I personally do not recommend reading any of the V2 docs except perhaps for reference or evidence. Leave that to those versed well enough in the faith that they can read it without getting their brains washed.  

I needed to read them. Not because I do not trust this community's comments but because I want to be responsible for my actions and beliefs.

Yes, you are correct, the language is, simply put, ghastly!

I finished reading the Vatican II docuмents. It was a monstrous task and it took me a whole month.

A few comments.

1. I wish I had not wasted my time.

2. These docuмents are way too long and unreadable;

3. I have read only quotes of previous papal encyclica, synods and councils but it is evident that this docuмent is designed to be vague.

4. I cannot detect (but I admit my ignorance) any single doctrine or teaching that conflicts with dogma. I ordered books from angelus press and other publishers (recommended earlier in other threads) but, in all honestly, after one month of reading Vatican II, I would really appreciate if someone would spare me more reading and offer me a bullet point list of dogmatic violations of V2. Not misinterpretations or vagueness but clear heresy.

5. It is clear now, to me, that drafting these docuмents the paramount objective was creating confusion as they are too vague and open to interpretation. At the bottom I post a few passages (*) that could even show how the SSPX criticism to V2 is unjustified as these passages protect the very doctrines that SSPX affirms that V2 attacks.

6. The problem with the docuмents that I read is what a member earlier on proved with quotes (bait and switch). All quotes (*) are later or earlier watered down, or exceptions are allowed or, more often, they are quoted pretextually or even used to be misinterpreted.

For example, the last quote is from Lumen Gentum and can be bypassed by affirming that a hindu can be saved because - with crazy interpretations - he is our Church! Another example, the first quote from Sacrosanctum Concilium, Chapter I, paragraph III (a) can be wrongly interpreted to say that liturgy CAN be changed, as long as the Bishop does not openly censor the changes that a parish priest may introduce... and so on. If the first Lumen Gentum quote read, instead:

Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, teaches that full communion with the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism, as through a door, men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to will not enter or to remain in it, could not be saved. 


And the other quote, Sacrosanctum Concilium, Chapter I, paragraph III (a), could read:

Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop…. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority unless explcitly authorized in writing and unless such authorization adheres in word and spirit the infallible truths of our Church


Kindly help me with point (4).




-----------------------------------
(*)
> Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop…. Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority
> The use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites
> The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services
> But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head. This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff
> Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism, as through a door, men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved

Having had to study V2 docs ad nauseaum during my theological studies, it was a blessed relief to commit all my notes and handouts, and the V2 books to a fiery grave. A Fahrenheit 451 TradCat version. Quite the satisfying experience.(wickedly righteous grin)

Hello Nadir, I cannot find it at a reasonable price! I have been looking everywhere online.

A < 1-minute search revealed that Carmel-Books.org has it for $30 shipped to the U.S.

This note may help because Fr. Hesse convinces me that Vatican II isn't  a council.  If I understand the argument, I can sum it up this way.  To be a council, an episcopal synod needs to use extraordinary Magisterium to define dogmas, condemn heresies, or speak against current falsehoods.  Vatican II did none of that.  So Vatican II was not a council.  Since that's a modus tollens argument, if the remises are true, the conclusion is true, too, and it follows from them.



Here's the theological note about Vatican II.

https://www.fisheaters.com/notapraevia.html