of infallibility and miss the forest of indefectibility, where this Conciliar Church is something that substantially alien to the Catholic Church, as +Lefebvre had often said, but such substantial change would be tantamount to a defection of the Church.

This ^ has nothing whatsoever to do with the unjust excomms from the authority of the one who sits in the chair of St. Peter.

For all that the classic R&R claim that they obey these Popes except when their consciences prevent them from being able to ... I often ask them to tell me the last time they obeyed something that Bergoglio or Prevost taught or commanded.  I've never gotten anything more than crickets in response.  In point of fact, the R&R who claims this do in fact categorically ignore the V2 papal claimants ... which they absolutely should not be doing given their purported principles.

No, by now you should know and accept that "classic R&R" obey the pope except when what he commands would mean offending God, not "when their consciences prevent them from being able to." Do you think R&R are brainless and do not know right from wrong or do not know when God would be offended by obeying the pope in his malfeasance?

And far as I can think of and feel free to correct me here, there are *only* two explicit "commands" that the conciliar popes gave us - one in 1988 and another July1st of this year - both times the commands were to not consecrate bishops. Then as now (see the OP) although it should already obvious, sufficient reasons were given as to why they would not obey such commands. Faithful Catholics understand that, like in 1988, the SSPX is correct in all of this.

What would you have them do anyway, kick the pope out of Rome and trumpet he is no pope? That would only do more harm than good.  The SSPX did what they did and now will *hopefully* carry on doing what they've been doing - without adding that useless bs drama of the status of the pope into the mix.