Imagine recognizing the V2 popes as true popes, and v2 as an ecuмenical council, but saying that an ecuмenical council of the church should “go to hell”. That is 100% a non Catholic position

I was thinking the same thing.

Michael Matt decries V2, saying "to hell with it."  Exactly right.  So why then doesn't Mr Mack at least speak out publicly against the obvious direction in which the SSPX is headed?  He still embraces Fellay(Pagliarani) & Co. who are, it seems, slouching inexorably towards fallen Rome.

For the same rea$on John Vennari didn’t.

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.

Imagine recognizing the V2 popes as true popes, and v2 as an ecuмenical council, but saying that an ecuмenical council of the church should “go to hell”. That is 100% a non Catholic position

And they're all canonized too!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
The Church has itself in a real pickle now.  :boxer:

And they're all canonized too!!!  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
The Church has itself in a real pickle now.  :boxer:

The Church (which is occupied by a Modernist sect) has been in a pickle for awhile now. That's not new.

Pope St. Pius X seriously warned about how Modernism had infiltrated the Church, and this he did over one hundred years ago. The problems started long before Vll.

X: For the same rea$on John Vennari didn’t.

Right.  But Mr. Matt has all but abandoned the V2 church, and the post-V2 "saints." So whatever it takes, he's going to be forced at some point in time to serve notice on the sspx that he is not in any way going to countenance or support the Society's move towards New Church.  To date he hasn't done that.  And the reason, which your post signals, is money.  The Remnant probably has a pretty substantial sspx subscriber base.
Does Matt wish to remain relevant among true traditional Catholics? Well then, Mr. Matt, put the editorial squeeze on Fellay & Co.    

Recall that Matt and his usual suspects lauded as a "Papal Masterstroke" Fr. Ratzinger's revision of the Missal of 1962 to suit the ѕуηαgσgυє of Satan.

http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2008-a_papal_masterstroke.htm