Cardinal, Bishop?, LOL, it just shows you how much I read from Vatican II people. Which is my point. There is nothing wrong with what GL wrote, just like there is nothing wrong with most of what JPII, B-16, Athanasius Schneider, Castrillon-Hoyos, and all of Vatican II. As a matter of fact, people are still debating even here whether there is anything wrong with Vatican II.
My point should more clearly be seen by even the blind by now. Do not quote any GL here, unless one is Poche and going to quote JPII, B-16, Athanasius Schneider, Castrillon-Hoyos, and all of Vatican II.
I'd go with another teacher from a better time, there's 19 centuries and innumerable saints to choose from.
"Paul, there's like, 19 centuries of faithful Jewish leaders to quote from. Why did you have to quote that random Cretan poet who was almost certainly a pagan."
And why did St Thomas Aquinas quote Aristotle. Man was a total pagan, ya know?
As for the first two words, unless you're referencing something else, we get that Sedevacantists aren't gonna think these people are bishops, and sedeplenists will. I don't see how that's a "Vatican II thing" unless sedeplenism in general is a Vatican II thing. There's also a spectrum of thought on Vatican II that's not as black and white as "there's nothing wrong, nothing to see here" and its polar opposite. Vatican II was really vague, and to everyone's detriment.