CathInfo.com

My apologies if I understood incorrectly. I thought it was Fr. Robinson being quoted.
But my argument still stands via my post above (not about SSPX criticism, but about using terms such as "essential" in a legal battle).

I agree with your stance on this, I think the entire resistance looks weak when it doesn't applaud the good of the SSPX while continuing to hold its differing opinions in the other matters (deal with Rome).

The Pope and all of the Bishops in full communion with the Pope and by extension all of the Priests under the authority of said Bishops told us to stop attending Mass for the time being. If the aforementioned entities do not constitute the authority of "The Church" then I don't know what does.

You do have a point here that's been lost.  Whether or not the secular authority has any right to restrict Mass attendance, the hierarchy most certainly does.  One can argue argue about whether they should have done so, but one cannot, short of being a sedevacantist who considers them illegitimate, dispute that they have this right.

Now, I'm not sure if the Pope himself forbade Mass attendance around the world, but I'm sure that he backs the decisions of the local episcopate.  So, since the U.S. bishops have shut down Masses, those who do not consider these illegitimate are in fact bound by their decree.

Now, I know I've disagreed with Sean about this before based on his thinking regarding just law principles.  Archbishop Vigano agrees in this case.  But his argument is about receiving the Sacraments, and people can still receive the Sacraments if they request them on an individual basis (apart from the cases of Novus Ordo presiders who are too scared to administer them).  In fact, some of the Eastern Rite bishops in the U.S. have been encouraging people to make individual appointments to receive the Sacraments.  I would imagine that the logistics of the Novus Ordo would make this impossible (there are many more of them than Eastern Rite Catholics).  Yet I bet that most NO "Catholics" are thrilled that the don't have to go to Mass on Sunday and won't go out of their way for the Sacraments.

In many states, such as here in Ohio, the directive is merely that there not be groups of more than 10.  So what if the SSPX (and others) assigned 15-minute timeslots for groups of 10 at a time (spread out by at least 6 feet along the Communion rail) to receive Holy Communion.  In an 8 hour day, 320 people could receive Holy Communion, and most Traditional chapels don't have anywhere near that many people.  Then also make some arrangements for people who wish to go to Confession beforehand.  I'm not seeing the SSPX make that extra effort to find creative ways to get the Sacraments to people.