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.

You could replace "Papal encyclical" with "Pope" and we could have the same discussion -- it's the classic "To be Sede or not to be Sede" argument.

Of course Catholics don't normally "rip" an encyclical -- or a Pope for that matter. But we're in a unique situation where the Pope -- the principle of unity -- has become a revolutionary and a principle of DISunity and a principle of rupture from the Catholic Faith. He has worked tirelessly to DESTROY the Catholic Church from within.

To me, it goes without saying that "dogmatic sedeplenism" is an error in this Crisis. No one has received from God the assurance that the recent popes are even popes.

Of course, the Sedevacntists also can't be dogmatic, since God hasn't told anyone that the recent popes are NOT popes. Archbishop Lefebvre certainly entertained the possibility, but for various reasons did not take the step of becoming sedevacantist.

I believe embracing formal sedevacantism inflicts mortal wounds on the concept of authority -- that is why +Williamson, Fr. Zendejas, etc. "don't go there". But that's another discussion for another day.

And I'm all for philosophizing, but I always stop short at being SO FREE with my philosophizing that I'll criticize even the best Trads -- or even ALL Trads -- because none of them are doing "what needs to be done" to end this Crisis. But these head-in-the-clouds philosophers assume as a given that we laymen should fix this crisis, like we fix any other problem on earth.

I personally believe that this Crisis is completely beyond human help. All we can individually do is keep the Faith as long as possible, for ourselves and our loved ones. And pray that the days are shortened.

Despite the comparative inadequacy of the treatment they give to the papal encyclicals, however, all the theological works dealing with this subject make it perfectly clear that all Catholics are bound seriously in conscience to accept the teaching contained in these docuмents with a true internal religious assent. It is the common teaching of the theologians who have written on this subject that the internal assent due to a great number of the doctrines proposed in the papal encyclicals is something distinct from and inferior to both the act of divine Catholic faith and the act most frequently designated as fides ecclesiastica. Most theologians hold that, while there is nothing to prevent an infallible definition of truth contained in or connected with the deposit of revelation in papal encyclicals, and while de facto it is quite probable that at least some infallible pronouncements have been made in this way, the Holy Father has not chosen to use the complete plenitude of his apostolic doctrinal authority in presenting most of the truths contained in his encyclical letters. Nevertheless they all insist that even in this portion of his ordinary magisterium the Holy Father has the right to demand, and actually has demanded, a definite and unswerving internal assent to his teaching from all Catholics.
...
It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.