There are a few errors and inconsistencies in your post:

1. “Many” is a Biblical idiom that sometimes means “all.” Daniel 12:2 is written of the general resurrection and states, “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Here “many” means “all.”
Moreover cuм Occasione in condemnation of the Jansenists: "It is Semi-Pelagian to say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men." - Condemned.

2. Trent not only didn't anathematize the use of the vernacular in the Roman rite (it only anathematized those who condemned the use of Latin) actually allowed Rome to permit the use of the vernacular, and it was allowed for a while in the Roman rite in central Europe in the wake of Trent. Moreover, the NOM does not condemn the silent canon.

3. As for Amoris Laetitia and communion to those in objective mortal sin, see here: https://reducedculpability.blog/2018/02/13/amoris-laetitia-and-the-1917-code-of-canon-law/

4. Personal false worship by individual Popes is not a new matter. The Synod of Rome of 963 accused John XII drinking a toast to the Devil, and while playing at dice invoked the name of Jupiter, Venus and other pagan gods. So personal piety is not related to the magisterial power of the Pope.

5. What you claim Vatican II teaches regarding partial communion is the same thing taught by Pius IX in Quartus Supra and Pius XII in Mystici Corporis 22 . Do you consider them heretics?

6. See my response QVD regarding religious liberty.

Was not John XXIII or Paul VI universally and peacefully elected? 

The distinction is non-existent and imaginary.

Random,

Hi. I agree that no one has really addressed the "crux" of your post. That happens often around here, but it is understandable, concerning the topics of discussion, their significance. The subject matters we discuss naturally call forth passion and strong emotions. If I have more time, I'll try to engage the "crux" of your initial post.

As to the religious liberty issue, John Daly advanced the Sede argument with brevity and concision,  so I'll just paste it here. I'd be interested in your response:

Daly seems to be arguing that one of these views must be heretical, since they are contradictory (again, in his view) and both say their views are "divinely revealed." If they are both revealed, and opposed to one another, one of them is contrary to divine revelation, and necessarily heretical. That appears to be the reasoning.

As I said, I'd like to hear your response.

DR

…blah, blah, blah…

No, the problem is that his attribution of this problem to SVism is a strawman.  SVs do not, as per etsi multa claim that the Catholic hierarchy has fallen into heresy.  That accusation is more against R&R than anyone else.  As Salza usually does, he begs the question that these men are the popes, and uses circular reasoning.

“Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head.”

Lol. Reading Decem's post is like peeking into a different reality. Decem, you're talking about the conciliar counter-church's apostasy as if it didn't happen.

It did happen, now we know it can happen.

Just as a Catholic before the Great Western Schism would say it could never happen, however, you've actually seen the Great Apostasy with your own two eyes and are pretending it isn't there.

One thing is perfectly clear to me, the Pope must be a Catholic and these antichrists aren't. From the moment I saw Bergoglio and Wojtyla promoting demon worship I knew they were non-catholic antipopes. I don't know what you have to see them do to reach the same conclusion, especially considering they already did every heretical and apostate act imaginable.

Here are some prophetic words from Fr. O'Reilly:


There are only three answers to the problem: deny the facts, deny the papacy or deny the claimant.

RandomFish started from the assumption that the Jєωιѕн satanists were popes and that led him to the only possible conclusion that Vatican II wasn't erroneous.

He forgot to read Galatians it seems.

What about you Decem? Do you have the same faith as Francis? If you don't, you're not in the Church where he's Pope. If you do, you're going to the same place he is. Simple as.

Jer. 8:8 -  How do you say: We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Indeed the lying pen of the scribes hath wrought falsehood.

Jer. 18:18 - And they said: Come, and let us invent devices against Jeremias: for the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet: come, and let us strike him with the tongue, and let us give no heed to all his words.

Isa. 28:15 -  For you have said: We have entered into a league with death, and we have made a covenant with hell. When the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come upon us: for we have placed our hope in lies, and by falsehood we are protected.

Rom. 11:17-22 - And if some of the branches be broken, and thou, being a wild olive, art ingrafted in them, and art made partaker of the root, and of the fatness of the olive tree,  18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.  19 Thou wilt say then: The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.  20 Well: because of unbelief they were broken off. But thou standest by faith: be not highminded, but fear. For if God hath not spared the natural branches, fear lest perhaps he also spare not thee.  22 See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God, if thou abide in goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.