Archbishop Lefebvre was all over the place about the council and the Pope. You can carefully pick his writings and give the impression that he favours this or that position. He never fully accepted the council, but, at times, he was very soft about it. Especially when he expected to make some kind of deal with the modernists.

I believe that the fair thing to do is to judge him and his position like God does. God judges you based on your position towars Him just before you die.

What I mean is that we should see what he said in his final years, after the 1988 consecrations. 

If you do that, I believe that you will see clearly that, in the end, he rejected Vatican II and all its ramifications. He gave up on expecting anything from the modernists in 1988.

In a certain sense, this is the main question that opposes the Neo-SSPX and the Resistance.

The present day SSPX insists that Archbishop Lefebvre would accept a deal with the modernists, if it was a satisfactory one. Bp. Williamson and his group say the opposite.

In the new interview with Bishop Hounder, the statement is given that Archbishop Lefebvre was disposed to accept the entirety of Vatican II.  Bishop Fellay is comfortable in saying that he's simply following the Archbishop when he accepts 95% of Vatican II.  Those of us who grew up in the old SSPX have certainly heard that we do not accept Vatican II at all.  What is the 'percentage of acceptability' of Vatican II?

We cannot reject Vatican II in every single line of the docuмents.  The council quotes Trent and other sources that require our belief.  What percentage of the council falls under that category?  Perhaps 5%.  The description of papal infallibility in Vatican II is very beautiful, for example, which doesn't help the fact that a few lines down, that infallibility is more or less pushed aside.

The great bulk of Vatican II quite resembles the post-conciliar encyclicals in the respect that, whereas for 19 centuries the popes and councils spoke very succinctly, getting straight to the point without an abundance of words, Vatican II rambles on and on and on, for pages and pages, flooding the reader with words that don't really say much at all.  I once heard this category described as 'microwaved doctrine'.  Or think of a giant inflatable.  The docuмents are huge, but just read them; almost nothing but thin air within.  This is certainly 90% of the council.  Ambiguity prevails, as well as the stinky breath of the Revolution, though it is possible to interpret these lines in a Catholic sense.  These lines do not need to be rejected, but if we had a good pope, he would throw the whole thing in the garbage simply because of it's uselessness.  Why give such a huge pile of blah-blah-blah the dignity of getting attention?  This is without even going into the possibility of un-Catholic interpretations of these lines.

What remains is 5%.  This category is the really problematic content.  For example, "The Moslems together with us adore one merciful God."  Or, "The Holy Ghost does not refrain from using the efforts of the protestant churches as means of salvation".  There are about 40 different lines as terrible as these.  No amount of mental gymnastics can help you twist these lines into a Catholic interpretation.

Why, then, would the Archbishop say time and again that he was ready to sign an acceptance of Vatican II?  Even when he took back his initials from the Protocol of '88 it was not because he had changed his mind on this point (rather, it was to prevent the administration of the Society from being turned over to Modernist wolves).

The Archbishop did not mean that he could accept the evil statements at face value.  He specified that because of the Explanatory Note in Lumen Gentium, he could indeed sign below the council taken as a whole.  The Note, which was asked for by Archbishop Lefebvre during the council, and which Paul VI inserted into the official docuмent, says, "... the sacred Council [!?!] defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding".  Well, the council and the conciliar popes many times and clearly stated that they refused to proclaim anything as binding.  To make the Note more succinct, it says, "none of this council must be accepted".  It is there in the council itself!

It was with this Note in view that Archbishop Lefebvre declared himself ready to sign the council as a whole.  Let's see the Neo-SSPX or Bishop Hounder give this explanation!

The less precise a mind is, the more words it takes to express itself.

You can't deconstruct Vatican II and read it sentence by sentence, but it must be viewed as a whole.  This is like saying I have a book by some Eastern Orthodox or Protestant that might be 90% OK.  What's important is that even the statements that happen to be materially true are now put into the new "context".  Why else does V2 have to re-state prior Church teaching?  It's because it's putting prior Church teaching into the context of the new mentality and the new Modernist-subjectivist mindset.  It's one thing to say that "There are Three Divine Persons in One God" and present it as required for belief, and another thing to say that [it happens to be our view that] "There are three Divine Persons in One God".  In both cases, the statement is true, but in the former you're presenting its "theological note", so to speak, as a dogma that's objectively required for belief and for salvation, but in the latter you're presenting it as, "this in our opinion is the fullness of truth, but it's OK for you to also not believe this, as we respect Muslims, Jєωs, etc."  It's one thing to present a dogma as objectively true and another to present it as closest to the truth but still evolving toward greater trueness (ala de Chardin and the other Modernists).

What's at issue isn't the material truth or falsehood of statements that you can sit down and run math on.  What's at issue is the entire theological context or framework in which the truths are presented.

So, going back to my analogy with a Prot.  Prot might say, "Yes, there are Three Persons in One God."  Materially correct.  Problem is that the Prot holds this to be true because he derived it from Sacred Scripture using his private judgment, and his formal motive is completely flawed.  So materially correct, but formally incorrect.  Same thing with Vatican II.  Statements that may be materially correct are rendered formally incorrect due to the warped subjectivist/Modernist formal motive of belief.  In both the case of the Prot and of Vatican II, the REASON we believe these things is different than the Traditional Catholic view.

In the Vatican II perspective on the Holy Trinity, it's what we happen to hold true, but if you don't accept it, it doesn't mean that your beliefs are not true also.  It's a question of degress of truth and relative trueness.  Ours is more relatively true than yours, but this doesn't mean that your beliefs are untrue.  Ours are just MORE true than yours are.  THIS is is why Traditional Catholic truths are restated materially, so that they can be respun in the new subjectivist/Modernist context.

Vatican II admitted as much, claiming that they were not teaching anything "new" but presenting it in a "new way".  This mode of presentation, the subjectivist/Modernist mode of presentation, pollutes the entirety of Catholic doctrine.

This is very solidly established Catholic doctrine.  It's not necessary simply to MATERIALLY adhere to true propositions, but the FORMAL MOTIVE of belief has to be correct and true.  I can't believe in the Holy Trinity because I discerned it from Sacred Scripture.  I must believe in the Holy Trinity due to the formal motive of the Church having taught it.  This is the reason for the teaching that if you deny one dogma you deny them all.  You could accept 99.9% of Catholic dogma ... or, as +Fellay says of V2, 95% of Catholic dogma ... but if you reject just ONE of 1,000 dogmas, you reject them all.  Why?  Because you do not have the correct formal motive for the remaining 95% or 99.9%.  So the formal pollution of Vatican II renders all of Vatican II untrue.

Vatican II might be 95% materially correct.
Eastern Orthodox might be 90% materially correct.
Some Prots might be 75% materially correct.
Other Prots might be 50% materially correct.
Muslims might be 20% materially correct.
Jєωs might be 15% materially correct.

Isn't this PRECISELY the vision of Vatican II, that things can admit of degrees of correctness?  +Fellay speaking about the 95% correct is unwittingly (or not?) acquiescing to the entire new Vatican II theological framework, that there are degrees of truth based on the percentage of material propositions that happened to be correct, regardless of whether or not the entire formal framework is polluted?

Traditional Catholics would holy that ONLY the Catholic faith is correct, that formally speaking it's all or nothing.  It's only with Vatican II that this notion or partial (material) correctness became "a thing".

Yup.  It goes hand in hand with the "partial communion" theology.

Yup.  It goes hand in hand with the "partial communion" theology.

Yes, to buy that "95% correct" means something is essentially to buy all of Vatican II in a nutshell.  You have to actually have the V2 perspective to make that statement.

According to Paul VI you have to accept VII with docility as official Ordinary Magisterium:

"it still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful"

see here for more:
https://novusordowatch.org/2020/07/how-taylor-marshall-distorts-paul6-on-vatican2/


The RR position does not accept with docility VII's "teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium".  That's schism.  It's pick and choose protestantism.


Failure to accept with docility the Ordinary Magisterium is schism:


Pope Pius XI put it in his encyclical, Mortalium Animos, “Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successsors.”


If you accept Paul VI as a legitimate successor you have to accept, recognize and obey ALL of VII.  You cannot pick and choose like a protestant or you are in schism.

If VII says you worship the same god as Muslims, you have to accept, recognize and obey with docility.

The pope is only infallible under very precise conditions. When a pope says something wrong and tries to label it 'ordinary magisterium', you simply ignore him, as Pius IX said.  Paul VI was not the first heretical pope in Church history.