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.