Based on this site, it's no exaggeration.  This last week, i've seen the use of the word 'heretic' more than the last 6 months.

Either the Conciliar Church's theology, worship, etc. is reconcilable with Tradition (at least applying some hermeneutic of continuity) or else it could not have been created by legitimate papal authority.

You can read yourself below, QV, that St Vincent certainly talks about space (universality) and time (antiquity) and uses them as the rule for adhering to what is Catholic. Cardinal Franzelin, in discussing the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, separates the two terms, yet he requires the use of antiquity, nonetheless, if in 'universality' there is found controversy, just as St Vincent obviously does here. Thus in the study by Dom Nau, both of these marks are included in the concept of 'universal'. There is not too much in the way of practical difference, and as you see from my post on the other thread, Cardinal Franzelin's doctrine is absolutely in line with Archbishop Lefebvre's.

Excerpt From St Vincent of Lerins:

“Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly ‘Catholic,’ as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself, we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, Bishops and Doctors alike.

“What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb.

“But what if some novel contagions try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty.

“What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men.

“But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation.”

(The Vincentian Canon, in Commonitorium, chap IV, 434, ed. Moxon, Cambridge Patristic Texts

ultimately I agree with you; it's not possible that the Pope, who is protected by the Holy Ghost, could do things like this.  There we agree; it's not possible, it doesn't fit, this destruction of the Church ...

I should think +Williamson, Avrille, and Fr. Chazal are more representative of "the Resistance".

+Williamson and Avrille have both said it's possible Jorge's not the pope and that the SV position is "understandable".