I'm not a dogmatic anything, but I think there's three  major problems with Ladislaus argument.

The former is that couldn't one argue that Francis recent encyclical does not in fact speak for the church?  

The second is that it would seem to me that if it is in fact true the denying  the disciplinary  infallibility of the church falls under some theological note below heresy, is it possible that what we currently see in front of us could justify us disagreeing with it even if it would have been temerarus in normal times?

Finally, even if we grant for the sake of argument that technically speaking a strictly celebrated NO is acceptable, isn't it more prudent at this point to attend a chapel not under the control of Francis simply because he has evidently in bed with ɠƖobaƖıst powers who desire and design our ruin?  If the powers that be demanded that we simply never have mass again, perhaps because of a virus or whatever, Francis would comply. How can we trust him?

Then again, if I'm asking this maybe I really do wonder if he's really Pope.  To be honest I can at least see a plausible argument that John Paul  II and Benedict meant well and we're just sincerely confused. I can't honestly find a way to make that argument for Francis.  It seems pretty clear to me that either a deliberate destroyer can be pope or Francis isn't a pope.  I personally don't see how Francis can he in good faith

more from Hermann:
Again, Hermann agrees with the sedevacantists that commanding (or even positively tolerating) a Rite of Mass which "tend(s) to the detriment of the Church or harm of the faithful" is tantamount to a defection of the Church.

Either the NOM does not tend to the detriment of the Church or harm of the faithful, or the Holy See is vacant.  It's that simple.

The current pope means well, that's what the NO does to people who go there - even to popes.

Consider for a moment that your the pope and no matter what, because of some infallibility introduced by theologians, i.e.  thanks to the protection of the Holy Ghost, you cannot impose a harmful Rite of Mass, or teach heresy.

Imposing a prot service and preaching the NO religion where there's no more sin (unless you're a trad) only means more people get into heaven. Why wouldn't you do the same as he is doing?

I disagree.

I agree with ByzCat on this point. A somewhat decent argument of “meaning well” can be made for Ratzinger, Wojtyla, and Roncalli to a certain extent. But Bergoglio and Montini? I think that’s implausible based on a number of factors such as their writings and actions.

Per the NO dogmas that say all councils are infallible and the pope cannot impose a harmful Rite of Mass, then the current pope is simply implementing a directive to rid the Church and world of the old liturgy, where most are *not* saved, and replace it with the new liturgy, were most are saved. I would think that what he's doing should be construed as a very good thing, I am sure he would not understand why anyone would think otherwise.

60 years after the council, now that the new liturgy is more fully and truly understood, all he is doing is his duty to more fully implement it - it's always been the same goal since V2, nothing new here.

You would likely do the same thing if you were the pope, divinely protected from imposing a harmful Rite of Mass. Which is to say that  whatever Rite you impose must be deemed infallibly safe. Got it?  

For the sake of historical truth however, I will warn that what you labelled as “NO dogmas” are actually Catholic dogmas that were explained by some of the greatest theological minds the Church had prior to Vatican II and even prior to the 20th century altogether.