CathInfo.com

Most  novus ordo clergy and laity consider the SSPX heretics.  They are even claiming that Archbishop Lefebvre was a  Sedevacantist.  And yet they continue to follow the false occult of Vatican II.  To them it is major sin that Archbishop was in disobedience to the Pope and yet they remain silent when Pope John Paul II did nothing to the pervert priests who broke their vows/promises of chastity and poverty.  Many don’t have a problem with the Amazon synod.

Rome has been in a state of apostasy by breaking the first Commandment.  They became schismatics when they created Vatican II the counter church with the help of liberal Protestants and Rabbis.  

The hippy baby boomers will defend and make up excuses for Vatican II.  There are feminist young women attending Latin Masses praying for the day of female priestesses .  Many young trad are leading double life because of tv, music and lack of discipline from parents.  Many young grads go to college and are secretly embracing sodomy and promiscuity. 
There are many clergy praying for marriage of priests so they can marry their boyfriends.  Many have already raped and molested children and seminarians while stealing from parishes.  

These people are preaching a different gospel by actions and words.  

Holy scripture warns us against wolves in sheep clothing.  

Stubborn made the ridiculous argument that the Conciliar Popes haven't commanded us to do anything.

You haven't been around long enough to know some of his strange perspectives.  Stubborn believes that unless the Pope says, "I command you to do [such-and-such] under the pain of sin," then there's no command.

He also asserts that the Magisterium is absolutely infallible ... but says that Vatican II is not part of the Magisterium.

Stubborn made the ridiculous argument that the Conciliar Popes haven't commanded us to do anything.

I mean that's clearly ridiculous.  They've certainly given us commands that we can't obey.  They've also given us commands that some of us, at least, can obey in good conscience, while others perhaps can't.

Whether we're obliged to obey their *lawful* commands is gonna be a difference between R + R and Sede.

And I'm not convinced of the Sede view of the papacy itself, really that's my biggest issue with it.  I'm highly skeptical of ultramontanism.  While they were incorrect, I guess I'm not convinced the Conciliarists were *all* wrong (I agree with them being wrong where dogma condemns them.)  And I think from a realist standpoint its a bit silly to be all like "we have to obey the Pope no matter what.  Wait, we can't?  I guess he's not a true pope then."

But Stubborn did actually make this claim, and it doesn't make any sense.

I asked, exactly what command? As I said, to date, no one, inculding you, has mentioned exactly what it is that he is supposed to have bound us to.