I fear that you have gone down the road that so many go down because it is so enticing. One of my own relatives went down this road, though along a completely different path.
Once down the rabbit hole of these conspiracy theory sites, mostly run by sedevacantist groups, it is really hard to extract one’s self. They can make the claims they make look very realistic, just as the sites do that claim the government crashed the planes into the world trade center, that there are aliens being hidden at a secret site out in the desert, that the lunar landing was a hoax, and a multitude of other things.
Doctrine and Tradition cannot change. When you start making statements that they have it is abundantly clear where your information is coming from and it is not from groups in communion with the Church. The quotes you cite have been heard around here many times and we all know where they come from.
It is very easy for such groups to appeal to those who find some facet of the Church or the liturgy that disappoints them. It is especially appealing to the idealistic young who look to the decadence in the world today and believe that “the good old days” were some kind of “Leave it to Beaver” world. The Church before Vatican II had all kinds of problems and the liturgy was full of abuse. It may not have had “clown Masses” but it had Masses that likely weren’t even licit in the ways things were changed and left out.
The main difference before and after Vatican II was that the world changed dramatically. As much as some might want to attribute the change in the world to Vatican II and blame all the problems on Vatican II, it simply isn’t so.
I wish you well in your search and I truly do pray that you’ll eventually be able to extract yourself from the web you’ve been drawn into.
You have nailed it, and nailed it well.
One of the important rules of the Church is that the Holy Spirit guides the Church. It certainly is not the only rule, nor necessrily the most important rule, but as to issues about Church teachings, it is foundational.
The second rule is that when the Church speaks magisterially (and 2000 =/- bishops joining together with the Pope to create documents makes for a very good definition of that), the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church.
Much has been said back and forth - “the Church did not define any new doctrine” (heard often from very conservative individuals), and then, out of the same mouths "the teachings of Vatican 2 do not conform to prior teachings (often referred to, not entirely correctly, as Tradition). They who want so to criticize Vatican 2 effectively speak out of both sides of the mouth.
A point, perhaps too subtle for some to get, is that the documents of Vatican 2 were not primarily directed to the people in the pews; it was for the bishops, Pope(s) and theologians. Certainly they were not meant to be withheld from the faithful, but neither were they directed primarily to the faithful - or even necessarily secondarily.
The third rule flows from the first two: a) the Holy Spirit guides the Church when she speaks of Faith and Morals; b) the bishops in union with the Pope(s) at Vatican 2 were speaking about Faith and Morals, therefor, the work of Vatican 2 was guided by The Holy Spirit and protected by that same Holy Spirit. Thus, if one does not understand something in one or more of the documents, one needs to go back to rurles 1, 2 and 3.
It is presumptious, although perhaps not consciously so, that laymen not trained in Philosophy and Theology at least above the level of a BA or BS would be able to understand fully the documents of Vatican 2. It should come as no surprise if one is paying attention, that there are those trained to the level of a PhD who don’t get it. It does not mean that it is not explainable, but it does mean that there are many who simply will not get the explanation. They also don’t get higher level math and higher level physics. But they seem willing to concede the last two issues, and yet remain obstinant that if they don’t understand something about one of the documents, that therefore it must contradict prior positions of the Church.
There is not a little bit of hubris on the part of some of the leaders of the nay sayers. And there is not a little bit of gullibility, as well as lack of training, on the part of so many who buy into the nay sayers. Not to mention flaws in logic that should be obvious to a first semester student in Logic 101; the difficulty is that the student is removed from the issue and so can look dispassionately. But not so the one who is in a lather over how wrong the Church is. It is so much more interesting to listen to, and buy into those gurus who have simplistic answers for complex questions.
