Thanks, BD.  This quote exposes Pax's lie.  Sadly, on this point at least, Paul VI is MORE CATHOLIC than a lot of the R&R folks here.

It is obvious that he certainly believes the rule of faith is the magisterium, unlike you who only say it is your rule of faith.

If the magisterium actually is your rule of faith, then it is with magisterial certainty that you must believe that Pope Paul VI is infallibly correct and all trads, including you, are indeed outside of the Church.

Stubbornian Logic --

assumes that the V2 popes are legitimate in order to prove that they are legitimate.

Premise 1:  V2 Popes are legitimate popes.
Premise 2: [insert any nonsense here, whether true or false]
Conclusion:  V2 Popes are legitimate popes.

No, I gave you logic, what is apparent, is you have no faith to see it.

FYI, it is illogical (not to mention iniquitous) to say the magisterium aka pope / hierarchy is your rule of faith, then say you don't believe the pope / hierarchy is the magisterium. 

Perhaps if you think of it along the lines of The Ten Commandments. We are bound to the commandments, not to Moses. We are bound to dogma, not to popes - ergo, the rule of faith is dogma, not the pope.

Stubborn, in the attached screenshot of Danzinger dogmatic definitions it is clearly read:

About the infallibility of the church dispersed throughout the world to propose the traditional doctrine of Christ. I have already translated it but for some reason, cannot copy it here so I am just attaching another screenshot where the doctrine is explained. See #1683. (this is because of your issue with the infallibility of bishops throughout the world).

Is this the translation you are trying to get? This is almost the same translation that Pope Pius IX taught in Tuas Libenter here. I see nothing whatsoever regarding the NO's "totality of bishops doctrine". This part teaches the absolute necessity of using dogma to refute errors.

1683 While, in truth, We laud these men with due praise because they professed the truth which necessarily arises from their obligation to the Catholic faith, We wish to persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all [see n. 1722]. And We persuade Ourselves, also, that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they recognized as absolutely necessary to attain true progress in the sciences and to refute errors, could be obtained if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church. For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.

This would be the answer:

2. A validly elected pope can not fall into heresy.

However, I do believe that it is within the realm of possibility that an impostor (or in this case, a marrano) can be elected to the Papacy as it occurred with antipope Clement VII or antipope Alexander V.

Thank you for the clear answer. Please bear with me, I am trying to fully understand your position.

Which of the following mutually exclusive statements is your position:

1. Immediately after the election of a pope, a Catholic can determine whether the election was valid, i.e. whether the elected is a valid pope or an imposter.

2. Immediately after the election of a pope, a Catholic cannot determine whether the election was valid, i.e. whether the elected is a valid pope or an imposter.

Paul VI, Address, May 24, 1976

It is so painful to take note of this: but how can we not see in such an attitude – whatever may be these people’s intentions – the placing of themselves outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore outside the Church?  For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, when, that is, it is held as preferable to disobey with the pretext of preserving one’s faith intact, and of working in one’s way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time refusing to give her effective obedience.  And this is said openly.  It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding: that the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives, that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions.  

As you see, Venerable Brothers, such an attitude sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock, and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith…

This whole address is full of half-truths and contradictions.  "Par for the course" for a modernist.  

1.  Traditionalism is not "outside of obedience/communion" with the Successor of St Peter.  They ARE outside of communion with 'new rome'.  Paul VI did not use his papal authority to AUTHORITATIVELY declare doctrine, nor did he teach with CERTAINTY OF FAITH.  Ergo, V2 requires only conditional assent.

2.  Name me ONE, just ONE, obligation that V2 imposes upon the faithful.  (hint, there is none).  Therefore, no Trad is "refusing to give her effective obedience".  Notice, too, that Paul VI talks in the 3rd person here.  He argues that Trads are not giving obedience to "her" (meaning the Church).  He does not say that Trads are disobeying "him", because he knows that he did not require any such obedience through V2.  MIND GAMES AND WORD TRICKERY!  What the modernists are known for...

Notice also, another common trick of new-rome - to use the false and novel idea of "collegiality" (i.e. the pope + all bishops) to confer some new type of "authority" which will replace the authority that Paul VI did not use, and knew he could not use, on V2 docuмents.  This is a way to confuse the faithful that the magisterium was "in effect" since the council was "ecuмenical" even though it was the first ecuмenical council EVER to fail to define anything.  The lack of definitions/canons/authority was the FIRST NOVELTY in a council FULL OF NOVELTIES.  It wasn't like ANY of the previous ecuмenical councils in any way, shape or form.  Anyone who will not admit this has no integrity.

3.  "It is affirmed (by Trads)...that V2 is not binding".  No, it's only affirmed that V2 requires "religious CONDITIONAL assent" and nothing more.  Modernists want to setup this binary, either-or, mindset where you either 1) accept V2 100% or 2) you reject it 100%.  "Religious conditional assent" doesn't work that way.  V2's docuмents don't read that way.  V2 theologians don't explain things that way.  Neither did Benedict XVI, when he was finally elected...he admitted that the "apparent errors" needed to be understood in the "light of tradition" and for those errors that cannot, that the Church will continue to let the Holy Ghost guide Her in explaining these apparent contradictions.  ...Still waiting 50 years later...

4.  (It is wrong to say) "that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions".  Well, again, disobedience does NOT enter into the conversation because V2 did not BIND anyone to believe anything "with certainty of faith", under "pain of sin" as a "matter of salvation".  All else is accepted CONDITIONALLY, and it is NOT wrong to "stick with tradition" when certain traditions are OBLIGATORY according to PRIOR INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUMS.

A full recognition of the Second Vatican Council and the Magisterium of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI himself is an indispensable condition for any future recognition of the Society of Saint Pius X…

Define "recognition".  Anyone who accepts V2 with 'religious conditional assent' recognizes it for what it is - a non-dogmatic, non-infallible, non-binding, non-authoritative, ambiguous collection of rambling, long-winded theoretical ideas on why/how the church should be "updated" at a pastoral level.
We are not bound to give it anymore recognition than that.

Joseph Ratzinger, The Ratzinger Report
 
It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II.  Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called ‘traditionalism’, also in its extreme forms.

One who gives V2 the required 'religious conditional assent' does not deny V2 nor the authority of the pope; they just realize that he did not USE his authority in the same manner as at Trent/Vatican I.  Ratzinger here tries to connect the authority of Trent/Vatican I with being equal to that of V2.  Of course, it's not, as he later admitted when he became pope.
----
Overall, when these modernists make accusations about 'obedience' and 'denial of authority' what they are really referring to is not V2, but the new mass.  V2 is the constitution which attempted to change the mentality of the faithful; the novus ordo is the vehicle to get them to ACTIVELY change.  V2 is related to ideals; the new mass is putting those ideals into practice.

It's really simple for someone to say "Hey, I accept V2 with conditional assent." and the modernists know that.  Because who can't accept the truths in V2 and say they "aren't sure" about the proposed novelties.  Anyone can do that.  And it's impossible to prove that one rejects a series of ambiguities.  

What they are referring to, when they talk about "obedience" is the rejection of the new mass, for the acceptance/rejection is measurable, actionable, and visual.  For them, the new mass is the "fruit" of V2, so to reject the new mass is to reject V2.  Of course, in their demented logic, V2 authorized a new missal and the new missal was authorized by V2 (not the pope's authority), which is a case of SUPER SPECTACULAR circular logic, and also a novel and never-before-seen-trick-of-a-lack-of-papal-authority and it violates Quo Primum (which Benedict XVI admitted was never abrogated and still in force).

So this explains what the modernists mean when they talk of "obedience".  They are referring to ACCEPTING the new mass, which is the culmination of their freemasonic, satanic plans to destroy the Church.  As Martin Luther said:  "If you destroy the mass, you destroy the Faith."

Yet the modernists don't have any arguments/facts to back up their assertions (and they know it, so they resort to half-truths, emotion and misdirection) - the new mass is wrong liturgically, legally and morally.  Both V2 and the new mass are not obligatory (and in many areas have already been condemned) so we Trads can, and should, ignore them as an attack on the Faith - in all the ways in which they change, trample upon and destroy the Traditions and Truths which are mysteriously taught through the Divine Sacrifice.