Please list in this thread any of the heresies that can be found in ex cathedra texts promulgated by recent popes, i.e. not heresies spoken, for example, in interviews or speeches, but those contained in docuмents that ought to carry the charism of infallibility.

This question is predicated upon the false R&R position that the entire Magisterium can defect short of those statements which meet the notes of infallibility.  While SVs commonly exaggerate the scope of infallibility, the R&R minimize it to the point of positing that the Magisterium could defect short of the rare solemn pronouncement.

Msgr. Fenton writes below about Papal Encyclicals, but Vatican II, an Ecuмenical Council, meets the same criteria, that the Pope is teaching the Universal Church.  Consequently, what he writes applies a fortiori to an Ecuмenical Council.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm

Despite the comparative inadequacy of the treatment they give to the papal encyclicals, however, all the theological works dealing with this subject make it perfectly clear that all Catholics are bound seriously in conscience to accept the teaching contained in these docuмents with a true internal religious assent. It is the common teaching of the theologians who have written on this subject that the internal assent due to a great number of the doctrines proposed in the papal encyclicals is something distinct from and inferior to both the act of divine Catholic faith and the act most frequently designated as fides ecclesiastica. Most theologians hold that, while there is nothing to prevent an infallible definition of truth contained in or connected with the deposit of revelation in papal encyclicals, and while de facto it is quite probable that at least some infallible pronouncements have been made in this way, the Holy Father has not chosen to use the complete plenitude of his apostolic doctrinal authority in presenting most of the truths contained in his encyclical letters. Nevertheless they all insist that even in this portion of his ordinary magisterium the Holy Father has the right to demand, and actually has demanded, a definite and unswerving internal assent to his teaching from all Catholics.
...
It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.

Quote from: Ladislaus

This question is predicated upon the false R&R position that the entire Magisterium can defect short of those statements which meet the notes of infallibility.  While SVs commonly exaggerate the scope of infallibility, the R&R minimize it to the point of positing that the Magisterium could defect short of the rare solemn pronouncement.

But isn't the Ordinary Magisterium more than mere episcopal consensus? If not, then we'd have to speak of the Magisterium as having "defected" during the Arian crisis, when - as today - the overwhelming majority of the world's bishops were heretics.

Of course; UNIVERSAL episcopal consensus IN UNION WITH THE POPE.  No pope ever taught Arianism, and there was never any universal episcopal consensus (majority does not suffice).

Vatican II meets all the conditions that would require it to be at least infallibly safe.

I'm a sedevacantist, not by desire but by necessity; I don't want to be a sedevacantist, it's just what my eyes tell me. I lack a lot of the experience that you two and others here probably have. I don't have the first experience with the Novus Ordo that you might have so I don't know if it's just as awful as it is in my imagination and from the scandalous images that I've seen of it online.

Be thankful that the Holy Ghost lead you directly to the true Faith without sojourning through the muck of conciliardom.  I spent the first 40 years of my life in conciliardom, most of it in relatively conservative to very conservative parishes.  Even in those parishes, I experienced watered-down doctrine and concerns regarding sacrilege brushed aside.  I even saw altar girls in what has to be, from my experience attending many parishes in travels and such, one of the most conservative parishes in the country.

I always knew something was amiss in the NO.  Looking back, I see that freemason Bugnini designed the NO "mass" to be man-worship.  Just one example, I remember thinking the priest was God when I was a very small child, and now realize that that was probably by design.

I urge you to read "The Great Sacrilege."  Fr. Wathen wrote that in the early 1970s and it is as though he was able to look into the future and predict the many ills and heresies the NO "mass" would ultimately bear and embody.

I have doubts about my position because of the way I came to it; it is baffling on the face of it to deny that that great organization that the world recognizes as the Catholic Church is in fact a sham, and that I "know better than all the bishops and all the theologians with their degrees", etc.

But those liberal/modernist bishops & theologians (relatively few in number compared to all time) know better than the Church of 1,958 years?  I think not.

Sedevacantism does not make the Church a sham.  The Church lying, double-speaking, and leading souls to hell by embracing, even by appearances, heresy would make it a sham.  It took me quite some time to grasp that--but it makes sense now.

I don't have any traditionalist chapel near me so I'm tempted to go to the local Novus Ordo cathedral just because I'm fed up of being the only Catholic that I know, and because, like I said, I've never experienced the Novus Ordo first hand.

"I'm tempted" is apt phrasing.  The devil is trying to lure you there by playing on your need to associate with other Catholics.  Perhaps "being the only Catholic that I know" is your cross to bear--or your test.  Embrace it as part of your path to eternal salvation.  Don't trade it for the company of others for what can be measured in days, weeks, months, years, decades, or even a century.

If you have learned the Faith via traditional sources and cling to tradition, you will be a lonely misfit in conciliardom.

In conciliardom you either have 1) someone who has not been validly ordained mockingly feigning to put the Body and Blood on the altar and people are treating His Presence without respect; or 2) the Body and Blood are in fact put on the altar and treated disrespectfully.  Either way is sacrilegious.

I've asked for that particular evidence because I believe it would be the most emphatic and incontrovertible to back up the sedevacantist position. I know it may be hard to produce such evidence precisely because of the weasely way that that the neo-modernists tend to avoid being dogmatic in favour of being "pastoral".

Why would you want to put yourself in that framework in light of "the weasely way that that the neo-modernists tend to avoid being dogmatic in favour of being 'pastoral?'"  Just to be around a few people who also call themselves "Catholic" but who at least lack the fullness of the Faith, even if they aren't outright heretics?

I can hardly see how that could be so.

1. It's a "pastoral council" that explicitly declares that it is not doing what Ecuмenical Councils do - define dogmas and condemn errors.

I have seen quotes from Paul VI saying that it was a pastoral council but I have also seen quotes from him saying that it was binding on all Catholics to believe in Vatican II.

INFALLIBLE SAFETY is not the same thing as infallibility in the strict sense.

Sounds like yet another instructive thread for people like me.  
Not to presume on your or anyone else's time however, I'll investigate further.  Discernment is time consuming!

Edit:  Fenton has been very helpful.

Quote

INFALLIBLE SAFETY is not the same thing as infallibility in the strict sense.

Sounds like yet another instructive thread for people like me.  
Not to presume on your or anyone else's time however, I'll investigate further.  Discernment is time consuming!

Edit:  Fenton has been very helpful.

To sum up Monsignor Fenton -- and this I too have been saying for many years now -- you can quibble all you want about whether any particular statement in any particular papal teaching meets the notes of infallibility -- there's a larger type of infallibility, the overall infallibility of the Magisterium.  While no specific proposition that doesn't the notes of infallibility could be considered strictly infallible, the Magisterium AS A WHOLE cannot defect, and one can never do harm to his faith by giving consent to the teachings of the Magisterium.

the Roman pontiff ... is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals