CathInfo.com

So which part of Lumen Gentium must we believe?  The orthodox part?  Or the part which is anti-orthodox?  Or maybe both?  
.
Nevermind that Vatican officials have said that LG (and all of V2) is not doctrinal. They also said it can be questioned.  They also said that it must be interpreted accordingly to Tradition.  Ergo, that out-of-context paragraph you quoted does not mean what you think it means.

But there is no command, not even one command binding us to sin.

I don't understand what you're getting at.  RARELY has the Church ever explicitly tagged a command as "binding under pain of sin".  It's generally assumed that anything commanded by the Church is binding under pain of sin, and then moral theologians later debate the degree of sin involved with breaking any one of these commands.

If my father said to me when I was younger, "hey, son, take out the trash" and I refused, I would commit a sin, even if he did not explicitly add, "I command you under pain of sin to take out the trash."  Did he have to get that explicit?

Several popes have said that Catholics must accept and give internal assent to the teachings of Vatican II.  In fact, it's this COMMAND that they have been giving to the SSPX explicitly as a condition for regularization.  So I cannot possibly fathom how you have concluded that the Vatican has not made these things binding under pain of sin.  Otherwise, they'd just say, "SSPX, you reject Vatican II?  No biggie.  It's completely optional anyway.  So, let's talk logistics about how to get you set up."  If +Fellay had been told that he did not have to accept Vatican II in order to return, he would have been officially back 15 years ago.  In fact, that has always been THE sticking point in the talks, whether the SSPX accepts Vatican II.  So I don't know what you are smoking to conclude that the Vatican does not consider the teachings of V2 to be binding.

I don't understand what you're getting at.  RARELY has the Church ever explicitly tagged a command as "binding under pain of sin".  It's generally assumed that anything commanded by the Church is binding under pain of sin, and then moral theologians later debate the degree of sin involved with breaking any one of these commands.

I said "binding us to sin", not "binding under pain of mortal sin". If the pope were to command our adherence to LG or any of the heresies in the V2 teachings / docuмents, that would be his attempt at binding us to sin because he would be commanding us to go contrary to the faith, to displease God, which is sin. He would be commanding us to sin.

Several popes have said that Catholics must accept and give internal assent to the teachings of Vatican II.  In fact, it's this COMMAND that they have been giving to the SSPX explicitly as a condition for regularization.  So I cannot possibly fathom how you have concluded that the Vatican has not made these things binding under pain of sin.  Otherwise, they'd just say, "SSPX, you reject Vatican II?  No biggie.  It's completely optional anyway.  So, let's talk logistics about how to get you set up."  If +Fellay had been told that he did not have to accept Vatican II in order to return, he would have been officially back 15 years ago.  In fact, that has always been THE sticking point in the talks, whether the SSPX accepts Vatican II.  So I don't know what you are smoking to conclude that the Vatican does not consider the teachings of V2 to be binding.

Of course we owe our religious assent to papal teachings, but not when doing so would be sinful - which losing the faith is a mortal sin - which is what happens to all who accept those teachings, because they are teachings contrary to the faith.

You're stumbling block is that you cannot believe your eyes when you see that the pope, of all people, has in fact and in union with all the bishops, promulgated docuмents and teachings that are contrary to the faith, perhaps worse yet, you seem to ignore the fact that all those who accept them, do so of their own free will in spite of them being contrary to the faith and not at the command of the pope. They use the pope as their alibi - as if that's going to get them out of it.

BTW, I gave up smoking a long time ago, but for those who do, it's better they smoke in this world than in the next.