What if you want to just be prudent, and make no bold or rash moves? After all, saying I refuse to depose the Pope isn't the same as affirming with an oath that he is Pope. The default position for Catholics is to assume validity of a Papacy that has been universally accepted by the Church. And Vatican II was taken over at the beginning and explicitly rejected the protection of the Holy Ghost, instead opting for the novel status of "pastoral council" whatever that means. It was a robber council. I agree with him - to Hell with Vatican II. The docuмents can all go back to the price of darkness from whence they came.
You have so many theological problems in the comment, I don’t even know where to begin.
1. The universal acceptance argument is kinda out the windo because
A. There is a significant chance that Roncalli was a Freemason, rendering his election invalid
B. cuм ex squashed universal acceptance for heresy
C. The language council clearly shows it is ecuмenical
D. The now “saint” Paul VI signed his name to every docuмent and are implying he is a heretic
E. The Hoky see is judged by no one so you are in schism if the Novus Ordo “popes” are true
F. Even if v2 is “pastoral”, it is still a part of the UOM of the church and calling it heretical is calling those who accept it formal heretics.