CathInfo.com

I'm not talking about legal loopholes.  I'm talking about reiterating the legal reasons why Traditionalism exists (and is allowed to exist).  It goes hand in hand with doctrine.

In other words, if the sspx were to declare that they are legally following Quo Primum, that necessarily connects with the liturgy, which then connects with the problems of the new liturgy, new doctrine, etc.  You can't talk about legalities, without FIRST talking about the break with doctrine.  In other words, V2/new mass are heretical, therefore catholics are allowed to do a, b, and c based on quo primum, canon law, etc.

  Isn't there a sort of 'disclaimer' attached somewhere in the Vatican II docs, that says: " Nothing in this Council is infallible?  It was only a Pastoral Council... I find this:

https://wherepeteris.com/pope-st-paul-vi-on-the-binding-nature-of-vatican-ii-teaching/#_ftn4

"...In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statement of dogmas that would be endowed with the note of infallibility,..."

Cf. Notificationes: AAS 57 (1965), 72–75; TPS X, 400–402—Ed. [Editor’s note: This is a reference to the “Declaration of the Doctrinal Commission.” Drafted on March 6, 1964, it was officially attached by the Council Fathers as the Appendix to Lumen Gentium (The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church) on November 16, 1964. –—ML]
________________

https://newhamburg.sspx.ca/en/what-position-sspx-vatican-ii-50167
This is a very good article. Summary of the major errors of Vat. II. 5 min read. 

Excerpt:
"...Since the Second Vatican Council had no intention to bind Catholics on questions of faith and morals, it was not protected from error by the Holy Spirit, as past dogmatic councils have been. This has created the need for faithful Catholics to refuse and oppose its innovations. Since truth leads souls towards God while error leads away from Him, the priests of the SSX  [SSPX Td.] seek to uphold the authentic teaching of the Church and pray for the day when that authentic Church hierarchy..."

  Isn't there a sort of 'disclaimer' attached somewhere in the Vatican II docs, that says: " Nothing in this Council is infallible?  It was only a Pastoral Council... I find this:

https://wherepeteris.com/pope-st-paul-vi-on-the-binding-nature-of-vatican-ii-teaching/#_ftn4

"...In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statement of dogmas that would be endowed with the note of infallibility,..."

Cf. Notificationes: AAS 57 (1965), 72–75; TPS X, 400–402—Ed. [Editor’s note: This is a reference to the “Declaration of the Doctrinal Commission.” Drafted on March 6, 1964, it was officially attached by the Council Fathers as the Appendix to Lumen Gentium (The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church) on November 16, 1964. –—ML]
________________

https://newhamburg.sspx.ca/en/what-position-sspx-vatican-ii-50167
This is a very good article. Summary of the major errors of Vat. II. 5 min read.

Excerpt:
"...Since the Second Vatican Council had no intention to bind Catholics on questions of faith and morals, it was not protected from error by the Holy Spirit, as past dogmatic councils have been. This has created the need for faithful Catholics to refuse and oppose its innovations. Since truth leads souls towards God while error leads away from Him, the priests of the SSX  [SSPX Td.] seek to uphold the authentic teaching of the Church and pray for the day when that authentic Church hierarchy..."

Right.  Nothing that I'm proposing is new info.  But we do have a new generation of adult catholics (millennials and gen z) who are now grappling with the same issues that Trads faced in the 70s/80s.  This is the time where the new-sspx can "re-educate" the faithful on why Traditionalism exists (i.e. because new-rome is still heretical).  It's a great opportunity for the new-sspx to remind everyone of the basics. 

But I don't see that happening.  As +Stobnicki pointed out, the new-sspx has shifted the goalposts (once again) that these consecrations are NOT for the "survival of Tradition" (because the new-sspx implicitly accepts that "Tradition" exists in the conciliar church through the indult TLM), but it's only for the "survival of the fraternity".

This change of perspective is both hypocritical and supremely selfish.  It's hypocritical because the new-sspx has for DECADES had the mantra of "we're negotiating with new-rome because the Church needs catholics to fight for Her "on the inside"."  I've heard dozens and dozens of sspx catholics say this.  They were told (indoctrinated) with this slogan from the leadership.

It's supremely selfish because the new-sspx is now only concerned with it's own society, and not the salvation of souls in all of Tradition.  So I guess their view is now -- outside of the sspx there is no Tradition?  It seems that way.  

The only way this change of perspective makes sense, is due to the sspx's leadership wanting a deal with new-rome.  You minimize Tradition, you minimize the conversion of new-rome heretics and you elevate the idea that "the society" (as a human organization) is what is important.  This is cult thinking 101.  The laity are treated (and educated) like mindless robots; and so are the priests.  A shame.

I'm not sure how much longer God will let this go on.  Either the sspx changes course soon (dramatically) or they will succuмb to new-rome's advances and become indult.  The lukewarmness is astounding.