So, it's quite perplexing that almost no Trads actually understand the root cause fundamental error behind all of Vatican II.  That's because they're so busy hating on Father Feeney to notice the obvious.  Karl Rahner actually pointed it out, and he would know, since he was one of the agitators behind it.

For hundreds of years they had been eroding EENS dogma to set this entire thing up.  Rahner says he was surprised that the conservative Fathers made not a single peep about what he rightly identified as THE single most revolutionary aspect of Vatican II, what he euphemistically referred to as the "increasing hope of salvation for those outside the Church".

Lots of Trads, SVs especially ... when asked about the heresies in Vatican II ... invariably respond first with "the heretical ecclesiology", where there's a Church of Christ that includes non-Catholics, etc.

Indeed ... they're quite right.

Problem is that 99% of them hold the exact same ecclesiology themselves.  I got banned on X by "Novus Ordo Watch" (too busy docuмenting each clown Mass that happens) merely for pointing this out.  Never a refutation.  Not once.  Only one individual has even attempted one, and it failed (by his own admission).

MAJOR:  There's no salvation outside the Church.  DOGMA
MINOR:  Heretics, schismatics, infidels (Hindus in Tibet and the like, Muslims, Jews) ... they can all be saved in some mysterious invincible ignorancy way.
CONCLUSION:  Heretics, schismatics, infidels ... they can all be IN the Church, somehow.

That's as plain as the nose on your face.  Since you can't be saved if you're not in the Church, then if you can be saved, you must be in the Church.  Logic 101.  There's no refutation for this.

So, then, what does that do to "the Church"?  Well, the Church then includes no only Catholics, but can include all these others types these Trad thought leaders claim can be saved (and if you don't agree they'll refuse the Sacraments to you).

Now you have a "Church" that includes Catholics and all kinds of other people invisibly glommed onto it and in it somehow.  Hmmm.  Sounds just like a Church that has its subsistent core in the visible Catholic Church but can (somehow, invisibly) include others.

Vatican II ecclesiology in a nutshell, and yet 99% of Trads hold the same ecclesiology.

Vatican II ecclesiology in a nutshell, and yet 99% of Trads hold the same ecclesiology.

There is no equivalent between the non-heretical claimants to he papacy during the Western Schism and the heretic "popes" now. The principles of Catholic teaching are outlined above, you need to show/demonstrate why those principles do not apply now, but then explain why they were true then (even without a council's definition or a public declaration of heresy). But following these teachings will not make your transition in Knoxville easier, contrarily it would make your sacrifices even more difficult because it is not as easy to find Masses that are said NOT in communion with Prevost, therefore bias favoring one's own position is a likely factor in anyone's mind who has "something to lose". It would not be a love the truth that motivates the search, but rather the need to be justified in one's current position and actions.

Orthodoxy is damnable heresy and schism. Keep praying and "flee to the mountains" (the Scriptures).

You may be baptized if they didn't botch the new rite.

You are most likely not confirmed, if the new rite of consecration for bishops is invalid.

Neither you nor I should expect that it was owed to us to be raised good Catholics, just because we exist.

It is all a free gift from God and you are still ALIVE!

Repent, believe, and obey God to the end of your life - learning to know, love, and serve Him better everyday.

Fight on and you can still have the same good hope of your salvation that any of us has
(though I believe one can receive more hope from God continually if He should so desire to grant it).