Archbishop Vigano has said that he accepts Vatican II as a legitimate ecuмenical council of the Church, "but different." It is a bit confusing, therefore, to read him in the quotes below suggesting that V2 only used the form and/or appearance of a council, but bereft of the substance of an ecuмenical council, and moreover, that an ecuмenical council can be tossed into the dustbin altogether. Perhaps the seeming equivocation is a subjective misunderstanding on my own part. Nevertheless, I wanted to provide these quotes, as I believe they provide a way out of the conciliar quagmire, and provide a pathway for a future pope to anathematize Vatican II altogether, namely by declaring:
1) Although V2 used the form of an ecuмenical council, it was actually a "conciliabolo" (i.e., devlish council; false council), like Pistoia, but on a worldwide scale;
2) But it lacked the substance of a proper ecuмenical council (i.e., the assistance of th eHoly Ghost to protect it from error, and no dogmatic definitions);
3) Nothing in its pronouncements is therefore properly magisterial (as though false doctrines contradicting the magisterium could be magisterial);
4) Consequently, by our supreme apostolic authority, we declare Vatican II anathema, and likewise anathematize all pseudo-magisterial works (e.g., rites, encyclicals, 1983 CIC; etc.) derived from hat "conciliabolo."
Pertinent quotes from Archbishop Vigano:
"I believe that there is no lack of eminent personalities who have expressed, better than me, critical viewpoints of the Council. There are those who believe that it would be less complicated and certainly wiser to follow the practice of the Church and the Popes as it applied to the Synod of Pistoia [a diocesan Synod in Pistoia, Italy in 1786, later condemned on 85 points by Pope Pius VI in Rome on August 28, 1794]: there was something good in this Synod as well, but the errors it affirmed were considered sufficient to let it fall into oblivion."
-Interview with Dies Irae, 4/22/20: https://insidethevatican.com/news/newsflash/letter-8-vigano-on-the-unrevealed-third-secret-of-fatima/
"On closer inspection, never in the history of the Church has a Council presented itself as such a historic event that it was different from any other council: there was never talk of a “spirit of the Council of Nicea” or the “spirit of the Council of Ferrara-Florence,” even less the “spirit of the Council of Trent,” just as we never had a “post-conciliar” era after Lateran IV or Vatican I."
-Regarding the Position of +Schneider on Vatican II, 6/9/20:https://www.catholicity.com/vigano/2020-06-09.html
"Among other things, this Council has proven to be the only one that has caused so many interpretative problems and so many contradictions with respect to the preceding Magisterium, while there is not one other council – from the Council of Jerusalem to Vatican I – that does not harmonize perfectly with the entire Magisterium or that needs so much interpretation."
-Ibid.
"The mere fact that Vatican II is susceptible to correction ought to be sufficient to declare its oblivion as soon as its most obvious errors are seen with clarity. Not by chance does Professor Pasqualucci call it a “conciliabolo [devilish council],” like the Synod of Pistoia, which merited the condemnation of the entire synod beyond the mere condemnation of the individual errors which it taught. I make my own his statement: “After having clearly highlighted the procedural subterfuges and the errors against the Faith scattered throughout the docuмents, a Pope could very well finally quash the entire Council, ‘thereby confirming his brethren in the Faith.’ This would fall perfectly within his summa potestas iurisdictionis over the entire Church, iure divino. The Council is not superior to the Pope. If the Council has deviated from the Faith, the Pope has the power to invalidate it. Indeed, it is his duty.”
-Letter of Vatican II, 6/14/20: https://www.catholicity.com/vigano/2020-06-14.html
"I do not think that it is necessary to demonstrate that the Council represents a problem: the simple fact that we are raising this question about Vatican II and not about Trent or Vatican I seems to me to confirm a fact that is obvious and recognized by everyone. In reality, even those who defend the Council with swords drawn find themselves doing so apart from all the other previous ecuмenical councils, of which not even one was ever said to be a pastoral council. And note that they call it “the Council” par excellence, as if it was the one and only council in the entire history of the Church, or at least considering it as an unicuм whether because of the formulation of its doctrine or for the authority of its magisterium. It is a council that, differently from all those that preceded it, called itself a pastoral council, declaring that it did not want to propose any new doctrine, but which in fact created a distinction between before and after, between a dogmatic council and a pastoral council..."
.......
"In this sense, I believe that the problem of the infallibility of the Magisterium (the inerrancy you mention is properly a quality of Sacred Scripture) does not even arise, because the Legislator, that is, the Roman Pontiff around whom the Council was convened, solemnly and clearly affirmed that he did not want to use the doctrinal authority which he could have exercised if he wanted."
.......
"There is another equivocation that must be clarified. If on the one hand John XXIII and Paul VI declared that they did not want to commit the Council to the definition of new doctrines and wanted it to limit itself to being only pastoral, on the other hand it is true that externally—mediatically or in the media, we would say today—the emphasis given to its acts was enormous. This emphasis served to convey the idea of a presumed doctrinal authority, of an implicit magisterial infallibility, even though these were clearly excluded right from the beginning."
-Interview with Phil Lawler, 6/26/20: https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=12379
"For the Innovators maliciously managed to put the label “Sacrosanct Ecuмenical Council” on their ideological manifesto, just as, at a local level, the Jansenists who maneuvered the Synod of Pistoia had managed to cloak with authority their heretical theses, which were later condemned by Pius VI.
On the one hand, Catholics look at the form of the Council and consider its acts to be an expression of the Magisterium. Consequently, they seek to read its substance, which is clearly ambiguous or even erroneous, in keeping with the analogy of faith, out of that love and veneration that all Catholics have towards Holy Mother Church. They cannot comprehend that the Pastors have been so naïve as to impose on them an adulteration of the Faith, but at the same time they understand the rupture with Tradition and try to explain this contradiction.
The modernist, on the other hand, looks at the substance of the ʀɛʋօʟutιօnary message he means to convey, and in order to endow it with an authoritativeness that it does not and should not have, he “magisterializes” it through the form of the Council, by having it published in the form of official acts. He knows well that he is forcing it, but he uses the authority of the Church – which under normal conditions he despises and rejects – to make it practically impossible to condemn those errors, which have been ratified by no less than the majority of the Synod Fathers. The instrumental use of authority for purposes opposed to those that legitimize it is a cunning ploy: on the one hand, it guarantees a sort of immunity, a “canonical shield” for doctrines that are heterodox or close to heresy; on the other hand, it allows sanctions to be imposed on those who denounce these deviations, by virtue of a formal respect for canonical norms."
-Reflection on Kwasniewski's Essay, 9/21/20: https://insidethevatican.com/news/newsflash/letter-25-monday-september-21-2020-the-debate-continues/
.......
"The central vice therefore lies in having fɾαυdulently led the Council Fathers to approve ambiguous texts – which they considered Catholic enough to deserve the placet – and then using that same ambiguity to get them to say exactly what the Innovators wanted. Those texts cannot today be changed in their substance to make them orthodox or clearer: they must simply be rejected – according to the forms that the supreme Authority of the Church shall judge appropriate in due course – since they are vitiated by a malicious intention. And it will also have to be determined whether an anomalous and disastrous event such as Vatican II can still merit the title of Ecuмenical Council, once its heterogeneity compared to previous councils is universally recognized— a heterogeneity so evident that it requires the use of a hermeneutic, something that no other Council has ever needed."
-Ibid