Person A would reject religious liberty, while Person B would jump through theological hoops to make it sound more like religious tolerance.

Is that the only difference or an example of one of the differences?

However, when the idea that a person who rejects Christ can be simultaneously in a state of grace is advanced, we end up with both parties advancing religious liberty. Unfortunately.

Yes, religious liberty derives from this new subjective Pelagian soteriology as well.

How?

If my I am saved due to good will and sincerity, then my sincere adherence to false doctrine can also be salvific.  But I have a right to work towards the salvation of my soul.  So I have a right to adhere to my false doctrines, since it's by way of sincere adherence to them that I am saved.

Well, it's all intertwined with the thorny question of when heresy has been sufficiently discerned.

Also, look at Scenario 5.  Obviously if someone says a materially heretical thing, he doesn't instantly get deposed.  It could have been a mere stumble over the words.  Take it another step.  The words were deliberate, but JP2 in his confusion had an incorrect understanding of the terms involved and didn't intend heresy.  Take it to the next step.  JP2 understood the terms involved but really thought that his proposition was orthodox.  Then someone [the Church] needs to call him on it.  If he retracts immediately, then it's obvious that there was never any pertinacity there.  So at what point, when someone insists that his propositions are orthodox, does the actual HERESY become "manifest"?  I submit that it's only when the Church calls him on it and he refuses to recant ANYWAY that the pertinacity of his belief becomes manifest.  It's not merely when the objectively heretical proposition was uttered.  And this manifestation doesn't happen without the Church's DISCERNMENT.

So this question is FAR from as simple as most sedevacantists make it out to be, according to the old oversimplified syllogism:

MAJOR 1:  Heretics are not members of the Church.
MAJOR 2:  Non-Members of the Church cannot be Popes.
MINOR:  JP2 uttered a heresy.
CONCLUSION:  JP2 is not pope.

Can we agree that after 59+ years of modernist insanity swamping the Church that we are not talking about Scenario 5?  Is there anyone that actually believes that this mess was caused by a mere stumbling over words?  Why does this forum exist if it was just a misquote or a inadvertent slip of the tongue?  We can also agree that Scenario 1 never happened.  Very few people believe that Scenario 4 is valid so we can ignore that as insignificant.  So we are talking about Scenario 2 and 3.  Can we prove that happened.  Yes, we can and many have.  These modernists have made known that they know what the Church teaches but they believe they have the power and authority to change that teaching.  So the question is, do they?  Is the modernist Conciliar hierarchy the hierarchy of the Catholic Church?  Every R&R, SV, SP, and home-alone Catholic would answer, no!  The R&R says we recognize but we resist.  That means that in practice they reject the notion that the Conciliar hierarchy is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.  And the rest of the traditionalists are self-explanatory.  So who/where is the hierarchy of the Church?  It is the Catholic clergy who refuse to attach themselves to the Conciliar sect.  And while they have not formally/authoritatively declared anyone to be a heretic, they have nevertheless separated from the heretics.  So informally the Church has spoken.  The Conciliarists are heretics.  The only thing to do now is to declare it formally.  We are still waiting for that formal declaration but meanwhile we don't have anything to do with the heretics.

So the teaching that came first must be infallible, while a later teaching which contradicts it is not.  That's a very novel Stubbornian theology.  So when the first teaching came out it was infallible, but the subsequent teaching wasn't necessarily infallible.  Got it.  Actually, what this really reduces to is that Stubborn's intellect is infallible.  If Stubborn decides that Vatican II teaching is incompatible with previous teaching, then Stubborn must be correct.  You see, it's Stubborn who ultimately decides what's in the Magisterium and what isn't.

You did not read what I wrote. Typical.

I hope you can expand on this some time when it is convenient.  I am trying to understand the implications of the distinction you made so more examples would be helpful.  

A reminder about my question:

.
Another example that comes to mind is from Lumen gentium 8, where it says the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.
.
They could have avoided all the confusion by using "is" instead of "subsists in". But never mnd the confusion, they say, this is not confusion, it's makig the text "clearer." So you see, for Modernists, when they muddy the waters they are clearing them up.
.
If you listen to its defenders, they claim that Vat.II didn't change Church teaching with this. They have lots of explanations for why this is the case. Lumen gentium ("LG") was written in 1964, and here in 2007 (43 years later) Zenit has an article that makes it "news" to explain what had happened 43 years prior (these controversies just don't go away):
.
.
.
VATICAN CITY, JULY 10, 2007 (Zenit.org).- The Second Vatican Council didn’t change Catholic doctrine on the Church, but rather deepened and developed it, says the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
.
In a docuмent released today the congregation clarifies, in the form of five questions and answers, the understanding of what Vatican II meant by the term “subsists in” with regard to the nature of the Catholic Church.
.
Cardinal William Joseph Levada and Archbishop Angelo Amato, prefect and secretary of the congregation, respectively, signed the brief text June 29, the Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul.
.
It is titled “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church,” and was approved by Benedict XVI.
.
The responses affirm that the “Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change” Catholic doctrine on the Church, but rather “it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.”
.
Quoting Pope Paul VI, the docuмent explains that “what Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach.”
.
It continues: “‘In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation.'”
.
Word choice
.
The text explains the meaning of the term “subsists in,” which is used to describe the nature of the Catholic Church in “Lumen Gentium,” a docuмent of Vatican II. The docuмent states: “The Church of Christ … subsists in the Catholic Church.”
.
The doctrinal congregation explains in the clarification: “Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one Church and instituted it as a ‘visible and spiritual community,’ that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.
.
“This Church, constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him.”
.
The responses say that “it is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.”
.
The docuмent further explains why the expression “subsists in” was adopted, instead of simply the word “is.”
.
“The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church,” the docuмent affirmed.
.
It continues: “Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are ‘numerous elements of sanctification and of truth’ which are found outside her structure, but which ‘as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel toward Catholic unity.'”
.
.
.
There is another thread here on CI where I read recently that this "elements of sanctification and truth" refer to vestiges of the True Faith, but they choose "elements" instead of "vestiges" because the more accurate term (vestiges) correctly identifies them as dead and therefore lifeless organs that have been stolen from the body of the Church, and once separated they have no life on their own. In order to avoid that clear image, Newchurch deceptively replaces it with "elements," saying they compel toward Catholic unity, when they actually do nothing of the sort, since dead organs do not function.
.

.
Another example that comes to mind is from Lumen gentium 8, where it says the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.
.
They could have avoided all the confusion by using "is" instead of "subsists in". But never mnd the confusion, they say, this is not confusion, it's makig the text "clearer." So you see, for Modernists, when they muddy the waters they are clearing them up.

[...]
There is another thread here on CI where I read recently that this "elements of sanctification and truth" refer to vestiges of the True Faith, but they choose "elements" instead of "vestiges" because the more accurate term (vestiges) correctly identifies them as dead and therefore lifeless organs that have been stolen from the body of the Church, and once separated they have no life on their own. In order to avoid that clear image, Newchurch deceptively replaces it with "elements," saying they compel toward Catholic unity, when they actually do nothing of the sort, since dead organs do not function.
.

Thank you.  Don't both ways of understanding "interpret in light of tradition" get the same result?  One takes "subsists in" as if it meant "is" and one takes "elements" as if it meant "vestiges".

If you believe the modernists that they did not intend change Catholic doctrine, you have missed the the last boat off of the island.

They did not intend to follow canonical procedure to change it, they simply stopped teaching the old and started to teach the new.  And prior teaching was now subject to the new "deeper" understanding. (heretical).

The council cannot be "read in the light of Tradition", because is was not written to conform but to overturn Traditional doctrine, and it is a false proposition to say that it can.  Its authors and the concilar popes have admitted to this.
You do not make a docuмent Traditional by reading into it what you want it to say when it was intended to say another thing.To think that you can and make everything alright is an error.

The conciliar church is a heresy because it is built upon ecuмenism which is a grave heresy, in that it denies that the Church of God is present in the world. It instead proposes that the Church broken and in pieces and will only be whole and present when thew parts of the Truth which are contained in the various Christian sect and the other religions unite to bring it together.

Lumen Gentium is not ambiguous it is heretical on its face, and in its words and intent.

Can we agree that after 59+ years of modernist insanity swamping the Church that we are not talking about Scenario 5?  Is there anyone that actually believes that this mess was caused by a mere stumbling over words?

Of course.    

I only threw that out there as an illustration in principle of the complexity of this issue ... the need to understand when HERESY becomes MANIFEST.  I say something heretical in public ... is that MANIFEST HERESY of the kind that would cause deposition?

In any case, I see us as having been in the midst of Scenario 1 fwith JP2 and B16.  With Francis Bergoglio, however, I could see someone making a case for #2.