CathInfo.com

I agree, and this is precisely the most absurd part of the R&R.

Where do you draw the line? If you openly oppose the Pope, then how can you condemn others who do the same? How can you be so sure that the errors that you oppose are really errors?

The main defense for this accusation, from the R&R "authorities" is that the Conciliar Popes have not used their teaching authority for real. They are using a kind of "dialogue mode" Papacy, on which they merely propose ideas, and don't really teach.

It does sound weak, but at least they have an explanation for their position which differs them from the Old Catholics, Orthodox, etc...

Fr. Chazal's position seems closer to the Cassiciacuм Thesis to me, although I have not studied it thoroughly.

No GB, toward all authority including popes it's about True Obedience of R&R - which is the obedience that the Church has always taught, vs Blind Obedience of the sedes, which is what the sedes learned from somewhere other than the Church. This, imo, is what it boils down to. 

The main defense for this accusation, from the R&R "authorities" is that the Conciliar Popes have not used their teaching authority for real. They are using a kind of "dialogue mode" Papacy, on which they merely propose ideas, and don't really teach.

Right, as if the V2 papal claimants were merely engaging in speculation with V2 and considered it entirely optional ... which is why they persecuted Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX for decades, and now Bergoglio is claiming that rejecting the teaching of V2 constitutes schism (one of the charges against +Vigano).

In any case, very few modern R&R know that +Lefebvre himself did not deny the basic Catholic teaching that the Papacy is guided by the Holy Ghost from destroying the Church in the manner we have seen.  He merely prescinded from the SV conclusion because he couldn't commit with the sufficient certainty regarding how this could have happened.  He did not deny the MAJOR of the SV position, as most modern R&R do (with the exception of Father Chazal, if you accept his self-characterization or self-identification as being R&R), simply felt that the MINOR, namely that these men were non-popes was not sufficiently certain for him to commit to it.  He never ruled it out, and in fact considered it to be quite possible ... just never committed to it.

If that's the kind of thinking behind an R&R position, there's nothing un-Catholic about it whatsoever.  But it's in rejecting the MAJOR that one runs afoul of Traditional Catholic doctrine.

Unfortunately, +Lefebvre was not emphatic enough and didn't repeat this distinction often enough, so that much of the modern R&R movement have morphed into the Old Catholic mentality and Old Catholic doctrine of the papacy.

If someone wanted to say that these men have been legitimate popes but were being blackmailed (not acting freely) or even that they have been replaced by doubles and tied up in a dungeon somewhere, while I wouldn't agree, I'd have no problem with the position from a doctrinal standpoint.  More power to you.  I also have no problem whatsoever with Father Chazal's position.  Nor do I have any issues with Archbishop Lefebvre's position (except for when he was cavorting with the Modernists in the early 1980s in the manner of +Fellay today).  What I have issues with are the many R&R today who are basically Old Catholics.

I think if I were +Vigano, I would have submitted a defense against the charge of schism.  It would go like this.

I would cite the Canon Lawyers who stated that one is not to be considered a schismatic if one refuses submission to the Pope for reasons of well-founded concerns regarding the legitimacy of said Pope.  I would point out that many Catholics of good faith have questioned his legitimacy, including a number of bishops, including +Lenga and +Gracida, etc.  I would cite also the evidence of the St. Gallen mafia conspiracy and then Wojtyla's statements that a papal election that resulted from collusion would be considered null and void.

Then I would state that similar doubts prevail about Montini, in which case questioning Vatican II on those grounds who likewise not constitute schism.

I would also cite St. Robert Bellarmine and the others regarding heretical popes, then cite statements from Bergoglio that are heretical and make him a manifest heretic, including his infamous statement about not caring whether something he said was heretical.  I'd cite his non-repudiation of Scalfari's claims (make him respond to those).  I'd cite his claim that non-Catholics can be martyrs vs. the explicit teaching of the Council of Florence against that heresy, etc. etc.

I would use this as the occasion to produce a manfiesto regarding the heresies of the V2 papal claimants.

I'd do it just to force them to respond and see what they have to say ... not that I would ultimately care what these non-Catholics think.

I think +Vigano may have missed a golden opportunity to provide a comprehensive manifesto that, given the fact that the charges against him are very public, would find wide circulation and could influence poeple for the good.  I would have taken advantage of the publicity to get the manifesto out there.  I would not only have submitted it to the Vatican but also would have publicly released it.