Reading anything from the Vatican II popes and Vatican II, should be forbidden to the laity, and kept behind lock and key at seminaries, and limited to rare use by clergy in the study of sophism/ambiguity/error/heresy.

I keep repeating it - "Rat poison is 99% nutritious food". It's that 1% dispersed in every molecule of the nutritious food that will kill you just the same, no matter how nutritious and good it tastes.

I agree that such a person should be ignored, and I'm not defending Francis. I am not defending Francis of playing sick mental games. What I am doing is investigating the accusations objectively in order to determine what is true.  
Did Francis approve contraception, as is claimed? Did he intentionally and deceptively make two true statements that gave the impression contraception was permissible, without actually saying it is permissible, which is another possibility? Or did advocates of contraception take his words taken out of context to promote their agenda?  I think we can rule out number 1.  

Nonsense, Walters.  Only some dogmatic sedevacantists hold that "anything a Pope says is necessarily infallibly safe."  What infallible safety basically means, however, and this is corroborated by a lot of Papal Magisterium, is that overall and, as a whole, the Magisterium cannot go badly off the rails on a substantial issue.  Here is Msgr. Fenton's articulation of infallible safety.  When Traditional Catholics claim that the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church are so badly mistaken that we are effectively forced to sever communion with the putative hierarchy, then it's crossed the line.  You're setting up fake strawman and yourself misunderstanding infallible safety.  Infallible safety follows necessarily from the notion that the Church is indefectible in her mission.

Msgr. Fenton:

To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience.

God cannot deceive or be deceive, but men can. The Pope is man, not God.  The problem with sedevacantism is that they tend toward deifying the Pope, and then naturally reject any Pope who does not live up to their God-like expectations.  

I agree that such a person should be ignored, and I'm not defending Francis. I am not defending Francis of playing sick mental games. What I am doing is investigating the accusations objectively in order to determine what is true.  
Did Francis approve contraception, as is claimed? Did he intentionally and deceptively make two true statements that gave the impression contraception was permissible, without actually saying it is permissible, which is another possibility?  

There’s no mention of the Pope in the act of faith.  

When we profess to believe all the truths that the Church teaches, what we are professing to believe is the rule of the ecclesiastical magisterium, which consists of the body of truths that the Church has taught as de fide (of the faith) over the centuries; and all the truths that the Church has proposed as de fide are infallibly true.
 


A papal mandate was not required during the days of Clement IV and Gregory, but it is today.  That's the point.  He is rejecting the present law in favor of a past law, which is precisely what Leo XIII forbids.

In past centuries, the Pope permitted Patriarchs and even secular princes to appoint bishops and consecrate them (or have them consecrated in the case of a secular prince) without explicit permission from Rome.  They only had to notify Rome after the fact.  That law was abandoned after the Council of Trent, and for the past four centuries a papal mandate has been required.

So, contrary to what Bishops Pivarunas would like his readers to believe, the interregnum between the papacy of Clement and Gregory had nothing do with the legitimacy of the episcopal consecration that took place at the time. They were legitimate because they were legal - in accord with ecclesiastical law.

But there’s more to it than that.

When bishops were (lawfully) consecrated without a papal mandate in past centuries, they were immєdιαtely appointed to an episcopal see that had been legitimately established by a Pope.  They weren’t illicitly consecrated to be vagus bishops with no authority or canonical mission, who then established mass centers where they illicitly administered the sacraments.   This has always been a no no.

Listen to what Cardinal Billot wrote about those who administer the sacraments without a canonical mission and hence illicitly.
 
 

• The Latin term a fortiori is used to refer to an argument made from a previously made argument or previously proven fact. The original argument is considered to be stronger, or to come from a stronger basis than the second argument, therefore, the arguer presents the original claim to support his own, weaker claim.
• In other words, you do not believe we are living in apostasy and requires an emergency situation when an invalid ɛƖɛctıon was wrought, you believe God's enemies can elect His Vicar and God MUST not be given the benefit of the doubt in order for the Church to continue, although smaller.  

But there's a difference between ambiguous partial truths and heresy, and in the current crisis, when the distinction is not made, it ends in disaster.