They command us to accept Vatican II, and the Novus Ordo as licit.  Francis commands us not to proselytize.

Just a few examples.

Please post these, per above, they are only a few, shouldn't take you much time.

I’m not going to rehash an old debate but I will say, Ladislaus, that I disagree with your magisterium understanding.  You correctly allow multiple distinctions for the complexities of sedeprivationism.  Yet your view of the magisterium is overly general and too broad.  I think that the magisterium is equally complex.  Thus, it is incorrect to say that V2 is part of the magisterium.  It isn’t but it also is. There are different levels of magisterial authority, just as some things are doctrinal and some things are only “theologically certain”.

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.

V2 is a legally binding council, but it is not morally binding.  It is legally binding in that we must give “religious assent” to its “pastoral initiatives”.  It is not morally binding because 1) it doesn’t teach with certainty of faith, 2) “religious assent” allows for critique, and something which can be questioned is not binding, 3) V2 is supposed to be “interpreted in the light of Tradition”.  Something which requires interpretation is not a command, nor binding.  
.
All previous ecuмenical councils were both legally and morally binding because 1) they were taught with “certainty of faith”, 2) they required 100% submission of mind/will, under penalty of anathema (ie grave sin), 3) the teachings were clear and concise.  
.
V2 was ecuмenical in the sense that all bishops/cardinals took part in it.  However it cannot be compared to previous ecuмenical councils in form, purpose or conclusion.  V2 is a historical anomaly; it was only ecuмenical in appearance; it was a non-doctrinal conciliar novelty.
.
Modernists love to take a pre-existing idea or organization and “subvert expectations” by changing the rules, altering legal fineprint, and inventing new terms to explain all the changes.  Just like the devil uses magic to make a trick appear real, so the Modernists used legal trickery to make V2, a conciliar novelty, appear the same as all previous councils.  But it is not so.  And they’ve admitted it.  

I'm not disagreeing with this.  But that's different than what Stubborn said.

I'm not Stubborn.

If I recall correctly the way the sequence of discussion went, stubborn made the absurd claim that the conciliar popes haven’t commanded us to accept any of the new errors.  When I said that was ridiculous and was asked for proof, I presented lumen gentium as proof that most certainly the conciliar hierarchy does command us to accept VII.  That’s it. That’s all I was saying. I offered no comment on whether we should obey the command.  You wound up basically replying to me arguing that we shouldn’t obey the command which is different than saying the command doesn’t exist, which is what I was arguing against