But some New Pentecostal cardinal is commonly quoted who said that Catholics could freely reject anything in Vatican II which did not jibe with Tradition.

On the other hand, Paul VI stressed the importance of abiding by all that his Council taught, saying that it was the Church that taught it.

What's the poor layman to do?

"Be open to Contemporary Culture. It's a new age for the Church."

How does one "assent" to such Liberal bilge anyway?

I think this is how the SSPX believes that can say that the New Mass is evil, while at the same time they believe they don't incur the anathema from Trent:

If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema.

Then Here:

http://ecclesia-militans.blogspot.com/2006/08/is-novus-ordo-missae-evil.html

the March 1997 issue of The Angelus.....an article by Fr. Francois Laisney (SSPX) about the evilness of the New Mass.

.....That the New Mass is evil in itself is the unavoidable conclusion of all honest and objective studies on the consequences on the New Mass.....

But didn't the pope oblige us to use the new missal? No, he did not.

"Now Pope Paul VI did not oblige the use of his Mass, but only permitted it.....There is no clear order, command, or precept imposing it on any priest.....The Novus Ordo Missae was promulgated by Pope Paul VI with so many deficiencies and especially lacking even the proper juridical language to oblige all priests and faithful, that is cannot claim to be covered by the infallibility of the Pope in universal laws."

However,

Here: http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=19&catname=8

Did Paul VI 'Illegally Promulgate' the Novus Ordo?

Fr. Cekada answers Fr. Francois Laisney

Clicking on the image will enlarge it:



Vatican II seems to fall under number 3

This website seems to run by a Norvus Ordo layman, but never-the-less:

http://www.catholicplanet.com/CMA/heresy-infallibility.htm

However, one can also be a heretic by obstinately denying or doubting certain teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium, namely, those necessary and essential to salvation. For even though the Ordinary Magisterium (non-universal) is non-infallible, it cannot err in such a way as to lead the faithful away from the path to salvation. Most of the heresies in the early Church were of this type, since there were not many magisterial pronouncements at that time.

Then Here:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the docuмents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecuмenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)

And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*) The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.(44*)

But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*) The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46*) but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.(47*)

Comments please!

Paul VI was guilty of sacrilegious hypocrisy.

On the one hand, pretending to be something along the lines of a Catholic believer, he made like a dry-as-dust Scholastic theology manual, with all that priestcrafty hocus-pocus about Ordinary and Magisterium and so forth.

But the main thrust of Montini's Vatican II-related blathering does not even "compute" theologically. It is totally outside the realm of Christian belief. And yet it is precisely that spirit and letter of shi-shi decadent European apostasy which are of the essence of the Vatican II Reforms. And strictly binding on all Catholics. IF the Vatican II top dogs are Lord Popes of Christ Almighty.

Montini spoke as a Modern Man who, happening to find himself mixed up with the whole embarrassing Catholic deal, had vowed to make Catholicsm over according to the Satanic whims of Modern Man.

THAT is what Vatican II and its "changes" are really all about. The liturgy is just a distracting side issue.

Signor Montini said that Vatican II was a MOOD, not a body of TEACHING. And what was this mood? It was HIS lousy, trashy mood. An idiosyncratic mix of egg-headed Existentialist angst and Liberal futuristic euphoria resulting from a loss of Faith and a rejection of the Gospel and Spirit and the very memory of Jesus Christ.

The problem is that Montini claimed to be speaking as the High and Mighty Peter when he spoke as cheap little Liberal Montini. The Traditionalists say that you can separate Peter from Montini and not pay any mind to Montini's bizarre apostatical novelties. Peter/Montini says different. Montini made his unChristian, apostatical MOOD binding on all Catholics under pain of Mortal Sin in perpetuity: He said that Vatican II was just BEGINNING at the end of AD 1965.

So if Montini IS Peter who is the simple, humble layman going to believe?

Explicitly calling upon the so-called Trinity and the Apostles Peter and Paul as his witnesses, Montini proposed his own Godlessly contradictory and unChristian blatherings as a Special Message For Our Times, straight from the Holy Ghost.

Traditionalists say he simply can't do that in the Traditional Catholic scheme of things.

But he did it.

IF he is the Lord Pope.

If he IS the Lord Pope, the system belongs to him.

Nothing like that happened with the true heretics in Church history. The reason why not is obvious. No putative pope was ever the chief heretic dude in the Catholic world before.

It is unfortunate that the careless Fathers and Doctors lumped raving quasi-apostates such as the Gnostics and the Montanists in with theologically serious heretics (especially speciously rehibilitated Nestorians such as Theodoret of Cyr) who were subtle enough to draw even some Fathers and Doctors into their orbits and spin them according to their needs and whims.

The problem with this careless lumping together of wild quasi-apostates with subtle heretics is that Traditional Catholics spot the mere heresies (MERE heresies?!!?)  in the Vatican II top dogs and immediately start thinking, "Oh. Heresy. Not easy to establish. Tricky. Iffy. Can't be exactly sure. Best left to theologian priests..."

When the god's truth is that the Vatican II top dogs are not merely heretics, but wild quasi-apostates, whose rejections of Christian Doctrine and Common Decency are NOT subtle, iffy, tricky matters (such as, say, the relationship between free will and predestination), but rather demonically reckless and heedless rampages against all that is holy along the lines of the persecutions of Christians by Communists and Democrats and professional Sodomites.

Whose assaults on the virtue of little Catholic schoolchildren sicken your better class of pimp, Mason, and psychokiller. (I've used that line before, but hey, it fits to a T...)

We musn't play-act about all this, folks. We musn't get high-falutin' with all this creaky shop talk about Ordinary and Extraordinary and Binding and Magisterial. The Vatican II cult is one big Satanic orgy and the Roman top dogs are its enthusiastic ringleaders. Enough said. Enough said before God and man.

thank you so much for posting some of those websites - I've book marked several of them as it can be hard to research things for friends "on the other side."  In one of my theology classes (from the SSPX) when speaking of the universality of the Ordinary Magisterium - reference your little table - I was told that in union with all of the bishops meant past and present - thus, "technically" infallibility wouldn't cover Vatican II and all of the following malarchy b/c  it wasn't /isn't in agreement with, well, with tradition... hmmm... that seems a little circular or something, but right now I am too tired to contemplate it.

When I call Boniface a heretic it is not because of anything he held publically--maybe heretic is the wrong word-- actually Sr Mary Mildred's book does give specific charges and a few of them do indicate heresy. His personality was similar to a Wolsey or Spellman who were very good at appearing Orthodox and yet had nefarious agendas.