FC allows people to join under pseudonyms. If you are afraid to do that there is something wrong.
 
When sedes discuss the issues on this website they are eventually censored or banned before they are finished making their point. I have seen it over and over and over again on here over the years. SSPXers are brazen on here because they know they can have a person banned as "dogmatic" before being publicly disproven. They sing a totally different tune on FC where they know they don't have that luxury.
 

Yes, some sedes here have been censored or banned. But there remain quite a few sedes on this forum. Haven't you noticed that?

Sedes can say whatever nutty thing they want to on a sede forum. It doesn't matter to me. But this isn't a sede forum. 

1.  It does not matter if the pope is a heretic or not, I must still save my soul.  No one, not even the pope, can command me to accept error.

Your false premise here is that it's possible for the Pope to teach error to the Universal Church in the first place.  I'm not talking about a simple "command" ... which you guys always conflate with Magisterium.  If he commanded you personally to embrace an error, then your statement is obviously true.  But, in the case of the Universal Magisterium, it's a case of a Pope teaching something to the Universal Church where HE claims it is true and not erroneous, while you on the other hand claim that it's erroneous.  So you're making your private judgment trump that of the Pope and the Magisterium.

haven't read everythying here

but

I'd be a lot more proud if I could be a lot more Traditionalist

I don't even know where the nearest one to me is but it is at least 50 miles or so away (and there are other obstacles)

Where do you live (general area)?  I would be that there are some options for you.

Oh, they most certainly did claim to have been guided by the Holy Ghost.  Whether they intended to define anything is a separate issue.

At the end of each Vatican II docuмent we read:
One might notice also the term "DECREE" in the text.

General Councils ratified by a Pope cannot err, simply because of the fact that they represent the Universal Church. "Concilium generale representat ecclesiam universalem"

It is not the semantics involved which make them infallible, or even the particular reason or intention of the Council; but the assistance of the Holy Ghost promised to the Universal Church which prevents a legitimate Council from teaching error.

But, in the case of the Universal Magisterium, it's a case of a Pope teaching something to the Universal Church where HE claims it is true

The Universal Magisterium is only engaged when the Pope is making it clear that a truth agrees with Tradition and has been UNIVERSALLY taught throughout the centuries.  Only truths which are consistent with “what has always been taught” are part of the faith.  

You incorrectly use the term to mean he’s speaking to the WORLD-WIDE Church.  

Also, every Roman official who’s ever been interviewed on the topic says that V2 only requires ‘religious CONDITIONAL assent’ and not ‘certainty of faith’.  They freely admit there are new ideals in it.  They freely admit we are allowed to question the novelties.    Does a teaching from the Holy Spirit only require CONDITIONAL assent?  Does God's religion change its doctrines over time?  Does God allow us to question a divine truth?

The Traditional teaching of the Church is that Ecunemical Councils require absolute obedience. If you disagree, then please find a pre-Vatican II Catholic resource which teaches otherwise.

This is about the 4th time I’ve posted this quote and you dodge it everytime.  It’s from 1927.

From Sylvester Berry's The Church of Christ (1927), pp. 458-9.
"Bishops assembled in council are infallible only when exercising their supreme authority as teachers of faith or morals by a definite and irrevocable decree that a doctrine is revealed and, therefore, to be accepted by every member of the Church. (1)  But since the bishops need not intend such an irrevocable decision at all times, it is necessary that an infallible definition be so worded as to indicate clearly its definitive character.  For this purpose no set formula is necessary; it is sufficient to mention the doctrine as an article of faith, a dogma of faith, a Catholic dogma, a doctrine always believed in the Church, or a doctrine handed down by the Fathers.  Anathema pronounced against those who deny a doctrine is also sufficient evidence of a dogmatic definition.

A large majority of the acts of councils are not infallible definitions, because they are not intended as such.  "Neither the discussions which precede a dogmatic decree, nor the reasons alleged to prove and explain it, are to be accepted as infallibly true.  Nothing but the actual decrees are of faith, and these only if they are intended as such." (2)

d) Since infallibility is due to mere assistance of the Holy Ghost, human agencies should be employed to discover and understand the truth to be defined, but the certitude of the definitiondoes not depend upon the previous investigation made by the bishops of the council, nor upon their skill and learning.  Failure to make proper investigation would be sinful on the part of the bishops, but the Holy Ghost can and does prevent all error in the actual definition, even though all investigation has been neglected, or false reasons adduced to prove the doctrine."

So you are resisting Rome, yet trusting the authority of current "Roman officials"?

The Traditional teaching of the Church is that Ecunemical Councils require absolute obedience. If you disagree, then please find a pre-Vatican II Catholic resource which teaches otherwise.

You keep claiming that it is the infallible judgement of the Church that all General Councils are infallible. This leaves us all only two options Cantarella:

1) V2 is infallible
2) The Church does not teach that all General Councils are infallible.

There is no third option.