Yes, that is the view of the SSPX-resistance, and unfortunately, a view that’s shared by many traditional Catholics who are simply victims of the “diabolical disorientation”.
The SSPX is faithful the the Church––not to the faithless teachings of the modern popes and bishops. The modern bishops will continue to succeed in their diabolical efforts as long as traditional Catholics fail to recognize this important distinction.
The professed mission of the SSPX has always been one of “continuing” the true teachings of the Catholic Church––not to start a religion of their own making. One of the important teachings of the Church is that “where Peter is, there is the Church”. The current pope (as well as the earlier popes since Vatican II) has been a disgraceful leader of the Church. That is true. But he is still the pope.
No human being on this earth has the authority to “judge the pope”. I realize that many of the internet sites that profess to be following traditional Catholic teaching (especially those advocating Sedevacantism) have decided for themselves that the pope is a false pope or a heretic. That is absolutely inconsistent with Catholic teaching, regardless of the persuasive arguments that are advanced to claim otherwise.
Moreover, despite the false information that is regularly circulated by the SSPX_resistance crowd, the Sedevacantists sites, and the simply misinformed and gullible Catholics, the SSPX has consistently published their immutable position; namely, that while they will continue to engage in dialogue with the leaders in Rome, they will absolutely never enter into any “agreement” with those leaders until they have agreed to abandon every one of the false teachings of Vatican II.
It is merely your opinion that sedevacantism is not consistent with Catholic teaching.
Yes, a true and Catholic Peter. To say that where Francis the public heretic is, there is the Church can not be true. To say that the Church that professes the false, Vatican II religion is the Catholic Church is abhorrent.
Please share a recent publication to that effect. What has the SSPX stated officially about Amoris Latitia for example?
Do you know that the SSPX once questioned the validity of the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration ... until 2005....when Benedict was the first "Bishop of Rome" consecrated in it? I find that timing extremely suspect.
The SSPX has changed its tune over the years. There is no question about that.