...for sedevacantism:

Loose translation (see original at link below):

"Due to the current attitude of complete independence taken by Father Rodrigo Ribeiro da Silva, as well as his new sedevacanatist position, we are obliged to warn the faithful that we are no longer responsible for the words and acts of said priest and those who follow him.

We remind the faithful that Archbishop Lefebvre did not allow any of his priests to refuse to pray for the Pope at Mass.

Father Rodrigo was ordained as a member of the Priestly Society of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary whose founder, Monsignor Jean Michel Faure, demands from his members the same position Archbishop Lefebvre demanded.

This is the position of the Four Bishops and all the faithful of the Catholic Resistance.

But when adopting this sedevacantist position, and the position of complete independence, the priest Rodrigo separates not only from his superior, but also from the other three bishops of the Resistance: Mgr Williamson; Mgr Zendejas; and Mgr Thomas Aquinas.

+ Tomás de Aquino OSB

U.I.O.G.D"

http://beneditinos.org.br/2018/07/comunicado-importante-sobre-o-padre-rodrigo-ribeiro-da-silva/

...for sedevacantism:

Loose translation (see original at link below):

Father Rodrigo was ordained as a member of the Priestly Society of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary whose founder, Monsignor Jean Michel Faure, demands from his members the same position Archbishop Lefebvre demanded.

Do you know if that word "ordained" is correct? Was this priest ordained by a Resistance bishop?

I know him very well. He was at my wedding and I spent last Christmas with him at a resistance chapel attached to a house of a family in Brazil. He is a great priest. Bishop Williamson first voiced his desire to ordain him at the consecration of Bishop Faure. All opinions of the crisis aside, I hope that he will continue his priestly work in Brazil and one day here in the US. He has an interesting story.

Who is Padre Da Silva subtitled in English

You just publicly accused a priest of deceiving his superiors ( a grave moral culpability) for the serious matter of ordination. But you don't know everything or much of anything. This priest was making severe anti-sedevacantist videos just weeks ago where he would repeat the word for word position of the Resistance. You just took it upon yourself to assume that he had not changed positions so you could publicly accuse him and say he could've been ordained by a sede bishop. And this being given moderator power over the forum. It says a lot, actually. Public reparation would be a start.

So, is Bp. Thomas Aquinas a liar? 

I  personally don't think so. I think Mater was just pointing out the unfortunate norm of our times.

For one to go from:

"making severe anti-sedevacantist videos just weeks ago"

to:

"Fr. Ribeiro Da Silva has publicly stated now that he is connected to Bishop Daniel Dolan"

in just a matter of a few weeks surely implies that this young priest was ignorant of St. Ignatius' "discernment of spirits" (or disregarded that saint's Rules for such).

If a priest can't decide on his best position on the Pope question during 6 years at a seminary and/or years at a monastery, what was he doing during all that time? Playing tiddly winks?

Usually a Seminarian has LESS time for consideration and study after Ordination, not more.

It's a priest's JOB to study and learn his Faith, as well as the Crisis in the Church. Ignorance has no place in a priest. There are only so many positions one can take on the Pope question, and they are all mutually exclusive. And each will appeal to a given type of person, based on what they focus on, their history, temperament, training, etc.

One can change over time as the world, or one's understanding, changes. I understand things change, people learn more, consider things a different way, Popes die and new ones get elected, the Crisis in the Church gets worse or better, etc. but that would justify a change after YEARS, not months or weeks after ordination. Pope Francis was still Pope last December when Father was ordained. Pope Francis was just as bad then as he is today. The same arguments can be made for including (or removing) his name from the Canon last December as well as today.

One can also change for less noble or even base reasons. I just think it's ridiculous when a priest is a member of the SSPX for 10, 15 years and then they leave to join the FSSP because "they just realized -- *gasp* -- the SSPX is in schism!" It doesn't speak well of the intellect of said priest, right? But in reality, such a priest is simply getting old and wants to try something new, or he wants more creature comforts, is weary of The Fight, etc. so it all makes sense. So in such a case, there is no reason to believe he deceived his superiors from the beginning.

But when you have priests that get ordained and then IMMEDIATELY (say, in single-digit months) leave for another position or group, you really have to question the sincerity (and/or stability) of the priest to begin with.

I'm sure this happens frequently, but the only other case I can remember off hand was the Society of St. John in the late 90's. Several supporters of the SSJ kept quiet until ordination, then they immediately left and joined their brethren on the SSJ commune. And I think some of the sedevacantists in 1983 who split from the SSPX did this as well -- kept quiet until they were safely in Holy Orders.

A man who would "steal" the priesthood this way, sneaking into the sheepfold by another way -- there are no words. What a curse he brings on his priesthood, rather than a blessing, when he begins his very priesthood with an act of deceit, aimed at the very bishop ordaining him! Our Lord is Truth. Anything of untruth or lies comes from the father of lies, the devil himself.

Now it's possible this doesn't apply to Fr. Da Silva, but if not, then it means he's flaky and unstable, or headstrong and allergic to obedience. Are these options any better?

See the "anti-sedevacantist" video he posted just a few weeks ago! What has changed in the Church since then early July, or last December? NOTHING. Only Fr. Da Silva's spinning head has changed, which has now landed again and happens to face in a new direction. What will his position be next week?

There are only a few possibilities to explain Fr. Da Silva's recent behavior:

A) Deception, hiding his true position before his ordination
or
B) He is unstable to a troubling degree. (What next? He'll join a conclavist group? Get consecrated bishop or elected Pope? Go back to the Novus Ordo or maybe join the FSSP?)
C) The Una cuм issue is just a side-issue or even an excuse; a mere symptom of an "independent streak" he has developed (or decided to reveal), which will give him the excuse to have no Bishop over him.

There aren't any other options, unless you count combinations of A), B), and C.

But none of these options do any credit to Fr. Da Silva!

I invite CentroAmerica or any other of Father's close friends to explain to all of us what happened.
If I'm wrong, please explain how I'm wrong.

P.S.
I don't know Fr. Da Silva at all; I only know the facts of this case, which I am discussing here in a rational and logical manner.

Any priest who doesn't begin to worry about, consider, or study the Pope question until after Ordination isn't very impressive as a priest. On the contrary, I would say that such a priest is shirking his essential duties, and is probably doing more harm than good for souls by having himself ordained.

LAYMEN are busy with families and study of subjects related to making a living -- plus the 8-12 hours a day doing the actual work to support and maintain their families. Sometimes laymen get too busy with courting, getting married, starting/raising a family and they sometimes don't have time for the Pope question. Maybe after being married 10 years Joe Catholic will have time during a vacation to finally study the issue, and might switch over to a new position.

But a priest is different! That's his job. That's his whole world. If a priest didn't have time for years (seminary years + some of his priestly life) to really study the Pope question on a personal level, then what the ____ was he doing in the seminary? Watching Netflix?

Watching Netflix sounds harsh, but what then? Does he have a secular degree to show for his years? A secular business he has started and built up? A wife and kids? What was he spending his many hours on every week at the Seminary, if he totally ignored the Pope question for years, such that he couldn't develop his own opinion on this issue that would agree with his conscience and understanding? I am completely baffled here.

As I said above, a seminarian will have *less* personal time for study after Ordination, not more. That's what everyone (priests) told me when I was at the seminary.

There has to be a term already coined out there in Traddieland for this pattern of deceiving your superiors until you receive ordination and then "coming out" with your true opinions on the Crisis.

Those priests who waited until their ordination to go join The Nine were later castigated for "stealing the priesthood".