Sounds like Paul VI is very clear that Vatican II is binding, an Ecuмenical Council, the Will of God, and must be obeyed or one is not in communion with the Successor of Peter and the Church:

"On the one hand, there are those who, under the pretext of greater fidelity to the Church and to the Magisterium, systematically reject the teachings of the Council itself, its application and the reforms that flow from it, its gradual application by the Apostolic See and the Episcopal Conferences, under our authority, willed by Christ. The authority of the Church is discredited in the name of a Tradition, respect for which is attested only materially and verbally; the faithful are turned away from the bonds of obedience to the See of Peter as well as to their legitimate Bishops; Today's authority is rejected in the name of yesterday's. And the fact is all the more serious because the opposition of which we are speaking is not only encouraged by a few priests, but headed by a Bishop, whom We have always venerated, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

It is so painful to note this: but how can we fail to see in such an attitude - whatever the intentions of these people may be - placing oneself outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore of the Church?

For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, that is, when it is maintained that it is preferable to disobey under the pretext of keeping one's faith intact, of working in one's own way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time denying her effective obedience. And it's said openly! One dares to affirm that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would also be endangered because of the post-conciliar reforms and orientations, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? It is this group, and not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecuмenical Council, that determines which of the innumerable traditions are to be considered as a norm of faith. As you see, venerable Brethren, this attitude stands as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his legitimate Successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith and to shepherd the universal flock (cf. Lk 22:32; I. 21:15 ff.), which established him as guarantor and guardian of the deposit of the Faith."

Secret Consistory for the appointment of twenty Cardinals (May 24, 1976) | Paul VI (vatican.va)

You might be right Quo Vadis!

This is the rule given by St Vincent of Lerins in his commonitorium: quod ubique, quod semper et ab omnibus. That is, we hold fast to that which has been believed everywhere (space), always (time) and by all. That defines unviversality or catholicity.

Hence the Universal Ordinary Magisterium is the Ordinary Magisterium possessed of that quality of universality. I'm not sure how correct that is in every technicality.

Here is an excerpt from the thread I just started on the Infallible Magisterium: listen to it rather than me!

It follows that
Quote
Dom Paul Nau explains further:
Quote
About this subject, A.C. Martimort wrote:
Quote
In fact, we know that the bishops, individually, are not infallible. Yet the totality of bishops, throughout time and space, in their moral unanimity, do enjoy infallibility. So if one wishes to ascertain the Church's infallible teaching one must not take the teaching of one particular bishop: it is necessary to look at the "common and continuous teaching" of the episcopate united to the pope, which "cannot deviate from the teaching of Jesus Christ" (E. Piacentini, O.F.M. Conv., Infaillible même dans les causes de canonisation? ENMI, Rome 1994, p.37).
The same thing applies to the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium of the Roman pope on his own: this Ordinary Magisterium is infallible not because each act is uttered by the pope, but because the particular teaching of which the pope's act consists "is inserted into a totality and a continuity" (Dom P.Nau, Le encycliques, op.cit.), which is that of the "series of Roman popes over time" (Martimort, op.cit.).
We can understand why, in their Ordinary Magisterium, the Roman popes have always been careful to associate themselves with their "venerable predecessors," often quoting them at length. "The Church speaks by Our mouth," said Pope Pius XI in the Casti Connubii. Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, emphasized that "most of the time what is set forth and taught in the encyclicals is already, for other reasons, part of the patrimony of Catholic doctrine."
The very particular nature of the pope's Ordinary Infallible Magisterium was quite clear until Vatican I. While this Council was in session, La Civiltà Cattolica, which published (and still publishes) under the direct control of the Holy See, replied in these words to Fr. Gratry, who had criticized Pope Paul IV's Bull cuм ex Apostolus:
Quote
This means, in effect, that an "isolated act" of the pope is infallible only in the context of a "dogmatic definition"; outside dogmatic definitions, i.e., in the Ordinary Magisterium, infallibility is guaranteed by the complex of "countless other similar acts of the Holy See," or of a "long succession" of the successors of Peter.

You gave me a link to a thread.  Show me the post where I "reformed the definition of Papal Infallibility".

Sounds like Paul VI is very clear that Vatican II is binding, an Ecuмenical Council, the Will of God, and must be obeyed or one is not in communion with the Successor of Peter and the Church:

"On the one hand, there are those who, under the pretext of greater fidelity to the Church and to the Magisterium, systematically reject the teachings of the Council itself, its application and the reforms that flow from it, its gradual application by the Apostolic See and the Episcopal Conferences, under our authority, willed by Christ. The authority of the Church is discredited in the name of a Tradition, respect for which is attested only materially and verbally; the faithful are turned away from the bonds of obedience to the See of Peter as well as to their legitimate Bishops; Today's authority is rejected in the name of yesterday's. And the fact is all the more serious because the opposition of which we are speaking is not only encouraged by a few priests, but headed by a Bishop, whom We have always venerated, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

It is so painful to note this: but how can we fail to see in such an attitude - whatever the intentions of these people may be - placing oneself outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore of the Church?

For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, that is, when it is maintained that it is preferable to disobey under the pretext of keeping one's faith intact, of working in one's own way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time denying her effective obedience. And it's said openly! One dares to affirm that the Second Vatican Council is not binding; that the faith would also be endangered because of the post-conciliar reforms and orientations, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions. What traditions? It is this group, and not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecuмenical Council, that determines which of the innumerable traditions are to be considered as a norm of faith. As you see, venerable Brethren, this attitude stands as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his legitimate Successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith and to shepherd the universal flock (cf. Lk 22:32; I. 21:15 ff.), which established him as guarantor and guardian of the deposit of the Faith."

Secret Consistory for the appointment of twenty Cardinals (May 24, 1976) | Paul VI (vatican.va)

Cardinal Franzelin refutes the SSPX’s and, by extension, your inaccurate interpretation of Saint Vincent regarding space *and* time:

https://novusordowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/franzelin-vincentian-canon.pdf

Finally, Saint Vincent of Lerins everywhere clearly teaches that either one of these two marks—i.e. universal consent and the agreement of antiquity—suffices to demonstrate the apostolicity of a doctrine. Thus in Chapter 3 he writes : i) “What then will a Catholic Christian do if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member?” Here universal consent is opposed to local error. ii) “What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity.” Here antiquity is appealed to in the event that contemporary controversies should have muddied the waters and made it hard to establish for the time being the belief of the universal Church.

Well, I do have a bit of an issue with people calling people here "heretics." I don't think "heretics" would be here - except for the occasional troll who is usually quickly dispatched.

Anyway, the main point is that there seems to be a drift in tenor such that it prompted me to comment on, which is something that would not have occurred to me before.

Yes, I know. That was the logic I was demonstrating. It all relates to the understanding of Infallibility. I didn't mean to apply it only to the current Pope. That's why it so important that we understand Infallibility.

I will take some time to review this again after reading it, but I see the following as a problem with the Cardinal's argument. He quotes St. Vincent as follows from Chapter 3:

The contrast discussed by St. Vincent is an infection of part/whole. In "i)" a part of the Church "has cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith." While St. Vincent says the "novel contagion seek(s)" to infect the whole, it does not appear to me that the Cardinal is accurately reflecting the point and the contrast when he says the infection merely "made it hard to establish for the time being the belief of the universal Church," when the contrast seems to be infection of part v. infection of whole.

It would seem that St. Vincent is talking about a situation such as exists in the Church now, when there is an infection of the "whole" hierarchy with jurisdiction. If it were just confusion and not an actual infection of the whole, why would one resolve it by going to "antiquity"? Wouldn't one simply go to the pope or a council to address and clarify, to correct the confusion?

Cardinal Franzelin appears to me to avoid St. Vincent's point, and to mischaracterize the contrast.

I post this as an observation for comment and discussion. I am not being polemical here.

I am disheartened by the course that the forum is taking in these recent discussions, particuarly with terms "Gallican" being tossed around in terse responses. While Lad has called me and others Old Catholics and heretics, he has always done so while giving his reasons and putting forward a substantive argument. While I have engaged him in kind, I never took personal offense or had a problem with his name calling, except for engaging him on the merits, and having problems with what I see as his inconsistencies (and hence hypocrisy) - thus my rather vigorous opposition to his attacks on those who oppose the "Magisterium" and who, in his mind, reject the Church's indefectibility (my seeing him as hypocritical, for example, being informed by his own position on BoD versus the theological consensus of every theologian and pope/bishop in the hierarchy since Trent at least).

Anyway, I just wanted to air that sense I have about recent negative developments that I see as a departure from past practice that I find a bit troubling - in addition to my main purpose in seeking comments on the Cardinal Franzelin's handling of the above.