So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion (First Vatican Council, Pastor aeternus, cap. 4 §2)
Anyone on this site still believe Lefebvre was wrong and this Pontiff was right?
Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals." But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church. (Bl. Pius IX, Quanta Cura)
For this reason John, Bishop of Constantinople, solemnly declared-and the entire Eighth Ecumenical Council did so later—"that the names of those who were separated from communion with the Catholic Church, that is of those who did not agree in all matters with the Apostolic See, are not to be read out during the sacred mysteries." This plainly meant that they did not recognize those men as true Catholics. All these traditions dictate that whoever the Roman Pontiff judges to be a schismatic for not expressly admitting and reverencing his power must stop calling himself Catholic.Since this does not please the neo-schismatics, they follow the example of heretics of more recent times. They argue that the sentence of schism and excommunication pronounced against them by the Archbishop of Tyana, the Apostolic Delegate in Constantinople, was unjust, and consequently void of strength and influence. They have claimed also that they are unable to accept the sentence because the faithful might desert to the heretics if deprived of their ministration. These novel arguments were wholly unknown and unheard of by the ancient Fathers of the Church. (Bl. Pius IX, Quartus Supra §9-10)
We therefore severely forbid the said Expilly and the other wickedly elected and illicitly consecrated men, under this punishment of suspension, to assume episcopal jurisdiction or any other authority for the guidance of souls since they have never received it. They must not grant dimissorial letters for ordinations. Nor must they appoint, depute, or confirm pastors, vicars, missionaries, helpers, functionaries, ministers, or others, whatever their title, for the care of souls and the administration of the Sacraments under any pretext of necessity whatsoever. Nor may they otherwise act, decree, or decide, whether separately or united as a council, on matters which relate to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. For We declare and proclaim publicly that all their dimissorial letters and deputations or confirmations, past and future, as well as all their rash proceedings and their consequences, are utterly void and without force. (Pius VI, Charitas §24)
There is clearly a disconnect between what's going on under the aegis of the present Vatican apparatus and formal pronouncements of the Catholic Church. Allowing Hindu priests to use Catholic auspices to pray to pagan gods is clearly not Catholic--and not all the citations from past councils and popes in the world can squeeze this square peg into a round hole.
By the way, I notice you don't use bold fonts to highlight the exception pronounced by Pius IX: "SO ONLY IT DOES NOT TOUCH THE DOMATA OF FAITH AND MORALS." You might also have quoted his famous admonition that when a pope does not teach Catholic doctrine, we should not follow him.
Moreover, you are again deceiving others by quoting the passage on schism which cannot possibly refer to Archbishop Lefebvre. In fact, the Pope showed his intolerance for Catholic Tradition by asserting a schism had occurred that hadn't. He did so in a letter--not formally--and said so wrongly, since no member of SSPX has ever denied papal authority--though the SSPX DID deny that this Pope was orthodox and it DID defend against his heterodox assault on Catholic Tradition and the ancient Mass in particular. For this we should give thanks--and judge this Pope as he deserves to be judged--as someone who has done and is still doing great damage to the Church.
John Paul II is probably a material heretic. That does not mean he is a formal heretic--which would mean the chair of Peter is vacant--but it does mean he should not be followed in his radical ecumenism which is syncretic and indifferentist--offenses condemned by preconciliar pontiffs. This pontificate is pushing an agenda that has nothing whatever to do with Catholicism or the salvation of souls and is an attempt to establish a new pan-religion by means of the destruction of whatever is specifically and uniquely Catholic. This is heretical and should be resisted by all genuine Catholics.