No? Being a traditionalist kind of implies that you don't accept Vatican II

But the liberals don't accept Vatican II either. As someone put it, Traditionalists accept 80 percent of Vatican II but reject 20 percent. The liberals accept the 20 percent the traditionalists accept but reject the 80 percent. The nice sounding parts that fooled the conservatives into thinking Vatican II was ok.

Are you trying to say that trads admit that a portion of Vatican II is orthodox? Then, yes, that is true. But, the portion that is heterodox, and heretical, poisons the entire "council" and therefore trads do not accept the "council."

Oh, the old "conservative" canard, the groaner, "I accept Vatican II. As it was written. HAH! Not altar girls, and all the other abuses!"

It's literally "the reform of the reform".

No, I'm not CONSERVATIVE, I'm TRADITIONAL. Big difference.

Traditional Catholics say VATICAN II MUST BE DESTROYED -- it must be thrown complete and entire, into the dustbin of history. Condemn and nullify the ENTIRE council. That is the only option. Nothing of value would be lost, either.

Vatican II is not 95% good. It is 0% good. A full glass of lemonade with a teaspoon of arsenic is not 95% good -- it's GOOD FOR NOTHING but to be thrown out. Same with Vatican II. That part of the Crisis is really not that complicated. How we get there, how we rectify the Church, THAT is the mysterious part.

The Holy Ghost wasn't invoked or invited to participate in Vatican II. Other "spirits", part of the 33%*, were almost certainly there...



* Tradition says that 1/3 of the angels followed Lucifer in his rêbêllïon against God.

Devil's Advocating, how do you explain this line in Vatican II?

//Each and all these items which are set forth in this dogmatic Constitution have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God.
//

My argument has always been that Paul VI explicitly refused to invoke infallibility, and this does seem to fall short of the metric for an ex cathedra statement, I think.

All that is saying is the Constitution was approved by the Council Fathers and is being promulgated.  Infallibility applies to individual propositions contained within a docuмent, not to a docuмent as such, and everything contained within it.  No propositions in that Constitution (Lumen Gentium) were definitively and therefore infallibly proposed.