Submission to the Roman Pontiff is necessary to be a Catholic
The SSPX/ Resistance cannot hold the Ecclesiology that the Church has always taught because of the specific mixture of the (“traditional”) Catholicism with the belief that the modernist/heretic/apostate is a true pope.”What the Church has always taught” would mean that one is under “full and supreme power of jurisdiction” of the man who is the Roman Pontiff. “Remember also that the government and administration of the whole Church rests with the Roman Pontiff to whom (…) the full power of nourishing, ruling and governing the universal Church was given by Christ the Lord.” (Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos)
Vatican I teaches:”Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both Episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff, in communion and in profession of the same faith, the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.” (On the Power and Character of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff)
If the Novus Ordo, with its pope-head, is the Catholic Church, how can we teach against this institution, administer sacraments against the jurisdiction, which is given to us by God? One would be doing so against God – or else the N.O. institution is not from God. Would it be possible that God has several ways, both equally His own, equally pleasing for Him? Besides, does the Church not have experience in dealing with heretics? Wasn’t it always, in the case of anathemas, repeated that “since the Lord declares that the person is judged already, and the Apostle cursed even the angels if they instruct in anything different from what we have preached (…). The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy.” (Second Council of Constantinople, 553 AD)
“There is not authority greater than that of the Apostolic See”, said Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum. Some say that the legitimate authority of the Church has not taken a definitive decision on the matter of a heretical pope…! Do you mean that “pope” Francis, whom the SSPX, Resistance and Novus Ordo recognise as the Apostolic See, and whom in this case they should recognise as the greatest authority, is not the “legitimate authority”? Does that mean that the legitimacy of the conclave (he would be an antipope then) or the legitimacy of his heresies “belonging” (as the head of the institution belongs to it) to the Church? Would they say that the Church has an illegitimate pope? How do they know he is illegitimate? They recognise the authority and they are not happy with it, so while recognising they are also waiting for a better/true?/legitimate authority, and are fully and consequently recognising the present authority…?
The more one thinks about it, the madder it seems…
The Church has always taught the necessity of recognising the Pope’s infallible authority in matters of faith, discipline and morals: