For the purpose of this post, I …

Please provide proof for your assertion as follows:
1. That the condemnation of religious liberty is a dogma (divinely revealed article of faith or connected to a dogma such that the denial of it would be a denial of another dogma) under pain of heresy in pre-conciliar teaching.
2. That Vatican II, or post conciliar doctrine, taught to the contrary.

That's not correct.  SVism holds that they are usurpers, illegitimate, etc. because the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the One True Church of Christ, and the papacy is protected by the Holy Ghost from substantially altering the Church into something that lacks these marks.

We have a corrupt Magisterium, an entirely novel and non-Catholic system of theology (not just a few isolated statement in Vatican II), a novel non-Catholic ecclesiology where the schismatic and heretical "Churches" can be part of the Church of Christ, a complete and consistent rejection of EENS dogma (culminating in Jorge's recent declaration of schismatic "martyrs", verbatim contradicting the teaching of the Council of Florence that there can be no salvation outside the Church even if one were to shed his blood for Christ), the promotion of religious indifferentism.

We have a "Mass" that differs not a lick from Cranmer's abomination and is consistent with Luther's butchery of the Catholic Mass, complete with a replacement of the Catholic Offertory (which Luther hated with a passion), replacing it with a тαℓмυdic "table blessing".

We have masses of obviously bogus canonizations, and popes are also prevented by the Holy Ghost from issuing bogus canonizations.

There's nothing in the Conciliar Church that resembles the mark of "Holiness" nor "Oneness", as there as as many heresies floating out there as there are Conciliar bishops.  Jorge promotes the heretics and Modernists and punishes the relatively-faithful bishops like Strickland.

If St. Pius X had been time-warped forward to today and been shown the Conciliar Church, would he have recognized it as the Catholic Church had he not been told that it was?  Absolutely not.  Ergo, the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church.  It's as simple as that, and one need not have a degree in theology to dissect the propositions of Vatican II.  Simple faithful can see that.  When I first became a Traditional Catholic, I read a book by St. Alphonsus Liguori and realized, without any theological analysis, that the faith this man exhibits in his books is not the same faith and the same religion that the Conciliar Church puts into practice.

1) The heresy of religious liberty is condemned by Pope Pius IX in his encyclical Quanta Cura. He also references Pope Gregory XVI calling religious liberty, insanity. But please keep in mind that True councils of the Catholic Church can’t contain any error whatsoever, so if you want to argue that the condemnation of RL is not necessarily dogmatic, it still would be contradicting past teaching of the Church.


2) Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humae.

The Vatican 2 church certainly violates teachings that were taught dogmatically.

The consecration of the wine in the Novus Ordo Mass says "pro omnibus" where Scripture says "pro multis". Now, every word of Scripture is de fide. Therefore the Novus Ordo contradicts Scripture. And that's before you get into the question of the sacrament being made invalid thereby.

The Council of Trent defined dogmatically: "Canon 9. If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular tongue only;[28] or that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice because it is contrary to the institution of Christ,[29] let him be anathema."

The Novus Ordo goes against the underlined parts. (And the expression "Let him be anathema" means the condemnation is dogmatic and de fide.)

Adultery has always been taught dogmatically to be a mortal sin. Receiving Holy Communion in mortal sin has always been taught dogmatically to be a mortal sin. But in Amoris Laetitia it says that adulterers can receive Holy Communion.

False worship has always been taught to be a mortal sin and a violation of the 1st commandment. Now, the 1st commandment is de fide. Christians in the early Church died glorious martyrdoms rather than sacrifice to a pagan deity. And yet the people you claim are the pope have all worshiped in false rites many times each, with pagans, Muslims, Jєωs, animists, Buddhists, etc.

Vatican 2 teaches that schismatics, heretics et al. are "in partial communion" with the Catholic Church. This contradicts the words of the Nicene Creed: "I believe in ... the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." If the Church is one, it cannot be partially in non-Catholic sects.

Dignitatis Humanae in Vatican 2 contradicts the Syllabus of Errors almost verbatim.

This is just off the top of my head, but these are just a few of the numerous ways in which the Vatican 2 church contradicts dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church and therefore must be a false religion.

Not one person addressed the crux of the initial post. If Etsi Multa is right then Sedevacantism cannot be true. If Etsi Multa is wrong then why not Quanta Cura and all the rest?

Is there a contradiction between Vatican II’s declaration on religious liberty (Dignitatis Humanae) and traditional Catholic doctrine as expressed in numerous encyclicals, and most especially in Pope Pius IX’s Quanta Cura? In recent years some intellectual conservatives have audaciously denied that there is any such contradiction. Before commenting on their attempts, let us remind ourselves of the texts:


Quanta Cura: “…against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that ‘the best condition of civil society is that in which no duty is attributed to the civil power of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except insofar as public peace may require.’

“From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal to the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, insanity, viz., that ‘liberty of conscience and worship is the proper right of every man and ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society’.”

Dignitatis Humanae (Vatican II): “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious liberty. Such liberty consists in this: that all men must be immune to coercion whether on the part of individuals, social bodies or any human power so that in religious matters no one is constrained to act against his conscience or prevented from acting in accordance with his conscience in private and in public, alone or with others, within due limits [these due limits are defined in paragraph 7 as being those of public peace and morality].

“It further declares that the right to religious liberty is truly founded on the very dignity of the human person as known by the revealed word of God and reason itself.

“This right of the human person to religious liberty in the juridical ordering of society is to be recognised so as to become a civil right.”

Now to all appearances these texts are in radical contradiction on three points. Pope Pius IX condemns the following ideas: 1. all men have a right to liberty of conscience and of worship; 2. this right of religious liberty should be made a civil right in every well-ordered society; 3. the best state of society is that in which men’s civil right to religious liberty is limited only by the demands of public peace.

These three points condemned by Pius IX are all three apparently taught by the Vatican II text. Moreover Pope Pius IX is exercising the Extraordinary Magisterium and teaches that these propositions are opposed to Holy Scripture (written divine revelation) while Vatican II declares its opposing doctrine to be founded on the revealed word of God and requires all Catholics to observe its teaching religiously.

https://romeward.com/articles/239750983/religious-liberty-the-failed-attempts-to-defend-vatican-ii

Not one person addressed the crux of the initial post. If Etsi Multa is right then Sedevacantism cannot be true. If Etsi Multa is wrong then why not Quanta Cura and all the rest?