We are obliged to believe our conscience, and ultimately be judged after our death on it. Conscience is an ordinance of reason. According to "Liberalism is a Sin", reason enlightened by faith is a true "authority".

People who believe Leo XIV is a true pope have necessary moral obligations. They MUST submit to him and his hierarchy, meaning the bishops under him, and the parish priests under them. That is the way God designed His divine Church.

God gave us the use of reason for a reason, reason enlightened by faith is our guide to know right from wrong, good from evil, so that we always do what is right and turn away from all that is evil. This is the authority that our conscience has over each us - and only over each us, individually, and only as long as we do not ignore it. In a nutshell, this is the extent of the authority you mention above.

God does not permit us to blindly submit to anyone on this earth while we live, not even to popes, not even to saints and angels (Gal.1:8,9).  To say that we MUST submit to him and his hierarchy wholly disregards the highest of all the principles in the Church which we are bound to employ in all circuмstances of life until our last breath: "We are first of all under obedience to God, and only then under obedience to man" - Fr. Hesse

We should have to continue to obey him as the pope in all those religious matters which fall within the ambit of his authority, unless he should command something which is sinful. 

I am asking about your Novus Ordo parish priest. Do you partially submit to him?

I do not know who he is, or any NO priest for that matter. Always been and hope to die a trad.

While R&R simply isn't Catholic ... I think that the term itself, coined by Father Cekada, has been entirely unhelpful.

I believe that a form of D&R (Doubt & Resist) may in fact be a legitimate Catholic position, and it's actually what +Lefebvre himself held.

So, the difference is this, that you must at least entertain some doubts about the legitimacy of the V2 papal claimants.  Per the pre-Vatican II experts in Canon Law, that suffices to exonerate someone from schism for refusing submission to and communion with such a doubtful pope, i.e. doubt suffices to justify resistance.

R&R on the other hand affirm that it's certainly true that Prevost, Bergs, and their predecessors are Popes, thus the "Recognize" part, where i advocate a return to "Doubt" and Resist rather than "Recognize" and Resist.

So, here's the thing that modern R&R fail to recognize.  Most theologians consider the legitimacy of a Pope to be dogmatic fact, i.e. something that's known with the certainty of faith.  Now, the certainty of faith precludes doubt.  That's why it's heresy not merely to deny a dogma but even to doubt the dogma, since one fails to accept it with the requisite absolute certainty of faith.

Well ... +Lefebvre, +Tissier, and +Williamson have all regularly expressed doubts about the legitimacy of various papal claimants.  Consequently, they are not, as many R&R assert, sedeplenists, but, rather, sede-doubtists ... which is a term I coined largely tongue-in-cheek here on CI many years ago.  If you had the requisite certainty of faith in this dogmatic fact of papal legitimacy, such as that which Catholics living in the 1940s all had about Pope Pius XII, that would preclude any doubt.  And, of course papa dubius papa nullus.  +Galaretta I know next to nothing about ... as if he's been living in a hermitage for the past 40 years, but the rest of them have all made statements calling into question the legitimacy of the Conciliar papal claimants.

So, then, as Father Schmidberger used to say in defense of non-sedevacantism, melior est conditio possidentis, basically a paraphrase of how "possession is 9/10 of the law", and it means that they give them the benefit of the doubt.  Well, giving them the benefit of the doubt is ... to admit there's doubt, or otherwise you'd never have to say tht.

Then, given a doubtful papal claimant, to whom you may refuse submission without schism, there's probably no harm them in trying to obey any commands they issue "just in case" you're wrong in your doubt.  Doubt is not the same as being certain of invalidity.  This is analogous to the question about the validity of Sacraments.  I do not have to prove invalidity with certainty to be able to and, in the case of the Sacraments, even obligated to avoid them.

So if the "R&R" wanted to continue to cling a non-sedevacantist position, they could legitimately adhere to the actual D&R position +Lefebvre actually held.

Now, the biggest issue SV have with R&R is in fact the implicit rejection of the Church's indefectibility, but if you read the statements made by +Lefebvre, he actually affirmed that the Pope could not destroy the Church to this degree due to the promises of Christ and the protection of the Holy Ghost.  How then did he avoid the SV conclusion ... even if he did say it was possible?  He questioned not the MAJOR of the SV position (as represented in sylllogism), but the MINOR, where he questioned HOW this could have happened.  Is it possible the popes were blackmailed, for instance, or something else nefarious was going on where their acts were not free?  Since the MINOR cannot be decided upon with the certainty of faith, then the conclusion can't be dogmtic either.  That's the core problem with dogmatic SVism, the hidden MINORs and their failure to recognize the logical "weakest link" principle, that the conclusion can only be as strong or as certain as the weakest presmise, peiorem partem sequitur conclusio.

So ...

dogmatic SVism is wrong, since not all the premises are certain with the certainty of faith

dogmatic sedeplenism is wrong, since if it's dogmatically certain that they're popes, then you'd better be in submission to and in communion with them

moderate SVism is OK, since you could even say that you consider their illegitimacy to be morally certain
moderate sedeplenism, in the form of D&R, as articulated above, is also OK

But both the moderate positions are in fact simply the same type of thinking with slightly different emphases.

I hold that the moderate sedeplenism is more dangerous of the two, since it has the tendency to morph into what we see today, a rejection of the Catholic dogma that the Church cannot defect in her mission.

That's why I've long been an advocate of the "Sede-Doubtist" position, since it's a moderate form that avoids the grave errors of the extremes, both of which can be schismatic, and it permits a significant amount of leeway in their expression so that all Traditionl Catholics could easily unite with this "doubtist" framework, for all practical intents and purposes.

So, that claim about obeying the Pope in everything that isn't sinful ... it's just an empty platitude.  No R&R actually pay attention to or care about anything Prevost says, or Bergoglio said, etc.  They just toss that out there since it sounds good.  Do they read each Prevostian or Tuchonian teaching with reverence and only reject the parts that are contrary to their conscience, or they say, before it's issued, "oh, here he goes again with more Modernist trash."

Catholics go by the teaching of St. Peter and the Apostles (see my sig), and I like to reference the example of St. Thomas More: "I am the pope's good subject, but God's first."  It's not the least bit complicated to Catholics.

Catholics go by the teaching of St. Peter and the Apostles (see my sig), and I like to reference the example of St. Thomas More: "I am the pope's good subject, but God's first."  It's not the least bit complicated to Catholics.

No ... that's out of context, and heretical in the way you apply it.  Prots could say the same thing, or the Orthodox, or any heretic ... they could all claim that they're obeying God rather than man.  What heretic ever left the Church or submission to the Holy See who did not believe they were obeying God when the Pope had strayed?  Of course, as St. Thomas teaches, it's bullcrap.  They're not following God, but, rather, their own interpretation of they claim God revealed vs. what they themselves claim God revealed.  So they are their own rule of faith.

Sadly, Stubborn, you are a heretic, possibly even apostate, and have lost the Catholic faith.  You remain adamant in your rejection of the Papacy.  No, your lip service to "yep, he's pope" doesn't put you in any kind of "submission" to the Pope, nor does it suffice for someone to be Catholic.

You could save yourself from heresy by saying instead that you have doubts and therefore will refuse submission until such time as those doubts are resolved ... which is what Archbishop Lefebvre held.