Are you tipping your hand?

The priest should simply resume saying public Masses, without regard to the illegitimate intrusion of the temporal authority into the spiritual sphere.

One does not ask permission to do one’s duty.

Complying with these tyrannical police state measures only guarantees and emboldens their tyrannical police state, and further enslaves us.

What is needed to remedy the situation is widespread civil disobedience.

You show an amazing ignorance of both the "doctrine of the two swords," and the "indirect power of the pope" (both of which dictate that in cases involving mixed matters/mutual interests, the power of the Church prevails (because spiritual matters are more important than temporal).

The contrary proposition is condemned in the Syllabus.

Troll alert.

You are saying that because Francis is a traitor, Unam Sanctam does not apply.

That is idiotic.

Wrong:

The Church has taught clearly, consistently, and definitively on the matter of its indirect temporal authority (not just in Unam Sanctam, but Immortale Dei, the Syllabus, et al).

You seek to make what is certain nebulous, in order to paint the cowardly SSPX in a better light.

(You tipped your cards when you injected your comment about conspiracy theories; all SSPXers are now to accept the accounts of the lamestream media, and are now only useful idiots).

But no Catholic needs any special authority to accept Catholic doctrine, which clearly states the temporal authority has no more right to meddle in Church/spiritual affairs, than the Church has to shut down governments or regulate taxes.

When arguments and positions are made a priori on a partisan basis, they usually fall apart (like yours).

Social distancing and the quarantining of the healthy does not save lives.  It takes lives, by weakening the immune systems of the healthy (in addition to the mental illnesses it is causing: Anxiety, stress, depression, alcoholism, etc).  Once they are let back out into the population, their compromised immune systems are going to make them more apt to contract disease (possible by design).

But as regards the squandering of Her prerogatives to the overreach of the secular authority (which even the conciliarist conservative clergy perceives), of what "definitive guidance" are you speaking??

The guidance which has been given is squarely betraying the definitive guidance given by 700 years of infallible (ordinary) magisterial teaching regarding the indirect authority of the Pope, and relations between the Church and state.

How can the rebellion of Francis be considered "definitive teaching"  which flies squarely in the face of truly definitive teaching?

If this Pope chooses to betray those teachings, how does that weaken my argument by maintaining fidelity to them??

Is it SSPX taking a stand or Fr Robinson taking a stand?