The bishops have not given an exhaustive explanation of the situation, only a small statement. Why did Dom Tomás not respond to Father Rodrigo? It's just something I ask myself. Now we have the version of Father Da Silva, missing the response of the bishops.

Who cares if they give an explanation of the situation? I don't care. Not one whit.

Giving an explanation will only give the sedes more reason to attack the Resistance. That's what they do. And perhaps that was their intention in the first place, with this situation. 

The Rosary, however…saved Brazil from Communism just in the 60s. But that was before the destruction of the Catholic Church. It is to Brazil that I am turning for another bishop to take care of our faithful in Mexico and South America, as well as to help assure the apostolic succession in these so uncertain times. God willing, I will consecrate Fr. Rodrigo da Silva a bishop here on the feast of St. Michael the Archangel, September 29. He has to pass a long quarantine in Mexico City in order to enter the United States. (Others, however, are daily flown or driven in, thanks to Uncle Sam.) Please pray that all goes well for this Consecration. Afterwards, the new bishop returns to Brazil and the St. Joseph Seminary he heads.

Bishop Daniel Dolan, http://www.sgg.org/2021/08/28/pentecost-xiv-12/

... Monsignor Jean Michel Faure ... demands from his members the same position Archbishop Lefebvre demanded.

That's ridiculous.  Circuмstances and facts change.  Nobody knows what Archbishop Lefebvre would have concluded in the case of Bergoglio.  He could have gone Bennyvacantist or full-blown sedevacantist.  He famously stated that he had come very close to coming out as a sedevacantist after Assisi.  What would he have thought about Bergoglio's approval/sanctioning of adultery, sodomy, or of the Pachamama worship, and suppression of the Tridentine Mass?  We have long-standing Novus Ordites flirting with sedevacantism or at least Bennyvacantism because of Bergoglio.

It's absurd to impose an opinion held 30 years ago as somehow etched in stone for all time.

We have the case of Fr. Ringrose, conditionally ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre, who had staunchly opposed sedevacantism ... now a sedevacantist thanks to Bergoglio.  We even have the likes of Taylor Marshall asking the question of whether Bergoglio is the true pope.

That's ridiculous.  Circuмstances and facts change.  Nobody knows what Archbishop Lefebvre would have concluded in the case of Bergoglio.  He could have gone Bennyvacantist or full-blown sedevacantist.  He famously stated that he had come very close to coming out as a sedevacantist after Assisi.  What would he have thought about Bergoglio's approval/sanctioning of adultery, sodomy, or of the Pachamama worship, and suppression of the Tridentine Mass?  We have long-standing Novus Ordites flirting with sedevacantism or at least Bennyvacantism because of Bergoglio.

It's absurd to impose an opinion held 30 years ago as somehow etched in stone for all time.

We have the case of Fr. Ringrose, conditionally ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre, who had staunchly opposed sedevacantism ... now a sedevacantist thanks to Bergoglio.  We even have the likes of Taylor Marshall asking the question of whether Bergoglio is the true pope.

That’s exactly right. Prideful arrogance assumes what deceased archbishops would do and say today. Then dogmatize it.
Fr. Ribeiro’s apostolate has continued to grow and do well in São Paolo where he runs a minor seminary. Everything indicates he made the right choice. 
Yes, he is non una cuм. 

Yes... Assisi was an unprecedented, dramatic assault on the First Commandment.
 

And JPII did it in his Barnum & Bailey” show-circus style.

On the other hand, Assisi happened in 1986 and +Lefebvre pondered for almost 2 years before finally performing the episcopal consecrations in 1988.

Easy answer.  just got to keep things simple   Francis I  Bergoglio happened/is happening  don't need more mental gymnastics than that.

Uh.... Pope Francis was elected in 2013. Not exactly a new development.

Neither is his uber-liberal behavior new. The world has known what a bad/liberal pope Francis was since maybe 2-3 years after his ɛƖɛctıon.

The question stands.

Uh.... Pope Francis was elected in 2013. Not exactly a new development.

Neither is his uber-liberal behavior new. The world has known what a bad/liberal pope Francis was since maybe 2-3 years after his ɛƖɛctıon.

The question stands.

Again, When "francis " was elected machs nichts.  there are consequences to accepting Sede vacantism as it were.  many people don't come to such a conclusion without a sense of trepidation.  The reality is, for all practical purposes, sans the indult groups, ALL trads are more or less practical sedevacantists.  SSPX'ers want to try to convince themselves they are not, calling the Pope the pope while continuing to disregard him at EVERY turn?  I'd rather some lefevbrist explain to me how that is NOT practical sedevacantlsm.  Oh I know all the  canards and cliche's.  bottom line the cavalier statements such as Father Fullerton's reply that" the new M.P. doesn't apply to us"  belies this reality or the not so secret fact thus that an accord must be in place.