CathInfo.com

No, we mustn't have "dissent" when it concerns Francis. Does Ms. Dredger also wear pink, use a blow comb, and go on cruise ship "retreats?"

I do not need to read the entire encyclical to remember that rampant dissent is not a Catholic virtue and that respect and honor of the position of the pope must be maintained.

Well, this statement is actually quite true.  RELIGIOUS SUBMISSION is owed to all Encyclical Letters of the Vicar of Christ.  Religious Submission does at the very least rule out "rampant dissent" and requires "respect and honor of the position of the pope".  She has this ABSOLUTELY right.  What's at issue is whether Francis is certainly a legitimate Vicar of Christ.  If you're dogmatic R&R and entertain no doubt whatsoever about the legitimacy of Francis, then Vanessa's position is in fact the ONLY Catholic position.

I defy anyone here to demonstrated any Church Father, Doctor, or approved theologian EVER in the entire history of the Church who has stated that Catholics can sit around "ripping" a papal encyclical.  What does that do to the Catholic Church?  It's at that point where R&R becomes absolutely pernicious and harmful to the faith.

Bishop Fellay is in fact acting consistently with a dogmatic sedeplenist stance.  If you absolutely have no doubt that Francis is the pope and believe it to be true with the certainty of faith, then you absolutely must try to find a way to get into submission with him and you MUST at the very least RESPECT his Magisterium, attempting to the absolute best of your ability to apply a hermeneutic of continuity to it.

So the more that the Resistance wishes to remain dogmatic sedeplenist, the more and more it departs from Catholicism.

And this tension here between +Fellay SSPX and the Resistance is nothing other than an expression of the tension naturally caused by this decidedly non-Catholic notion that one can recognize someone as a Vicar of Christ and then absolutely blow him off, disrespect him, and criticize him at every turn ... the same tension that over the years has CONSTANTLY been trying to resolve itself either into some form of union with and submission to Rome or else to sedevacantism.  That dogmatic R&R position is abhorrent to Catholicsim and NOT REMOTELY ACCEPTABLE.  And the more you start thinking that this is even remotely acceptable, the more of a sectarian Protestant / Old Catholic / Gallican you turn into.  I'm sorry, but that's a simple fact.

Father Chazal articulated a position on the papacy which mirrors my own ... somewhere along the spectrum of sedeprivationism.  Something along those lines is absolutely necessary to maintain any objection whatsoever to the +Fellay position.  [I'm not talking about ancillary issues such as +Fellay's persecution of dissenters, etc., but just about the position itself.]  Archbishop Lefebvre publicly expressed doubts about the legitimacy of the V2 popes.  Bishop Williamson and Bishop Tissier have also acknowledge the possibility of vacancy.  WITHOUT THAT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, +Fellay's position is in fact the only Catholic one.