Stubborn: it means that 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.

 
Thanks, Stub. Your answer was as I expected, i.e. really a non-answer. But I don’t want to seem to hard on you and other millions of Catholics who seek desperately to make a square peg fit into a round hole. I had to scroll down for your answer, and over a mountain of keyboard diarrhea deposited by SJ. But I finally got there.
 BTW, Stub, should we obey the UN as Francis commands?

In one sense you're correct that it is a non-answer, but only in the sense that neither he nor any of the conciliar popes have commanded us to do anything, as such there is nothing to obey him in.

Re the UN, I have no idea what it is that he commands us to obey. Can you post his quote on this?

 
Bergoglio wants us, i.e. "man" to obey the UN, according to reports

 
https://catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2019/09/18/really-pope-francis-must-we-obey-the-united-nations-and-the-evil-it-commands/

Of course Francis wants us to obey the U.N. He's a Modernist. That's how they think.

They've certainly given us commands that we can't obey. 

Examples?

Just as the scribes and Pharisees ruled the Jєωs by technicalities and overbearing rules, so do our present day Modernists.  Thus we must be “wise as serpents” as Christ warned us.  So what really are we required to do, by law?

We have to accept V2 with “religious submission” (which is an invented term) and this means we have to assume it’s orthodox BUT we are allowed to question non-orthodox areas.  In reality, “religious submission” is a contradiction; hence it's meaningless.  
.
The new mass is licit, in the sense that it exists.  It is NOT, however, obligatory to attend or to agree with.  Further, as Quo Primum shows, it is illegal to attend, as only the rite of St Pius V is both legal and obligatory. 
.
It is not a sin to proselytize in any way.  

Stubborn made the ridiculous argument that the Conciliar Popes haven't commanded us to do anything.

I mean that's clearly ridiculous.  They've certainly given us commands that we can't obey.  They've also given us commands that some of us, at least, can obey in good conscience, while others perhaps can't.

Whether we're obliged to obey their *lawful* commands is gonna be a difference between R + R and Sede.

And I'm not convinced of the Sede view of the papacy itself, really that's my biggest issue with it.  I'm highly skeptical of ultramontanism.  While they were incorrect, I guess I'm not convinced the Conciliarists were *all* wrong (I agree with them being wrong where dogma condemns them.)  And I think from a realist standpoint its a bit silly to be all like "we have to obey the Pope no matter what.  Wait, we can't?  I guess he's not a true pope then."

But Stubborn did actually make this claim, and it doesn't make any sense.

Well, what constitutes a "lawful command" exactly, according to Church teaching? I can't remember Francis' exact wording about having to obey the U.N. Did he specifically say that all Catholics are now required to obey the U.N.? Is it now an official part of Church teaching that we are to obey the U.N?

The conciliar Popes have said and done things that go against the Catholic Faith for quite awhile now, whether or not it takes the form of telling us that we should do something, or saying something that goes against the Catholic Faith. It's nothing new. They are Modernists. They can't help it. We've been in the same boat for many decades now.

The sedes and sedeprivationists rarely talk about Modernism, when it comes the post-conciliar popes. They only care that these popes go against Church teaching, which makes them heretics. That's a difference between sedevacantism (and sedeprivationism) and R&R.

+ABL continually pointed to Modernism as being the cause of the Crisis. The SV's and SP's, while they do not deny that Modernism is a problem, don't really care much about the cause of the Crisis. They just continually harp on the Pope being a heretic and we can't follow him and that's that. End of story. That's why they act all shocked when Francis says something that goes against the Catholic Faith. They want everyone else to be shocked as well. Well, it doesn't work on me. There isn't anything that Francis can say or do that will shock me anymore. He's an extreme Modernist, and it better to have him as a true example of the ugliness of Modernism, than it would be to have another B16, who mixed a bit of tradition with his Modernism.

Most  novus ordo clergy and laity consider the SSPX heretics.  They are even claiming that Archbishop Lefebvre was a  Sedevacantist.  And yet they continue to follow the false occult of Vatican II.  To them it is major sin that Archbishop was in disobedience to the Pope and yet they remain silent when Pope John Paul II did nothing to the pervert priests who broke their vows/promises of chastity and poverty.  Many don’t have a problem with the Amazon synod.

Rome has been in a state of apostasy by breaking the first Commandment.  They became schismatics when they created Vatican II the counter church with the help of liberal Protestants and Rabbis.  

The hippy baby boomers will defend and make up excuses for Vatican II.  There are feminist young women attending Latin Masses praying for the day of female priestesses .  
There are many clergy praying for marriage of priests so they can marry their boyfriends.  Many have already raped and molested children and seminarians while stealing from parishes.  

These people are preaching a different gospel by actions and words.  

Holy scripture warns us against wolves in sheep clothing.  

The Novus Ordo clergy do frown upon the SSPX. I've not seen that they believe +ABL to be have been an SV, but maybe some of them so. They at least believe that he was a schismatic. And you are of course correct to say that they remain silent about the fact the JP2 didn't do anything about the pervert priests. +ABL himself, at the end of his life, said that Rome is in Apostasy.

You mention above that there are feminist young women attending latin masses who are praying for the day of female priestesses, and there are many praying for marriage of priests so that they can marry their boyfriends. Are you saying that trad priests are praying for marriage for priests? Also, are there very many women attending Latin masses who are hoping for female priestesses, in your experience? I can imagine that there may be a few, but hopefully not many. Do these women mostly attend an indult mass?

Yes. I have see this at indult in regards to young grads.

 Local SSPX has divorced women attending Masses looking for men.  One good looking woman with children was hitting on my husband right in front of me in basement for coffee and donuts.   Her husband had left her.  My husband was disappointed.     There were red flags for other things.