I truly believe that the last "great" and "necessary" Ecuмenical Council of The Church was the 19th Council: The Council of Trent (1545-1563). I feel that the last two Ecuмenical councils (Vatican I and Vatican II) were not only unnecessary but also disastrous for The Church as a whole.

I also believe that the entire "Liturgical Movement," beginning in the early 1800s, was unnecessary and a disaster from the word "go."

Had The Church steadfastly adhered to the Canons and Decrees of The Council of Trent without deviating from them in any way, shape or form (and refrained from creating any new canons and decrees during any subsequent Ecuмenical Councils), then none of us would be experiencing this current agonizing crisis in the Church.

Tridentine Catholicism (without the Liturgical Movement and both Vatican councils) is sufficient and always will be.

Vatican I was necessary, not because the Council of Trent was insufficient, but because new errors arose after Trent that Trent did not address. The Church faced rationalism, liberalism, and direct attacks on the papacy, requiring a precise and dogmatic definition of papal primacy and papal infallibility.

This in no way legitimizes Vatican II, since Vatican II openly contradicted both Trent and Vatican I in matters of doctrine, authority, and the very nature of the Church.

I respectfully disagree. Pope Pius IX did not continue the Vatican I Council when it ended in 1870 even though he could have (the Council was cut short due to war) since his pontificate lasted for several years later. Pope Leo XIII could have continued and or concluded the Vatican I Council...but he didn't and neither did Popes Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI or Pius XII.

Perhaps the "biggest error" to arise after Trent was "Marxism/Communism" and Vatican I did not condemn it. Neither did Vatican II, of course, but to call the 20th Ecuмenical Council of the Church in 1869, then close it a year later due to war and then NOT re-open it in order to officially condemn the "biggest error" of "Marxism/Communism", was, in hindsight, a terrible error.

Without Vatican I, John XXIII most likely would never have called Vatican II in 1959 because a major reason he gave for calling it was "to FINISH what Vatican I started." Whether one believes that or not is irrelevant. The fact is, in hindsight, to call an Ecuмenical Council and not re-open it in order to condemn the "biggest error" post -Trent (and then leave it to a "pope" to decide to allegedly "continue" the council 89 years later) was MUCH WORSE than to have called no Ecuмenical Council at all.

By failing to condem the "biggest error" post-Trent at Vatican I and thereby giving an excuse to someone like John XXIII to "continue" or "finish" the work done by Vatican I at Vatican II, Vatican I was a colossal failure.

I truly believe that the last "great" and "necessary" Ecuмenical Council of The Church was the 19th Council: The Council of Trent (1545-1563). I feel that the last two Ecuмenical councils (Vatican I and Vatican II) were not only unnecessary but also disastrous for The Church as a whole.

I also believe that the entire "Liturgical Movement," beginning in the early 1800s, was unnecessary and a disaster from the word "go."

Had The Church steadfastly adhered to the Canons and Decrees of The Council of Trent without deviating from them in any way, shape or form (and refrained from creating any new canons and decrees during any subsequent Ecuмenical Councils), then none of us would be experiencing this current agonizing crisis in the Church.

Tridentine Catholicism (without the Liturgical Movement and both Vatican councils) is sufficient and always will be.

Ridiculous.

1) Vatican I was necessary ...

2) Vatican II was not an Ecuмenical Council, so don't equate the two

Are you the heretic who thinks like half of the last dozen popes prior to Roncalli were heretical Anti-Popes?

This contempt for an Ecuмenical Council inspired by the Holy Ghost (Vatican I) ... is yet another pernicious fruit of the R&R mindset.

Of course you have.  You despise Vatican I like all the other Old Catholics of your ilk.

Of course, you keep trying to claim that Vatican I condemns sedevacantism, so for you that would be essential.

 The dogma of papal infallibility was defined at Vatican 1, you hating the dogma is your problem.

A while back Bergoglio mentioned calling another counsel so I wonder if that is still being planned.
If we think things have been bad for the last 200 years....hold your hats for what will come with Vatican III.
Anyone read AA-1025 lately?