CathInfo.com

RNW:
I can not buy this statement entirely.  Roman churchmen did not abandon "God's true Catholic religion" and adopt "man-made religion" immediately after the Council.   The church has been in serious decline for at least 500 years.  RNW has himself taught this in several of his own conferences from the past.  He outlines on a chalk board or a sheet of butcher paper simple linear graphs, much like a bell curve, the rise and subsequent precipitous decline of the Roman church, from at least the Middle Ages onward to the present.  So how can he infer that the Church suddenly fell off the cliff just after the Council?

I just think he meant that this is when it became "official". (i.e. during and after V2)

Maybe.  But I have noted over the years that sspx and "Resistance" bishops and priests focus in particularly on the errors of the post-V2 church, and virtually ignore what went on before.  Malachi Martin, in his book The Jesuits, chronicles the fall of the Jesuit order from way before V2.  We all know that Fr.Dhanis, a Jesuit, began his onslaught against the message of Fatima around 1944, long before V2 was even a twinkle in the eyes of liberal, modernist churchmen.  The holy monk Savanarola exposed the deep corruption of the city of Florence, both its ecclesial and civil government.  For his efforts he was put to death in 1498 under the direction of Pope Alexander VI.  Joan of Arc was handed over to British prelates by the corrupt French clergy in 1430; and we all know how that ended.  The seeds of decline were planted early and never, I believe, seriously confronted.

I think it would help if the RNW and other traditional Catholic clergy would point out from time to time, in some detail, how V2 was going to be the inevitable outcome from centuries of church abuse and corruption.  V2 did not happen in a vacuum.  We need to know some of the things which transpired in church history before it all became "official."