CathInfo.com

Please exposit one identifiable and evident heresy, strictly so-called, that can be found within the texts of Vatican II.  Please refer to dogmatic theology with regard to the strict definition of heresy.  

I don't think there's any point in discussing these issues with Caminus, since past experience indicates there's no point in attempting to have a good faith discussion with him.

Let's consider the following from an SSPX publication:

The Decree on Ecuмenism of the Second Vatican Council gives us a very different understanding of the Church, of her divine mission and of her relations with the other religions. First of all it speaks of different Churches. My dear friends, that is already an expression which is very close to heresy.

It is clear that already before the Council, the idea of different churches existed. But what was meant by this expression? It meant the different local churches around the bishop and his clergy: viz. the church of Paris, or the church of Dublin, or the church of Westminster, or the church of Cologne, or the church of Rome: the bishop with his clergy, surrounded by his flock. But this notion ‘Churches’ in the plural, was never used and applied to other denominations.

The Second Vatican Council endorses the new meaning of this expression saying:

"It follows that these separated Churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects already mentioned, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as a means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church." (No. 3)

No salvation outside the Church

Ladies and Gentleman, it is clear that followers of other religions can be saved under certain conditions. That is to say, if they are in invincible error. If they are trying to the best of their abilities, God will give them actual graces and if they are faithful to these graces and work with these graces, God will finally give them sanctifying grace and so, they might be saved. But they are always saved as individuals. Although they are saved in the other religions, they are never saved by the other religions.

It is not possible that errors should lead to the kingdom of truth. It is not possible that God, having descended to this earth, having become incarnate and having appeared among us, having founded one Church which continues Himself, which represents Himself, which is His Church, His spouse, that anybody can be saved by false religions not founded by Him. Because He says about Himself: "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. Nobody comes to the Father but by Me." This applies also to His Church.

These false religions were not founded by Him but rather by men and very often have been inspired by the devil. So, if one can be saved eventually as a member of another religion, or in another religion he will always be saved by the Catholic Church, by the Cross of Our Lord, by His sacrifice and by His prayers. So, he is not saved by other religion but in spite of the other religion.

So, this statement that the Holy Ghost has used these other religions and denominations as a ‘means of salvation’ is almost heretical and I think it is one of the worst statements from the Council, absolutely contrary to the teaching of the Church to the present day. It is absolutely contrary to what was previously taught, to what the Holy Scripture says, to what the Fathers of the Church, the theologians, the Councils and the Popes have always said. Absolutely contrary.

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/Society_of_Saint_Pius_X/Catholic-Church-and-Second-Vatican-Council.htm

Why is it called "close to heresy" and not heresy?

Of course we could multiply the statements in Vatican II that can be criticized in this way and can no doubt cite authorities within the SSPX to this effect.

The SSPX apologists set things up so that they can fall back on the claim that no one can be called a heretic without a formal judgment or canonical trial.  They'll never admit something is really heresy so there's no point in trying to debate it with them.

So much then, for the ipso facto deposition of manifest heretics that we know theologians say occurs.

Lol, I remember him pulling this exact stunt before.  Caminus, your type of SSPX sophistic attack dog is well-known in France.  I wonder what kind of organization breeds such people?  Something tells me if you had the truth you wouldn't have to resort to such evasiveness.

Even if there were no heresies, a true Catholic Council can't even have error.  It's true there aren't many heresies in VII; but one at least exists.  It has been spoken of on this site many times.  Dignitatis Humanae, maybe it escaped your attention after having had dozens of pages of ink spilled on it?  

Then there is the sacrilegious and doubtful New Mass -- the true Church could not have promoted that; the Mass accepted by JPII that has no consecration of the Eucharist at all; the invalid New Rite of Consecration; heresies GALORE in the encylicals of the non-Popes of VII; the outrageously heretical Joint Doctrine on Justification, which alone proves this is not the true Church, it is a veritable anti-Trent; an act of open apostasy from Ratzinger at the Blue Mosque; heresy from JPII and Ratzinger; etc. etc.