Here is another Bishop who seems to have stood up against the changes but died in 1971.  I would like to know more about Bishop Russell McVinney:

From the little research I have done he seems to have stood up for as long as he could against the Vatican II changes.

So they get all sorts of excuses for their impotency.After how many decades is silence complicity?

[Peter said above:]
In addition to the confusion about who the pope is, there is also serious confusion about what Catholics must believe. Many Catholics in our times erroneously believe that they can disagree with the pope, unless he teaches ex cathedra.

Still leaves us with impotent bishops in the Eastern Rite and a crisis that never ends.

You'll have to forgive me, but I'm not in a good space with this whole mess right now.  Supposedly we have to have bishops with ordinary jurisdiction (at least that's what is typically asserted), but none of them lift a finger to get us out of this mess. 

When all is said and done, the only bishops that are speaking up about the heresies of V2 are the Trad bishops.  I'm tired of hearing about the Eastern bishops and the excuses.  They've done squat.

Silence is a form of consent, particularly for someone in authority, such as a bishop. So Novus Ordo bishops who do not condemn Vatican 2 are thereby consenting to it. In order for any of them to not consent to Vatican 2, they would have to publicly repudiate it.

To answer Vermont's question, there were only a couple of bishops with jurisdiction who did so, and refused to consent, even by silence. Abp. Lefebvre is the most well-known example. I believe Bp. Castro Mayer did so too, though I don't know very much about him. Bp. Thuc publicly condemned Vatican 2 and denounced the false papal claimants as anti-popes.

Those are all the ones I'm aware of, and since only public rejection of Vatican 2 can overcome the public presumption that they consent to it, it stands to reason that we must necessarily know who publicly rejects Vatican 2, and since those are the only ones I'm aware of, most likely that's all there is.

There were certainly cardinals and bishops who privately did not accept Vatican 2, but since they did not publicly condemn it, by that omission they thereby publicly accepted it even if privately they didn't.

We don't need to hear them specifically talk about their thoughts on Vatican 2 to know whether they consent to it or not. The absurdity of this is made clear if you substitute a different bishop and a different council, and say the same thing. For example, to say, "I don't know what Cardinal Spellman thought about the Third Council of Constantinople because I believe he never spoke publicly on the matter, so I can't say whether he accepted it or not. For all we know he may have had reservations about it." This is absurd because every bishop is presumed to accept every council of the Church.

Archbishop Thuc was the ordinary of Hue, Viet Nam before being forced to resign when he was not allowed to return to Viet Nam after Vatican 2.  He later came to understand the Crisis.

Archbishop Thuc was the ordinary of Hue, Viet Nam before being forced to resign when he was not allowed to return to Viet Nam after Vatican 2.  He later came to understand the Crisis.

Yes, you are correct.  He was an ordinary.  And he was excommunicated.  This is what I suspect would happen to any ordinary who actually spoke out publicly against Vatican II.

So, those with ordinary jurisdiction would....lose their ordinary jurisdiction.

Bp. Thuc publicly condemned Vatican 2

Paul VI used this inability to return to force him to resign, and +Thục began his exile in Rome.
So far, I am not aware of any criticism of VII.
1 January 1976, in El Palmar de Troya, Spain, Thục ordained Clemente Domínguez y Gómez.

If anyone here can flesh out this timeline with actual quotes condemning Vatican II & when he said them, I would find it interesting.  

When did he do this?  Can you please provide quotes?

Declaration of Archbishop Ngo-Dinh-Thuc
How does the Catholic Church appear today as we look at it? In Rome, John Paul II reigns as “Pope,” surrounded by the body of Cardinals and of many bishops and prelates. Outside of Rome, the Catholic Church seems to be flourishing, along with its bishops and priests. The number of Catholics is great. Daily the Mass is celebrated in so many churches, and on Sundays the churches are full of many faithful who come to hear the Mass and receive Holy Communion.
But in the sight of God, how does today’s Church appear? Are the Masses — both the daily ones and those at which people assist on Sundays — pleasing to God? By no means, because that Mass is the same for Catholics as it is for Protestants — therefore it is displeasing to God and invalid. The only Mass that pleases God is the Mass of St. Pius V, which is offered by few priests and bishops, among whom I count myself.
Therefore, to the extent that I can, I will open seminaries for educating candidates for that priesthood which is pleasing to God.
Besides this “Mass,” which does not please God, there are many other things that God rejects: for example, changes in the ordination of priests, the consecration of bishops, and in the sacraments of Confirmation and of Extreme Unction.
Moreover, the “priests” now hold to:
1) modernism;
2) false ecuмenism
3) the adoration [or cult] of man;
4) the freedom to embrace any religion whatsoever;
5) the unwillingness to condemn heresies and to expel the heretics.
Therefore, in so far as I am a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, I judge that the Chair of the Roman Catholic Church is vacant; and it behooves me, as bishop, to do all that is needed so that the Roman Catholic Church will endure in its mission for the salvation of souls.
February 25, 1982
Munich
+Peter Martin Ngo-dinh-Thuc
Archbishop