I sincerely would like to have in one place why any of you (Sede or non-Sede) consider the Vatican II teachings heresy and the post-Vatican II popes as heretics.

Could you please give support for your conclusions (if possible quotes from pre-VII teachings vs VII teachings)?  I think it would be helpful to me when I try to respond to the NO Catholics who will do anything and everything to defend them both.

They do do a good job with the false ecuмenism.  Reading through that just got me angry again.

They mention that Mortalium Animos is dogmatic.  Is it?  Is it infallible?  Can another pope change it?

Quote from: 2Vermont

They do do a good job with the false ecuмenism.  Reading through that just got me angry again.

They mention that Mortalium Animos is dogmatic.  Is it?  Is it infallible?  Can another pope change it?

Read the encyclical and see what matter it deals with.  Can a pope decide that it's okay to embrace a false religion in the name of "friendship"?  That's like saying a pope can approve a Catholic rejecting Christ, which no pope can do.  

I'm bugged by the post Vatican II disappearance of the word "Catholic" when referring to Catholics.  The Catholic faithful are now called people of God.  It sounds like a name change with the intention of a definition change down the road.

Oh I did.  It's just that a NO Catholic is trying to explain that circuмstances have changed (you know, therefore it's ok for popes to attend non-Catholic services).  So, I want to make sure that the encyclical is binding and can not be changed by future popes.

Mainly the heretical idea of being saved outside the Catholic Church in protestant and schismatic sects.

This relates to Ecuмenism.  

From Vatican II:

"The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fulness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church." (Decree on Oecuмenism Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph 3)

This clearly contradicts the infallible teaching from the Council of Florence under Pope Eugene IV (1441):

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her..."

What does "which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church" mean?

Another heretical idea from Vatican II that also relates to Ecunemism is the civil right for religious liberty, which clearly would undermine the need for evangelization and the spread of false religions and doctrines, even if they are opposed to the Catholic teaching .

From Vatican II:

"The Council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person... This right to religious freedom is to be recognised in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right."2 (Declaration on Religious Liberty Dignitatis Humanae, paragraph 2)

This contradicts the words of Pope Pius IX's in Quanta Cura (1864):

 "And from this wholly false idea of social organisation they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by our predecessor, Gregory XVI, insanity, namely that the liberty of conscience and worship is the proper right of every man, and should be proclaimed by law in every correctly established society... Each and every doctrine individually mentioned in this letter, by Our Apostolic authority We reject, proscribe and condemn; and We wish and command that they be considered as absolutely rejected by all the sons of the Church."

I. VATICAN COUNCIL II: Convoked by John XXIII for the purpose of “updating” the Church, this council (held from 1962-65) decreed and implemented teachings which had been previously condemned by the Infallible Teaching Magisterium of the Church. The Second Vatican Council’s heretical teachings were primarily in the areas of religious liberty and false ecuмenism. These were previously condemned by:

   Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos (1832)
   Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura and Syllabus of Errors (1864)
   Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei (1865) and Libertas Humana (1888)
   Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas (1925) and Mortalium Animos (1928)
   Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis (1943)

THEREFORE, the Second Vatican Council is to be rejected as a false council because it has erred in its teachings on faith and morals.

II. NOVUS ORDO MISSAE: Following the Second Vatican Council, various commissions were established to modernize the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the traditional rites of the Sacraments. The particular commission established to modernize the Mass included well-known Protestant theologians. To use the words of a well-known Cardinal, Alfredo Ottaviani, in 1969: “(The Novus Ordo Missae) represents a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.” The results of this modernization were a new definition of the Mass (reflecting Luther’s concept of the Last Supper), the alteration of the Offertory prayers to delete the concept of propitiatory Sacrifice, and the substantial alteration of the very words of Consecration (this alteration occurs in the vernacular translations). This new mass, known as the Novus Ordo Missae, contradicts previous infallible teachings and decrees of the Catholic Church, such as:

   Pope St. Pius V’s Quo Primum and De Defectibus,
   the Council of Trent’s decree on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (Session XXII),
   Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae (1896),
   Pope Pius XII’s Mediator Dei (1947),
   Pope Pius XII’s Sacramentum Ordinis (1948).

THEREFORE, the Novus Ordo Missae, when offered with the altered words of Consecration, is an invalid Mass and in all other cases it is of doubtful validity. It always is a clear danger to one’s faith. For all these reasons, active participation in it would be a grave sin.

III. NEW RITES OF THE SACRAMENTS: That which has been said of the Novus Ordo Missae can, in the same respect, be said of the new Vatican II rites for the seven sacraments. To the degree that the matter, form and intention of each of the sacraments has been substantially altered, to that degree their validity must be questioned. The Catholic Church has, most certainly, always taught what the proper matter, form and intention are in the confecting of the sacraments.

THEREFORE, where the new rites have been employed, traditional priests should administer the Sacraments sub conditione as the situation may demand.

IV. MODERN VATICAN II CHURCH: The Catholic Church is identified as the true Church of Christ by her four marks (Unity, Holiness, Catholicity, and Apostolicity). Since the heretical teachings of Vatican II, the Novus Ordo Missae, and the new rites of the sacraments have manifestly been a departure from the Catholic Church’s traditional teachings, it must be concluded that this modern so-called “Catholic” Church no longer possesses the first two marks of the true Church — namely, Unity and Holiness. Its obvious departure over the past twenty-five years from what the Catholic Church has always held can lead to only one conclusion: a new ecuмenical Church has been established which stands in contradiction to the true Catholic Church.

V. MODERN HIERARCHY OF THE VATICAN II CHURCH: In the light of the above, it must be concluded that the modern hierarchy who have approved and implemented the errors of Vatican II no longer represent the Catholic Church and her lawful authority. This most certainly includes the one who confirmed, approved, decreed, and implemented these heretical teachings, namely Paul VI (Montini). Likewise included are his successors, namely, John Paul II (Wojtyla), Benedict XVI (Ratzinger) and Francis (Bergoglio), who have continued to implement these heretical teachings. Despite the lack of canonical warning and formal declaration of loss of office, their repeated acts of ecuмenism and their enforcement of the heresies of Vatican II and the new code of Canon Law, which are injurious to faith and morals, are manifestations of their pertinacity in heresy.

THEREFORE, as the First Vatican Council infallibly teaches: “‘Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My Church,’ these words are proven true by actual results, since in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted...the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of Our Lord.” And since these “popes” have manifestly taught heresy, promoted ecuмenism and fostered interfaith worship, they clearly cannot be recognized as a successor of St. Peter in the primacy.

VI. THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW: In order to implement the teachings of Vatican II, it was necessary that the modernists change the Code of Canon Law (1917), as it contradicted their designs by reflecting the mind of the Church in her past doctrine and discipline. The new code contains a matter which should be most disturbing to the informed Catholic. According to the new law of the Modern Church, non-Catholics can, under certain circuмstances, petition the “sacraments” from a Catholic priest (without the non-Catholic abjuring his heretical beliefs), and the priests must administer them. The Council of Florence, as well as the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 731), strictly forbids this.

THEREFORE, as the universal laws of the Church are protected by her infallibility and cannot impose obligations opposed to faith and morals, the New Code must be considered as lacking all force of law. Moreover, it has been promulgated by those who no longer represent Catholic authority.

The above extract is from CMRI's Theological Position statement at
http://www.cmri.org/sedevacantist-position.shtml

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Cantarella

Mainly the heretical idea of being saved outside the Catholic Church in protestant and schismatic sects.

This relates to Ecuмenism.  

From Vatican II:

"The separated churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fulness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church." (Decree on Oecuмenism Unitatis Redintegratio, paragraph 3)

This clearly contradicts the infallible teaching from the Council of Florence under Pope Eugene IV (1441):

"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jєωs and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with her..."

What does "which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church" mean?

Good question!

Perhaps this part of the sentence has to do with "invincible ignorance"?

Somebody knows?

I hope someone can explain it.  I'm thinking that it is this phrase that the NO Catholics would say is where the Church is still saying that salvation comes from the Catholic Church.  I'm not sure how that happens but if I remember correctly, I think VII teaches that one doesn't have to be an actual, physical member.  That a person, if saved, is saved spiritually by the Catholic Church?

It just so happens that today I received from Amazon a copy of a book which seems relevant to this enquiry.

See: Lumen Gentium Annotated

It is described as an examination of the hundreds of errors contained in Lumen Gentium. I have not yet read it, so obviously I cannot comment at the moment on its polemical value.

The author or authors, appear to be in earnest.
The print version of this 334-page book is being sold at cost.
There appears to be a Kindle version costing peanuts, and a copy of the text that can be downloaded from Scribd for free. See: Text download