CathInfo.com

Actually, they made a deal with the Vatican and explained in their letter in great detail how they made that deal because they no longer wanted to question whether the vatican 2 church had any authority and were afraid that if they continued that they would have to openly accept sedevacantism. They even explain how they wrote to Bishop Fellay and explained the same.
http://brasildogmadafe.blogspot.com.br/p/docuмento-perdido-dos-padres-de-campos.html

Yes, I am aware of what they did. It is sad. Bishop Rifan would eventually begin to concelebrate the New Mass. Again, they didn't quite understand the Crisis being isolated in their area of Brazil. 

Lad, you're putting words into Drew's mouth; he's not a protestant and many sedes DO act as if the pope is the rule of their faith, just like novus ordo catholics put the papacy on a pedastal.  You hear the phrase 'R&R' and you immediately go into attack mode and put blinders on...yet I ask, one could define Fr Ringrose and Chazal's arguments as "recognizing" their material authority, while "resisting" their non-existent spiritual authority.  Potatoe, potato.  Don't let the terms overshadow the underlying arguments.

Here's the issue that is not being distinguished - the time factor.  For example, how many councils have we had in the past and how many doctrines have they defined?  (at least 20 councils).  And how many Doctors of the Church and saints and other holy people, including popes, have written and explained such doctrines?  Hundreds.  So, the previous magisterium's of the Church have already "spoken" and already explained all that's needed to be said concerning most of these doctrines.  For example, the doctrine of Christ having 2 natures - divine and human.  This has been around and explained for so long that we catholics in the 19th/20th/21st centuries don't need it re-explained.  It's pretty basic.

So, such doctrines are settled.  The current magisterium isn't spending time re-explaining these types of topics because the Church has had 17 centuries to do so.  So, to say that the current magisterium is the 'rule' of faith, is not accurate for this topic.  It might be accurate for issues which are CURRENTLY BEING ATTACKED or which need to be clarified, but for older doctrines, we look to the past for explanations.  We can do this because the Church's teachings are CONSISTENT and UNIVERSAL.  Therefore, what She said 16-17 centuries ago concerning Our Lord's Divine nature was as accurate then as it is now.

The point is, to say that the current magisterium is the 'rule' of faith is only partially correct.  The magisteriums of the past (i.e. previously defined doctrine/dogma and the related commentary) is part of the 'rule' of faith as well, because Church Teaching is eternal, no matter what time period it came from.  So the rule of faith is THE MAGISTERIUM (past and present) because ultimately what they teach is ETERNAL TRUTH, which is timeless.

So, to Drew's point, whether or not the current pope strays from the Faith is irrelevent to our Faith because the current magisterium is only a small part of The UNIVERSAL magisterium, which is the constant teaching of the faith over 2,000 centuries.  This UNVERSAL magisterium is what Drew means when he says 'doctrine'.