So we can conveniently ignore what the pope at the Vatican said in his "ecumenical council" Vatican II?
So the RCC is conciliar, except when a Supreme Pontiff says otherwise, and he speaks infallibly ex cathedra at a ecumenical council, unless another pope issues a motu propriu saying otherwise.
Oh! The inscrutable mystery and wonders of the gift of papal infallibility, and its power of confusion!
Your attempt to mock the Catholic Church would be more effective if you were better informed. The reform called for by the Council (in 1963) was not the Pauline reform of 1970. SC was in harmony with tradition but the 1970 creation of a new rite was not. They are not the same.
Also, an ecumenical council cannot throw out objective liturgical tradition, and Vatican II did not.
As for papal infallibility, it has nothing to do with it.
Perhaps you are the one full of "confusion" here.
Also some advice---misinformed mockery and snark is not a very good way to convince the Catholics on this forum of the superiority of your faith or your church. Forgive me for saying so, but the tone of your posts in general lead me to believe that you have little interest in constructive or charitable dialogue.
If it us a question of strength, He is the strong one. If it is a matter of justice, who dares to summon Him to court?-Job 9:19
I could quote your canons, your council's decisions, your "apostolic constitutions," etc. etc. etc. or my posts quoting such matters, and I might, when I'm not so tired nor interested in other matters. But in the meantime...a simple question:
You yourself say that your Supreme Pontiff Pope Paul created a new rite, and threw out liturgical tradition. OK, you are you to say? Who are the traditionalist bishops to say? Who would a council of bishops be to say? In short, how would anyone judge the Vatican and call His Holiness on his obvious error? What canon would he be judged guilty of breaking, and what canonical court could be convened under your code to have him render account?
You may counter, God would not let His church sink into error, but you just said infallibility has nothing to do with it.
And you have had a good run with these Pope Bendict XVI and Pope John Paul II of Rome, but we know that there have been plenty of successions of "bad popse." What if Cardinal Martini emerged as pope in 2005 (as allegedly almost happened)?
Of course, recalling the suppression of the ancient Greek liturgy in Magna Graecia in Southern Italy, leading up to 1054, we know that the Vatican has, and does, suppress liturgies...Fr. Toth and Archb. Ireland...Latinization
Charity doesn't require me sipping the kool aid.