Attached is the mandate read before the consecration liturgy, by Father Ringrose.

Frankly, this is all wrong thinking that is against Catholic principle and teaching.

Never, NEVER, can anyone simultaneously acknowledge that there exists an "authority" one can communicate with while saying one will not ask for permission to consecrate a bishop. That is objectively sinful and schismatic, and you will not find one quote to support such a thing. Not one.

Docuмents during the Communists reigns in Mexico, Russian and China ( up to about 1958 ) clearly show this.

Only the Catholic principle of epikeia can allow the consecration of a bishop WHEN there is no pope, and the election of another is dismal.

Says your sedevacantist rhetoric. If you are indeed "nado", then you are a sedevacantist who participated in many SGG-themed discussions.

The Conciliar Church actually says that +ABL's consecration wasn't schismatic, though they won't advertise that. In fact, they go out of their way to make people assume that it is schismatic, without ever saying it explicitly or officially.

For example, the popes considered the situation with +Lefebvre and the SSPX to be an "internal Church matter" and not matter for the congregation that deals with schismatic churches, other religions, etc.

That is why +Lefebvre never got a trial. Do you realize that every excommunicate and heretic declared as such by the Church ALWAYS got a trial to define and reject their errors and heresies? But the Church authorities knew that +ABL was guilty of no heresy, and in fact it was THEY who would come out looking like heretics. So he never got a trial. Therefore they used propaganda, misdirection, mental reservation, "letting people assume the wrong thing", etc. to get their deeds done.

The same with the Latin Mass itself. If you go up the chain, you will eventually be told that the Tridentine Mass was never abrogated. However, they want the word on the street -- the common belief taken to be the truth -- to be PRECISELY that the Tridentine Mass was done away with.

In conclusion, if +Lefebvre wasn't a schismatic (and it appears that even according to the Conciliar Church he is not), then neither are +Williamson, +Zendejas, +Faure, and +Thomas Aquinas.

Mr. Sedevacantist, we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

You and other sedevacantists refuse to acknowledge the complexity, the uniqueness of this Crisis, and the mystery of the Crisis in general.

Obviously something has happened "unheard of in the Church before or after", or we wouldn't be in the situation we're in today. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the Recognize and Resist population is NOT made up of

1. Willful mortal sinners, and/or
2. The ignorant ("don't know any better"), and/or
3. The weak/compromisers ("I can't make that much of a sacrifice; it's too hard; I can't fight THAT much...")

People like myself are plenty well-informed, well educated, even with some seminary training, and still refuse to be sedevacantist and yet are still of good will. But more than that, plenty of R&R Trad Catholics are courageous, crushing human respect, "ease", and convenience underfoot as much as any sedevacantist you can put forward.

And I could argue that it is heretical to say that the Church has failed -- that the Church could go without a Pope for 58+ years, with NO CHANCE ON THE HORIZON OF RECTIFYING THIS. You and other sedevacantists suggest that a Pope is optional for the Catholic Church, like "leather seats", "GPS" or "4-wheel drive" on a car.

Sedevacantists' assertion that we have had a 58+ year interregnum flies in the face of Christ's promise that "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

So, long story short, there is PLENTY of room for Catholics of good will to hold the recognize-and-resist position. In fact, I would argue that R&R is the best, safest, and most Catholic position there is, given the circuмstances.

Actually,  you can't argue it, but you could try to! 

Look how you reply to what I have said; rather than address about mandates, you turn to another subject - what you perceive is wrong with the sedevacantist position. It doesn't answer about mandates.

Left and right you perceive mistakenly:

•    Sedes don't say the Church has failed.
  
•    Sedes don't say there is no chance of rectifying the situation.
  
•    Sedes don't say the pope is optional.

All of these are false. Do you care?

Interregnums have never implied the pope is optional. Nor has the length of an interregnum ever been even speculated to be only so many years/months/days and no more.

As well, though some Sedes believe AT MOST an interregnum of 58+ years, it can easily be granted that John Paul I was a true pope for one month, which would make the interregnum 40 years.

Now back to the papal mandate?  You have nothing to support yourself for that. I have plenty directly against it.
Aside from the heresy of believing a true pope could be simultaneously the head of the true Church and the head of a false one.

Actually one does not have to argue that the pope is head of a modernist church and head of the Catholic Church nor does one have to declare the See of Rome to be vacant. There are historical precedents for consecration without Pontifical Mandate during the reign of an existing Pope. China comes to mind.
 
There are 3 groups of Catholics in China, the Communist controlled Patriotic Church, the Underground Church (loyal to Rome) and hoards of independent bishops who do not belong to either of the other 2 groups. They recognize Rome but refuse to take the oath of allegiance to Rome. They took umbrage when Rome refused to allow an indigenous clergy to select bishops and consecrate them after the Revolution. They decided that the world in Rome was one thing, but the political reality in China was another so they concluded the duty to provide the Sacraments was greater than loyalty to Rome and so they set about consecrating bishops without a mandate.
 
This is described by Kim-Kwong Chan in his book Towards a Contextual Ecclesiology – The Catholic Church in the People’s Republic of China (1979-83): Its Life and Theological Implication,Hong Kong, 1987 pp. 238 ff.. He concludes that Rome concedes the validity and that the consecrations (as long as there is no explicit renunciation of the Papal Primacy) are not necessarily schismatic.
 
Pope Benedict drew a parallel between the Chinese situation and that of the SSPX in his book Light of the World – so the comparison is not a stretch of my imagination. A kind of “state of necessity” exists because of a lack of moral recourse to the competent authority. This argument would hold good for all consecrations that recognize the Supreme Authority but to which recourse is morally impossible. The people have a right to the Sacraments.
 
Rome even granted permission for the faithful to avail themselves of the Sacraments of the Patriotic Church (provided there was no danger of scandal) and for seminarians to study in Patriotic seminaries for studies to the priesthood. The principle being the same: the faithful have a right to the Sacraments.

Pius XII explicitly condemned those in China who consecrated bishops without papal approval.

I expected that knee-jerk reaction - it was Pius XII they explicitly disobeyed because they said the matter was between them and God and that the Pope was wrong in this instance. Get the book and read the history.

Perhaps a better explanation of the nuance of this intermediate position I have delineated is in order: Pius XII issued the excommunication for episcopal consecration without Pontifical Mandate precisely because the Chinese Communists were angling to create the Patriotic Church. Rome also nominated bishops of their own but usually they were rounded up and imprisoned just before or just after their consecration. In the case I described there were 2 bishops, validly consecrated and in union with Rome, who reflected over a 2 week period on the nature of the excommunication they faced if they consecrated without the Mandate. They decided that Pius XII had his opinion of the Chinese situation and they another and so they decided to proceed with episcopal consecrations any way. The point is, they didn’t decide Pius XII was not the Pope, nor did they conclude he was the head of 2 churches, nor did they invoke epikeia, they concluded Pius XII did not sufficiently understand the situation and that it would be wrong for them not to proceed with consecrations so other priests could be ordained and provide for the Sacramental needs of the people. They claimed a state of “necessity” – sure they got canned – but the argument from necessity should be the only one needed in today’s crisis.

.
Now if only we could READ the .pdf in the OP we could see what it has to say about the understanding of Pope Francis in regards to the necessity of consecrating traditional bishops in the Western Church, or if it says anything at all about that.
.