so what actually happens was the same thing that would happen if I approach the altar to celebrate Mass. I tell John, "listen John, I'm gonna do everything that's required to celebrate Mass, but I've absolutely no intention of celebrating Mass. I want to pull a show." Now John would be the only one in that case to know that what happened here is not a Mass. That's how it's possible that something that looks as much as a Council as Vatican ll did, might not have necessarily have been a Council, as if fraud was a new thing.

bzzzt.  This hypothetical priest, so long as he performed the rite prescribed by the Church, would have celebrated a valid Mass, for having the intention to DO what the Church DOES, regardless of his little mind games.  Beside that, there's simply no comparison here.  R&R are notorious for trying to blend moral theology with dogmatic, and the two are completely different, since "intention" plays a role in morality, whereas it has no role with regard to the determination of objective dogma.

Condemnation and obligation are not required for a teaching to be considered infallibly safe.  If a legitimate pope and all the bishops of the world get together and teach a body of doctrine to the Universal Church, it cannot be harmful to faith, without there being a defection of the Magisterium, which is not possible.

So, Francis recently "canonized" Mother Theresa, a notorious religious indifferentist, using solemn and infallible language.  Do you accept her as a saint?

So the main "argument" is that the refusal to condemn (i.e. issue anathemas) makes the Council capable of being completely polluted with error?  Duly noted ... and dismissed as non-Catholic.

You're being incredibly dishonest as usual, Stubborn.  You know full well that I disagree with Fenton on a number of key issues (soteriology and ecclesiology in particular); you've been on those threads.  I quote Fenton simply because he has a very articulate and Catholic explanation regarding the non-infallible Magisterium.  I am not a slavish Fenton follower.  In fact, I came to my views of ecclesiology after having read not only the Church Fathers but a wide array of theologians regarding ecclesiology.  I was straight R&R before I knew any better.  Then I came to the conclusion that I would have been burned at the stake for these views had I lived at the time of St. Robert Bellarmine.  That happened to a number of young men who went to Traditional seminary.  Once they started studying Traditional Catholic dogmatic theology, especially the theology regarding the Church and the Magisterium, they found that the R&R position was simply not consistent with this.

I could turn around and talk about you and Meg having become Hesse-ized as well.  Puerile ad hominems neither accomplish nor prove anything.

I was thinking you would say I was Wathenized lol - but the truth of the matter is that Fr. Fenton's false teachings are repeated over and over on the forums - not just this one. Many don't even realize they are his teachings they are spouting - and personally, I like to think he taught those errors in good faith since it would have been very easy to agree with him back in the days of the preconciliar Church, but after +50 years of the repercussions of V2, it is a little surprising that people still cannot see he was so terribly wrong.

I condense the issue by saying you were Fentonized because what he taught is the same thing that you quote as if it's truthin regards to the pope, yet even after +50 years of it, most fail to conclude that it was on account of his teachings (and those similar to his) that were "infiltrated into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the church" as +ABL said, that got so many people to leave the true faith and walk headlong right into the NO because they were basically taught that no matter what the pope says, we must obey.

And if his teachings are in fact true, then why not walk headlong into the NO? - In fact, if what he says is true, then whoever doesn't walk headlong into the NO risks their salvation!