I've rejected that position and have coined it "Cekadism".  In fact, he goes further and holds that anything that has the virtually universal consent of theologians is de fide.  It's a ridiculous exaggeration of infallibility.

But, see my previous post, indefectibility is really the crux of the issue.  I've long argued that SVs and R&R are quibbling about the wrong thing, the precise limits of infallibility in the strict sense.  That's to mistake the trees for the forest.

We're not talking about an isolated erroneous proposition here or there, in an allocution, or some obiter dictum in an Encyclical.  They have introduced a new theological system and have been promoting it for 60 years.  They have introduced new worship, new Canon Law, new canonizations.  In short, they have introduced a brand new religion.  This crosses beyond the line of quibbling about the precise limits of infallibility.  We're talking about what would be tantamount to a defection of the Church if these men were legitimate popes acting freely to impose these things.

Let's say the New Mass never happened, and all we were dealing with is the docuмent on Religious Liberty.  There would be no Traditional movement.  We'd just respectfully disagree with the hierarchy regarding Religious Liberty ... within the structures of the official Church.

Even then the council's fathers would have most solemnly and most formally declared that they're manifest heretics.

You obviously can't speak for anyone but yourself.

Except that the council's teaching on religious liberty comes right from Bellamine, Suarez and Pope Leo XIII.  The council is referring to the relation between individual citizens and the coercive power of the state qua state; and per the teaching of Leo XIII, the state, qua state, cannot regulate matters pertaining to worship or the salvation of souls, unless it is acting as an agent of the Church's coercive power.

The consequence is that, although no one has the right to false worship, the state qua state lacks the authority to regulate and suppress it  If you reject this, you are rejecting the traditional teaching of Pope Leo XIII.  This is another perfect example of a true teaching of Vatican II that only has the appearance of being false.  

God may not permit a council to teach heresy, even when it is not defining a dogma, but He will permit the Council to teach something that is true, without explaining why it is true.

The consequence is that, although no one has the right to false worship, the state qua state lacks the authority to regulate and suppress it  If you reject this, you are rejecting the traditional teaching of Pope Leo XIII.  This is another perfect example of a true teaching of Vatican II that only has the appearance of being false. 

No, this is false and absurd. Heresy has historically not only been a religious crime, it has been a civil crime too in Catholic countries, as it should be.

Your previous post was an extreme exaggeration and over simplification.  Over the past year I have personally become convinced that a key aspect of the plan of those who infiltrated the Church was to introduce misleading ambiguities - statements that are, per se, true, but seem to be false - in order to cause an overreaction that would lead Catholics to conclude that the Church had defected.  Exactly what you have done.

I don't have time to go into it now, but thus far, every apparent error or heresy of Vatican II that I have carefully looked into is, believe it or not, a true statement.  At most it is ambiguous, but usually the proposition is true and denying it is an error.  But the way these are phased gives it the appearance of error, or else little known distinctions are not explained that would clarify why the statement is true.  And in many cases Rome could have very easily clarified these points, but they didn't.   And it isn't just Vatican II. After the Council we had similar true but apparently false teachings.  If you read them superficially, they can convey to the intellect an error; but if you read them carefully, what they actually say and not what they don't say, the proposition is false.

A priest friend mentioned one problematic statement to me a few days ago, and it is a perfect example of this.  In De Verbum, we are told that the truths in Scripture that are put there "for the sake of our salvation" are inerrant.  This teaching immediately cause people to conclude that historical and scientific truths in Scripture are not inerrant; but that's not what Dei Verbum says. All it says is what is contained in scripture for the sake of our salvation is inerrant.  That is a true statement, as evidenced by the fact that the contrary is false.  The contrary would be: "what is contained in scripture for the sake of our salvation is not inerrant."  

Dei Verbum never denies that inerrancy also extends to scientific and historical truths, it simply affirms that it extends to truths that pertain to salvation.  Yet this true statement of Dei Verbum has been condemned as an error by many, and it has caused others to conclude that historical and scientific truths in Scripture could contain error.

This is one example, but there are MANY more.   Again, I am now persuaded that these statements were intentionally inserted into the Council to cause an overreaction that eventually led Catholics to conclude that the Church had defected.  And similar tactics were used in the liturgy and other areas.  The devil is much more clever than we realize.

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).