I think someone brought up the Siri thesis. This theory seems self-defeating. If Cardinal Siri were ever elected Pope, then we fall into still greater difficulties, particularly if we take sedevacantist reasoning for granted. Wouldn't he have lost his office, for not only accepting Vatican II, saying the new Mass, using the new rites, and in addition to all this, giving public veneration to alleged antipopes and notorious heretics? The theory lacks positive corroboration and doesn't escape the very dilemma it was intended to solve.
He also wrote to Archbishop Lefebvre on June 22, 1988 - to ask him not to break from the Church. Would he not rather have told his underground clergy to get in touch with Archbishop Lefebvre, or others like him, inform them of the election, and work with them? I was myself favorable to it at one time, but frankly, it seems to run into one insurmountable difficulty after another.
SJB, man has no right to do wrong, to be wrong, or to teach what is wrong. I've always maintained that and never claimed man has an "inherent right to select that which is false". All moral rights are God-given, and God grants no right to error. A right to do wrong is a self-contradiction.
As for your statement "Religious liberty can be understood in the sense that man is free to choose what is true and good" that is exactly how I understand it.
Lover of Truth, I admit it is a very unusual situation, but there are difficulties for those who hold the sedevacantist position. The great apostasy does not require there to be no Pope for 54 years, many people have indeed been fooled, but they have been fooled into disbelieving the Faith. I believe the correct explanation is weak Popes who try to please the world and don't fulfil their duties, as Peter was weak during the Passion.
SS, the 1917 Code of Canon Law contains a provision to the effect that nothing is understood to be defined unless it is manifestly evident that it is meant to be. This is a standard principle, and this being the case, how can something be claimed to have been bound on us when the Church and the Popes repeatedly did the opposite, not only did they not make it evident they intended to define anything, but said repeatedly, as I quoted above, that they changed nothing, defined nothing new, and simply "transmitted" what was already defined?
Yes, the only truth is the Catholic Faith. No one has a right, strictly speaking, to be a Mohammedan, a Protestant or a Jєω.
Finally, you follow Archbishop Lefebvre, so if reading the Council in the light of Tradition is as impossible as you claim, how do you explain what he said,
"I have no reservations whatsoever regarding the legitimacy and validity of your election, and consequently I cannot tolerate there not being addressed to God the prayers prescribed by Holy Church for Your Holiness. I have already had to act with severity, and continue to do so, with regard to some seminarians and priests who have allowed themselves to be influenced by certain clerics who do not belong to the Society.
I am fully in agreement with the judgement that Your Holiness gave on the Second Vatican Council, on November 6, 1978, at a meeting of the Sacred College: 'that the Council must be under- stood in light of the whole of Holy Tradition, and on the basis of the unvarying Magisterium of Holy Mother Church."