What you seem to be saying is that we can either believe that Bergolio is an anti-Pope (and therefore can safely reject all of his false teachings and that of all of his conciliar predecessors and prelates, which is easier as a sedevacantist), and this is not essential for salvation....or, we can and must for the sake of salvation reject all of Bergolio's false teachings and that of his conciliar predecessors and prelates.
I don't see that there's much of a difference between the two stances above, except that one is necessary for salvation, and one isn't.
Being Sedevacantist is not essential for salvation.
Rejecting false conciliar and post-conciliar teachings, doctrines, disciplines, and liturgy is essential for salvation.
You can reject these teachings as an R&R Catholic too which is what many do and did (+Lefebvre, +Williamson, Fr. Wathen, et al).
Topic: Vigano Responds To Traditionis Custodes (Read 5596 times)