If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the"Roman Rite Communities" like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & "Eminent Canonists and Theologians" by "Resist[ing]" him
The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity.... The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. - Pope Benedict XVI when still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
"[E]minent canonists and theologians could maintain that a pope deserves to be resisted if he is guilty of injuring either tradition or the Christian people who rely on it." - Theologian Dr. Peter Kwasniewski
“The pope has power to build up,” wrote Grosseteste, “but not to pull down. These appointments tend to destruction, not edification, being of man’s device and not according to the words of the Apostles or the will of Christ. By my very love and obedience to the Holy See I must refuse obedience in things altogether opposed to the sanctity of the Apostolic See and contrary to Catholic unity. As a son and a servant I decline to obey, and this refusal must not be taken as rebellion, for it is done in reverence to divine commands.” (This letter is quoted by Matthew Paris and in the Burton Annals. It can be read in full in the Epistles, No. 128.) - The saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste [https://www.gutenberg.org/files/64437/64437-h/64437-h.htm]
The Summorum-Pontificum.de writer Michael Charlier is predicting that "Francis Plans Bloodbath: Roman Rite Communities Will Be FORCED Into Novus Ordo" according to Gloria.tv:
Michael Charlier writes on Summorum-Pontificum.de (30 November) that
measures will be announced before the end of 2021 to force all Roman
Rite communities into the Novus Ordo.
Charlier has published accurate reports and predictions in the past...
... According to Charlier, papal delegates will be sent to these
communities. Unlike commissioners, they won't replace existing superiors
but will be their superiors. Their mandate is "to reconcile" their
communities "with the spirit of the Council".
As a first step, presiding the Eucharist will be ordered to totally replace the celebration of Mass so that these priests can subsequently be integrated into Novus Ordo pastoral work.
The public celebration of Mass, which is still permitted for the time being, will be entrusted only to Novus Ordo priests who are faithful to the failed Council. Roman Rite priests will only be allowed to celebrate Mass internally and in exceptional cases. The administration of the other sacraments will be forbidden. [https://www.gloria.tv/post/cCnpRKVZbAvb6QHZBBNYhUQu7]
Rorate Caeli presented a translation of the November 30 Charlier article from the German website Motu proprio: Summorum Pontificum that they titled Ex-Ecclesia Dei Communities Facing a Decision (source). It is summed up by the above Gloria.tv's post and concludes apparently saying resistance to this betrayal of Pope Benedict XVI's act of religious freedom for Traditionalist Catholics is "schismatic ":
[T]he unbridled and despotic character of Francis and to the lack of ideas
and arguments in post-conciliar theology and liturgy, which up to now
has been able to develop a certain persuasive power only in those places
where, under modernist and secularist influence, attempts are being
made to emancipate oneself from core elements of the traditional
teachings of the apostles.
This point of departure opens up extremely unpleasant prospects for short- and medium-term development. It is conceivable that the “papal delegates” will be able to persuade at least parts and probably also majorities of the leadership of some communities to submit to their own twisted understanding of obedience. It is hardly conceivable that all or even the great majority of their members will follow them in this regard; the communities will break up. That might well be in line with the papal strategy. The split will have an even greater effect on the communities of tradition. Ordinary people in the pews are thoroughly fed up with watching their beloved Catholic Church being transformed into a left-green Zeitgeist agency by faithless bishops in the regions and curial officials in Rome who are addicted to modernization mania. The already existing split between the secularist-universalist and the “simply Catholic” camps in the Church will deepen—and that split certainly reaches a good deal further than the adherents of the traditional liturgy. It is quite conceivable that Francis—as he let slip in a rare moment of clarity and truth—will go down in history as “the pope who divided the Church” (source).
The defenders of apostolic tradition should not make this easier for him by now positing ostentatiously schismatic acts on their part. According to Matthew (10:16), the Lord urges the disciples to be “wise as serpents, but guileless as doves.” This [twofold advice] is not easy to reconcile—but that is precisely the task. [https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/12/ex-ecclesia-dei-communities-facing.html]
The theologian Dr. Peter Kwasniewski says that Charlier said to him it will "make a smooth transition to the NO":
The author has clarified his meaning in an email to me. TC alleges all TLM-exclusive clergy to be illoyal to “THE COUNCIL”—thus conveniently equating the Council and the "spirit of the Council" as seen by Bugnini and his followers up to Archbishop Roche. On the other hand, TC also assumes that most diocesan clergy (and in Germany/central Europe this is often the case) are steeped in this spirit and therefore will "celebrate" the TLM in the "right" spirit—e.g., trying to use readings from the modern lectionary and contemporary songs, altar girls, and all the rest, in order to make a smooth transition to the NO. [https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/12/ex-ecclesia-dei-communities-facing.html]
This is not the first time that Francis has betrayed Catholics. In 2018, the Catholic Monitor wrote of the Francis betrayal of the Chinese Catholics and called on them to resist and disobeyed in good conscience as shown by the saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste in 1253:
On November 2, Vatican expert Marco Tosatti reported that Cardinal Joseph Zen said:
"[T]he 'Interim Agreement' signed last September between the Holy See and the Chinese government allow a meeting between the two Churches... It does not make sense... It is a secret agreement of which only three elements are known for the time being. Everything is controlled by Parolin [Secretary of State, ed.], The Pope does not understand anything. Parolin does not tell the whole truth to Pope Francis! Parolin knows the reality of the situation of Chinese Catholics, but does not tell the whole truth to the Pope. He has no faith!... He wants a diplomatic agreement with China." [https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&nv=1&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.marcotosatti.com/2018/11/02/zen-il-papa-crede-di-poter-unire-la-chiesa-in-cina-ma-e-ingenuo-non-avra-lultima-parola-con-i-comunisti/&xid=17259,15700019,15700122,15700124,15700149,15700186,15700191,15700201,15700214,15700230&usg=ALkJrhgVetExMjuR3v2_4HE5V5x5y6AGSQ]
Communist expert Robert Royal on EWTN's World Over has said that the Chinese government is a totalitarian regime that doesn't respect truth, religious rights and most of all human life.
It is evil and totally godless.
Human life for them is cheap. People are killed and tortured at the whim of the regime.
Do Parolin and Francis believe that the underground Chinese Catholics are worthless things that they can cause suffering for to play at the so-called game of "diplomacy"?
If the Pope is actively collaborating with Parolin, with full understanding, in the totalitarian Chinese Communist deal, then he "has no faith" as Cardinal Zen said of Parolin. Francis said of the China deal:
"I think of the resistance, the Catholics who have suffered. It's true. And they will suffer..."
"... I signed the [China deal] agreement," Pope Francis stated. "I am responsible."
(Catholic Herald, "Pope Francis takes responsibility for China Deal," September 26,2018)
The betrayal of the Chinese Church can thus be called the Francis/Parolin deal.
The Francis/Parolin deal is a abuse of papal power which can be disobeyed in good conscience as shown by the saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste.
In 1253, Bishop Grosseteste disobeyed Pope lnnocent IV who ordered that a benefice within his jurisdiction be given to the papal nephew. Benefices were a form of financial exploitation given to prelates who didn't reside in the diocese and never saw their flock so souls were lost for lack of true shepherding or pastoral care.
Grosseteste said that benefices have only one end: "the salvation of souls." Exploitative use of benefices was a abuse of papal power so he disobeyed Pope Innocent IV.
Innocent reportedly raged in anger, but his advisors told him to back down because all of Christendom knew Bishop Grosseteste was "one of the most learned men" of the age and a saintly bishop.
The Catholic Encyclopedia said of Grosseteste:
"Bishop of Lincoln and one of the most learned men of the Middle Ages... That he opposed... abuses of the papal administration is certain, but a study of his letters and writings... destroy the myth that he disputed the plena potestas of the popes."
(Catholic Encyclopedia, new advent.org, "Robert Grosseteste")
If a pope could be disobeyed by "one of the most learned men of the Middle Ages" for the lost of souls due to benefices then there is no doubt that the Francis/Parolin betrayal of the Chinese Church to the totalitarian Communist regime which will result in the loss souls must be disobeyed.
Moreover, the Arian heretics were saying the same thing about Doctor of the Church St. Athanasius when he as some historians say was excommunicated by the pope of the time. That he was in schism.
The saint was resisting the Arian heretic bishops even apparently outside the valid pope's approval.
Cardinal John Henry Newman showed that a bishop can resist popes and other bishops.
Newman said Athanasius ordained priests against the authority of the Arian heretical bishops who were validly appointed bishops under the pope of the time.
In fact, scholar Joseph Bingham on page 98 in "The Antiquities of the Christian Church" said:
"Athanasius... made no scruples to ordain... [Bishop] Euesebius of Samosata... ordained bishops also in Syria and Cilicia."
Newman in his "The Development of Christian Doctrine" denied
that Bishop Athanasius's "interference" in the dioceses of the heretical
Arian bishops was schism:
"If interference is a sin, division which is the cause of it is a greater; but where division is a duty, there can be no sin interference."
(Gutenberg.org, "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine," Sixth Edition)
Was Doctor of the Church St. Athanasius a schismatic?
Also, serious scholars are claiming Francis is a material heretic. The 19 Scholar's Open Letter say that Francis is a material heretic which also brings into play the Doctors of the Church St. Robert Bellarmine and Francis de Sales option on explicit heretical popes:
of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt
the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church
in such a situation:
"[T]he Pope... WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See."
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)
Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said "the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church."
Bishop Rene Gracida's Open Letter to the Cardinals analysing and quoting Pope John Paul II's Universi Dominici gregis questions the validity of the Francis conclave calling for an cardinal investigation into the validity of the Francis conclave. [http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html]
Finally, the theologian Dr. Kwasniewski stated "eminent canonists and theologians could maintain that a pope deserves to be resisted if he is guilty of injuring either tradition or the Christian people who rely on it":
[E]minent canonists and theologians
could maintain that a pope deserves to be resisted if he is guilty of
injuring either tradition or the Christian people who rely on it.
Cardinal Juan de Torquemada (1388–1468) states that if a pope fails to observe “the universal rite of ecclesiastical worship” and “divides himself with pertinacity from the observance of the universal church,” he is “able to fall into schism” and is neither to be obeyed nor “put up with” (non est sustinendus). The well-known commentator on St. Thomas, Cardinal Cajetan (1469–1534), counsels: “You must resist, to his face, a pope who is openly tearing the Church apart—for example, by refusing to confer ecclesiastical benefices except for money, or in exchange for services… A case of simony, even committed by a pope, must be denounced.” Cajetan is talking about simony, the buying or selling of ecclesiastical offices, which was obviously a massive problem in centuries past; but it is far from being the worst sin or the greatest problem. Objectively speaking, the imposition of harmful discipline such as the promulgation of a valid but inadequate and inauthentic liturgy, or an assault on the integrity of doctrine, is certainly worse than simony. Francisco Suárez (1548–1617) declares: “If the Pope lays down an order contrary to right customs, one does not have to obey him; if he tries to do something manifestly opposed to justice and to the common good, it would be licit to resist him; if he attacks by force, he could be repelled by force, with the moderation characteristic of a good defense.” Suárez moreover claims that the pope could be schismatic “if he wanted to overturn all the ecclesiastical ceremonies resting on apostolic tradition.” (Note he says “resting on,” apostolica traditione firmatas: he’s talking about the whole structure that has been raised upon apostolic origins. That would mean something like the 1570 Missale Romanum.) The Dominican Sylvester Prierias (1456–1523), a leading figure in the initial response to Martin Luther, explains that if the pope is destroying the Church by evil actions,
he would certainly sin; he should neither be permitted to act in such fashion, nor should he be obeyed in what was evil; but he should be resisted with a courteous reprehension.… He does not have the power to destroy; therefore, if there is evidence that he is doing it, it is licit to resist him. The result of all this is that if the Pope destroys the Church by his orders and acts, he can be resisted and the execution of his mandate prevented. The right of open resistance to prelates’ abuse of authority stems also from natural law.
As it is lawful to resist the pope, if he assaulted a man’s person, so it is lawful to resist him, if he assaulted souls, or troubled the state, and much more if he strove to destroy the Church. It is lawful, I say, to resist him, by not doing what he commands, and hindering the execution of his will; still, it is not lawful to judge or punish or even depose him, because he is nothing other than a superior.
After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity.... The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition.