A family member of mine recently went to confession at a local FSSP church. She confessed to feeling guilty of being so angry about how Francis and the bishops are ruining the church and asked for advice on how to deal with it. The priest flat out told her that he just ignores everything that comes out of Francis' mouth.

This is an FSSP priest not a sedevacantist priest who claims to recognize that Francis is the true pope. For him to say he ignores everything the man he believes is the true pope says, isn't that an act of schism?

A family member of mine recently went to confession at a local FSSP church. She confessed to feeling guilty of being so angry about how Francis and the bishops are ruining the church and asked for advice on how to deal with it. The priest flat out told her that he just ignores everything that comes out of Francis' mouth.

This is an FSSP priest not a sedevacantist priest who claims to recognize that Francis is the true pope. For him to say he ignores everything the man he believes is the true pope says, isn't that an act of schism?

I think you need to look up the definition of schism.

I sense from your confusion that you must be a sede (ie., if he is pope, we must obey).
Not even indulters believe that.

Obviously, the more Francis teaches error, the more one will have to resist him.

While I do think the extent some people take it to, i.e "he's the pope but treat him like he isn't in every conceivable way", is borderline schismatic, just telling someone to ignore the nonsense he comes out with isn't at all.

Saying Francis talks a lot of rot is just saying he's a bad pope, not saying that he's not the pope.

Then what's the point of a pope?

A family member of mine recently went to confession at a local FSSP church. She confessed to feeling guilty of being so angry about how Francis and the bishops are ruining the church and asked for advice on how to deal with it. The priest flat out told her that he just ignores everything that comes out of Francis' mouth.

This is an FSSP priest not a sedevacantist priest who claims to recognize that Francis is the true pope. For him to say he ignores everything the man he believes is the true pope says, isn't that an act of schism?

She asked for advice on how to deal with it (Francis and the bishops ruining the Church) and he told her how he deals with it. What is the problem?

Then what's the point of a pope?

To govern the Church.

Thus far, the only Magisterial acts that have emanated from Bergoglio are the Recyclical (Laudato si') [there's also Lumen fidei, but that's though of as having mostly been written by Benedict XVI] ... and then the notorious Amoris Laetita (the joy of fornication), a papal "exhortation", whatever that means, but it looks official.

Everything else are just his ramblings as a private theologian.

Now, traditionally, even those two, the Encyclical and the Exhortation, are supposed to received with a spirit of reverence and religious assent by Catholics.  When in the history of the Church have Catholics routinely mocked papal Magisterium like we do with these two docuмents?

That's kindof the bigger picture problem here.  Let's say this Crisis passes.  Will Catholics ever look at Encyclicals again the same way?  Are these merely the pope opining about something as a private theologian or are these actually teachings of the Magisterium?  R&R seriously blurs the two so that there's precious little difference.  In fact, will Catholics ever look the pope the same way.  We have statements from both Pope St. Pius V and Pope St. Pius X to the effect that the Pope IS Christ (on earth) and he is to be treated as such.  I get the impression that those were statements of principle and not dependent on the worthiness of the See's present occupant.

Then how do we go back to the pre-Vatican II Encyclicals and credibly hold them up as authoritative?  If Vatican II, an Ecuмenical Council, was wrong about Religious Liberty, then what if Vatican II was actually right while Pius IX was wrong?

This is just NOT the same attitude that Catholics have traditionally had toward papal teaching.

...except that 96% of anything Bergoglio teaches is not magisterial (for want of temporal niversality), and therefore contains the binding force of a Sunday sermon (ie., none).

I think I just said that ... in the post right after the one you quoted.  Only things I can think of that are Magisterial are Laudato si' and Amoris Laetitia, so it might be more than 96%.  His rambling aboard Pope Force I are exactly that, the ramblings of a private "theologian" (so to speak).  I'll be honest that I haven't read either one of these, just a few excerpts from Amoris Laetitia ... due to lack of interest.

I think I just said that.  Only things I can think of that are Magisterial are Laudato si' and Amoris Laetitia, so it might be more than 96%.  His rambling aboard Pope Force I are exactly that, the ramblings of a private "theologian" (so to speak).  I'll be honest that I haven't read either one of these, just a few excerpts from Amoris Laetitia ... due to lack of interest.

Those  also would not/could not be magisterial for the same reason.
Despite using the form of an encyclical, they have no binding force, and lacks temporal universality.