Abortion is "suapte natura" evil (i.e., in ALL cases).

Actually, it depends.  An abortion that occurs because of a surgery to the mother is not a sin.  But, voluntary abortion, yes, is always intrinsically wrong.

Why do you hold that the typical R&R (SSPX) position is the Third Opinion?  I hold, rather, that they adhere typically to the Fourth Opinion.

https://sspx.org/en/news-events/news/question-papal-heresy-part-6b

Fr. Gleize splits the matter in two: the prudential and the speculative.

1. Prudential: Archbishop Lefebvre said "recognize" and pray for "the Pope," meaning whoever the Pope is. Don't discuss deposing or loss of office. Not important. Just pray and "resist" on certain things to be decided by "prudence."

2. Speculative: Gleize takes Billot as his guide over Bellarmine and Cajetan. He says that Billot makes it clear that "Cajetan’s explanation in reality does not avoid saying that the Church is above the pope." This principle, then, that one can NEVER SAY that "the Church is above the pope" is sacrosanct for Fr. Gleize and the SSPX. Therefore, all Speculative attempts (e.g., Bellarmine, et. al.) are worthless to the extent that they violate that principle.

So, as I see it, the SSPX position, formulated by Fr. Gleize amounts to The Third Opinion listed by Bellarmine. Since there is actually no way to resolve the speculative problem, Fr. Gleize would say, one must resort to the prudential solution of Abp. Lefebvre, i.e., to always Recognize and Resist (when we feel like it). 

Question:  Do you consider Fr Chazal's position R&R?

Some do "more" Recognizing and "less" Resisting, hence R and R.  I promote the Great Sacrilege (New Mass is sacrilegious) , maintain that the Church is absolutely necessary for salvation, avoid ecuмenism, etc.  How much more am I able to RESIST?  Aside from doing door-to-door evangelism or writing a book - which most will not read anyway - what more can I do?  Whether Francis is a pope or not is a matter of utter irrelevancy when it comes to my salvation.  It might be a matter of interest to academic minds who enjoying mulling over the issue, but for the practical Catholic, it does not matter one bit.  I know some sedes refuse to enter a church if the priest mentions Francis in the Mass, and this seems asinine to me.  And besides, I have served Mass thousands of times and not once have I heard the priest mention any pope by name.  He says these things in silence.  What if a priest does not reveal whether he is sedevacantist?  Or what if a priest says, I do not care whether Francis is pope?  Or what if he says, the situation in the Church is so crazy right now, don't bother me about the pope question, I have other things to worry about? 

Everyone must know that if we had a conservative pope - let us say today Francis died - there is a conclave, WW III breaks out and the bishops at the conclave are killed, all but a few who opted not to attend.  So now we have Francis, the dead quasi-pope, dead quasi-cardinals, and a few cardinals who elect some "conservative pope."  What now?  Talk about chaos!  We will all sit and think about the good-ol-days when we were sitting at our keyboards typing away at the question, 'Is Francis a pope or not?'  

When I hear the term "sede-impoundism," I think about my car being in the impoundment lot because my car was towed by the Popo.  I own my car, but I temporarily do not enjoy the use of it because it is under the authority of another power; in this case, the police.    

Whether Francis is a pope or not is a matter of utter irrelevancy when it comes to my salvation.  It might be a matter of interest to academic minds who enjoying mulling over the issue, but for the practical Catholic, it does not matter one bit.  I know some sedes refuse to enter a church if the priest mentions Francis in the Mass, and this seems asinine to me.  And besides, I have served Mass thousands of times and not once have I heard the priest mention any pope by name.  He says these things in silence.  What if a priest does not reveal whether he is sedevacantist?  Or what if a priest says, I do not care whether Francis is pope?  Or what if he says, the situation in the Church is so crazy right now, don't bother me about the pope question, I have other things to worry about?

Who do you think St. Paul is referring to in 2 Thessalonians 2?

The Man of Sin

1 And we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our gathering together unto him: 2 That you be not easily moved from your sense, nor be terrified, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by epistle, as sent from us, as if the day of the Lord were at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, 4 Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. 5 Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6 And now you know what withholdeth, that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of iniquity already worketh; only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then that wicked one shall be revealed whom the Lord Jesus shall kill with the spirit of his mouth; and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming, him, 9 Whose coming is according to the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and lying wonders, 10 And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: 12 That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity.

Is it possible that St. Paul is referring to Bergoglio? Is he not the head of the counterfeit version of the Roman Catholic Church? A counterfeit that has its own parallel set of counterfeit Sacraments? Is he not planning a Synod what will turn the teaching of "the Church" on its head? Here is what Aquinas says about St. Paul's words:

But some say that neither Jerusalem nor the temple will ever be rebuilt, but that their desolation will last until the final consummation. And even some Jєωs believe this. So this text is explained to mean in the temple of God, i.e., in the Church, since many from the church will accept him. Or according to Augustine, he sits in the temple of God, i.e., he rules and governs as though he himself with his messengers were the temple of God, as Christ is the temple with his adherents. (https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~2Thess.C2.L1.n40)

If so, they who "receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved" shall be sent "the operation to believe lying" because they "have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity."

Sounds like "consenting" to the iniquity of a manifest heretic who poses as "the Pope" might be something very important to Catholics.

Francis cannot be more evil than Paul VI, who gave us the New Mass.  Francis is just continuing the nonsense given us by Paul VI.  Does Angelus think that because we think that Paul VI was a valid pontiff, that we therefore consent to his wickedness?  That would be a ridiculous conclusion.

If you can prove of Montini/Paul VI that either 1) his election was unlawfully conducted or 2) he obstinately taught manifest formal heresy, then you should believe, in the first case, that he was an antipope or, in the second, that he lost his papal office, ipso facto, because of teaching manifest heresy. This, in both cases, is required by Canon Law.

But why do you focus on the past? Bergoglio has been questioned by four Cardinals and many theologians about his manifestly heretical teachings over the last few years. He has not answered any of the questions, to my knowledge. Rather, he has continued to double-down. And as Bellarmine says, "it would be the most miserable condition of the Church, if she should be compelled to recognize a wolf, manifestly prowling, for a shepherd."

In addition, Bergoglio's "election" was totally unlawful, not simply because of Benedict's incomplete "resignation" but most importantly because the "election" did not follow the required prescriptions of Universi Dominici Gregis, the most important of which was that the prior Pope must be dead, have a funeral, and be buried. The election can come only after all of those things happen. Even a valid "resignation" does not change that fact (UDG, 77). So, Bergoglio's election was "null and void," according to that law.

BerGOGlio is "the man of sin," the "false prophet," the "little horn." Read the descriptions of these characters in the Bible. He is Gog, of Gog and Magog fame, the Antichrist and his little antichrist followers. If you don't see this, please pray for discernment with a humble and contrite heart. God will answer your prayers if you do so.

If you can prove from ANY Catholic sources (Popes, Fathers, Doctors, etc.) that the Magisterium and Public worship of the Church can become so corrupt as to justify severing communion with the Catholic hierarchy ... well, you can't, because no Catholic sources have ever written such a thing, and would rightly consider you a heretic for proposing this blends of Old Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism.  You're also anathematized by Trent.

No one has to prove anything about Montini et al.  If you want to theorize that he was being blackmailed or drugged or even replaced by an imposter, go for it.  But to claim that a legitimate Pope of sound mind and acting freely could destroy the Magisterium and the Mass is heresy.

As far as Bergoglio being THE man of Montini, Wojtyla, and Ratzinger were just as bad ... if you take the time to study their "teaching".  Bergoglio is simply more brazen about it, and he's actually served to wake people out of their slumber regarding Vatican II.

Yes, glad you mentioned Bergoglio, since he's the only one that really matters at the moment.

You used the word "brazen." Good word, meaning he's not ashamed of "coming out" so to speak. The other guys you mentioned, if heretics at all, were more "secretive." They stayed "in the closet," as they say. You might even use the word "occult" to describe the "heresies" of those predecessors of Bergoglio. 

But Bellarmine's Fifth Opinion, the one he calls "true," says that "secret" or "occult" heresy is not enough for the ipso facto loss of office. Those who hold the Second Opinion, rejected by Bellarmine, hold that "secret" heretics lose their office. Bellarmine says,

"But a secret heretic cannot be judged by men, nor would such wish to relinquish that power by his own will."

So, one will need "to prove" that a lawfully-elected Pope manifestly taught formal heresy and was obstinate in that teaching before he loses his office. That is, if you use Bellarmine and Canon Law as your guide.

Many hours have been spent digging through obscure writings of those earlier Popes. They bring up many statements that approach heresy. But they fail to establish manifest formal heresy as required by Bellarmine. With Bergoglio, we do not have that problem.