"What are your vaunted 'contemporary popes, bishops, ecumenical council, and one billion followers,' compared to all the preceding saints, popes and councils and faithful departed since apostolic times?"
By asking that question you imply that the "contemporary popes, bishops, ecumenical council, and one billion followers" are at variance with "all the preceding saints, popes and councils and faithful departed since apostolic times." I.e., you accuse the contempory popes etc. of heresy. Fine. Off with you to your little we're-right-and-the-Church-is-wrong cult. Buhbye, heretic.
"By asking that question you imply that the 'contemporary popes, bishops, ecumenical council, and one billion followers' are at variance with 'all the preceding saints, popes and councils and faithful departed since apostolic times.'
Exactly. The fact that the postconciliar Church is at variance with its own Tradition is indisputable. Whether this constitutes heresy in all cases is not clear. With some, it clearly does. I believe we should give the present Pontiff the benefit of a doubt--but the doubt persists just the same. He has prayed with those who worship false gods, for instance--not along side of them, but WITH them, their own heathen prayers, even pouring out libations to the Great Thumb in a Tojo sacred forest. This is certainly unorthodox behavior for a Catholic pope. But whether it constitutes true heresy or merely a misguided effort at charity is not clear.
Again, regarding Vatican II--the fact that it is at variance with all previous Catholic councils is indisputable. But it was a pastoral council only--and therefore not divinely protected from error. It declared no new dogma that is binding on the faithful--but published many which were ambiguous and even radical. What is clear is that some of its statements are clearly at variance with previous councils and papal teachings.
Finally, your saying I am a heretic for merely pointing all this out reveals your own lack of understanding of what heresy truly is. Heresy is the rejection of a dogma of faith. I reject not a single dogma. It is not a dogma that we must not criticize popes and bishops, for instance. Good Catholics have done this throughout history. Dante placed six or seven popes in his Inferno, including the pontiff who reigned during his lifetime--and for good reason. You need to understand such matters better before hurling such accusations.
In the previous post, I stated "It [Vatican II] declared no new dogma that is binding on the faithful--but published many which were ambiguous and even radical."
This should read, "but published many STATEMENTS which were ambiguous and even radical." None were binding, however.
As for my rushing off to some "little cult"--you miss the import of my previous post. Catholic Tradition is not little at all. It includes the communion of saints and the whole of the Catholic Church up till forty years ago. It is rather the present New Religion--which calls itself Catholic, but is actually only quasi-Catholic, rejecting much of its own Tradition--which is small, comparatively speaking--and getting smaller and smaller as the years wear on.