Yeah, those guys are a lost cause, slavishly following Fr.(?) Kramer on the matter.  Kramer started to hold Bergoglio a heretic AntiPope when the latter made some statements directly contradicting the Council of Florence on the question of whether the Old Covenant was still salvific for the Jews.  But then I pointed out that Ratzinger said the same things (provided citations) and then also Wojtyla (who actually invented that particular position), but was told that those guys didn't "really mean it", i.e. they were just material heretics, whereas Begoglio really meant it and was therefore an Anti-Pope.  "Cardinal" Kasper, who knew both Ratzinger and Bergoglio well, said that the substance of their theology was the same, just that they had different ways to present it.  But it's just utterly idiotic to think that the Crisis started with Bergoglio.  Tell that to those of us who were attending Masses in hotel conference rooms in the 1980s.

But that's the narrative that makes them feel good, where they can reject Bergoglio, rejecting him while not becoming fully sedevacantist (which would bother their sensibilities).  So they come up with this feel-good compromise position.

I didn't say that I thought the Crisis started with Bergoglio. I think it started with the refusal of Pius XI to perform the Consecration of Russia. The 100-year clock started ticking in 1929. The 70-year clock started ticking when John XXIII failed to announce the Third Secret by the end of 1959. All that we call the Crisis was overheard by Leo XIII in the conversation of Christ and Satan.

Why don't you support your arguments with Church doctrine?

Because I don't need to. I'm already convinced of the Crisis in the Church, the need for the Traditional Movement, and the completely lack of need for "Traditional Movement 2.0" to address some "new" Crisis that happened more recently.

As I (and every other Trad I've spoken with) see it, it's just the latest developments along the SAME trajectory, which began dramatically and catastrophically at Vatican II.

Do you realize how crazy your position is? Even the sedevacantists have the sense to admit that *all* the post-V2 popes are guilty of losing the Faith, Modernism, etc.

Meanwhile, SSPX and other Recognize-and-Resist Traditional Catholics realize all the post-V2 popes are in the same boat.

Only you come along, and say they are ALL WRONG.

The only people who agree with you are johnny-come-latelies in the Novus Ordo, who were shocked and awakened by the boldness of Pope Francis' actions, but are afraid to become real Traditional Catholics and join the existing movement. So they have this untenable half-way position, where the Crisis started with Pope Francis. Which is cute, but still horribly incorrect.

I admit that the Vatican was controlled by an evil Freemasonic cabal. But I don't agree all of the Popes were equally culpable during that period. 

There is so much wrong with your argument.

So you're saying if we could just get rid of "antipopes" Francis and Leo, all would be well? I say NO, you would just have the logical progression of Vatican II, the next steps, with whatever popes were elected next.

Which proves the real issue is the revolution of Vatican II -- not the specific Popes who have this new thinking, who each implement the V2 spirit on their watch. The Revolution that is Vatican II would scarcely skip a beat if Popes Francis and Leo were sidelined or done away with.

YES, the revolution develops, evolves by steps, incrementally, growing as a seed grows into a tree. But the REVOLUTION ITSELF was Vatican II, without which NONE of the current evils could have happened.

And the Revolution was in the veins of all the post-V2 popes -- not just the last 2.

Just as The Simpsons seems almost wholesome compared to Family Guy, it's only because the culture hadn't descended as low in 1992 as it had in 2005 or 2010. It's a progression. Each agent pushes things forward a step or two; you can only go so fast. People have to be given time to acclimate, get used to the new normal, and adapt.
The world wasn't ready for Pope Francis from 1979 - 2005, but JP2 did *ALL HE COULD* to advance the Modernist cause at the time, believe me. And one might argue that without JP2's ground-breaking work (Assisi, Theology of the Body, etc.) Pope Francis couldn't have taken his steps forward (blessing same-sex unions, pachamama, etc.)

Only the most ignorant of people -- mostly Conciliar or Novus Ordo-attending Catholics who know nothing of the Crisis, Modernism, Tradition -- who were attending the Novus Ordo quite recently -- agree with this novel "sedevacantism since Pope Francis" position.

I say that this position, which Angelus is pushing, is a diabolical trick, because it tends to downplay the unique evil of Vatican II itself. It distracts from the massive Chastisement that was Vatican II.