Some very important information, which I noticed accidentally: bishop Strossmayer,
who was one of the most famous participants of the Vatican Council, and who at last accepted its dogmas, - he wrote that "Letters from Rome on the Council" by Döllinger - this is the third link in my first message - "Quirinus" - is the most exact and the best history of the Vatican Council. Hence an interesting question arises: is it possible to believe in dogmas of this Council without having read this book? Notice that it has 850 pages!
Döllinger wrote, that some letters from the bishops of the Vatican Council, which deeply impressed him, were gathered in the work by Herr von Schulte "Der Altkatholicismus":
Letters 1869-1887, Döllinger to Archbishop von Steichele, March 1st, 1887 (p. 144): "I had refused to recognise a Council which, except numbers, lacked all the conditions of validity fixed by theology; a Council at which there was notoriously no freedom, no thorough examination, and no statement of actual tradition; a Council whose very unexampled order of business proclaimed the servitude of the bishops. A very few days after his return, Archbishop von Scherr candidly communicated several facts to me which left me no doubt on this point, and to these were added other verbal and written opinions, all of which were to the same effect. In the recently published work by Herr von Schulte, Der Altkatholicismus,
we have an ample collection of such letters and testimonies from bishops. What then can be still said in extenuation in face of this host of most weighty voices? Your Grace is certainly far from being willing to designate these venerable colleagues, some of whom are still living, as liars and calumniators of the Church. Verily, in view of these reports and testimonies, one would like to veil one's head in pain and mourning for this disgrace of the Occidental Church - a disgrace that can never more be wiped out. The course of the Vatican Council is worse than that of the Synod at Ephesus in 449 A.D. For cunning and deceit, mental compulsion, business - like oppression under the appearance of free deliberation are worse things than physical ill-treatment and wild clamour, such as there was at Ephesus."
I found that book, "Der Altkatholicismus" by Schulte, on http://www.archive.org/
, but it was in German. Some fragments of the letters published in this books I found in this article, which is available on this site: "The Vatican Dogma", by Sergius Bulgakov:
"In a letter to Döllinger of 4.III.1871 he writes: “the most objectionable and absurd means were used to prevent a free exchange of opinions. I repeat for the hundredth time that never, never can God give His blessing to a thing that has come about in this fashion” (254). “If ever in history a meeting was the very opposite of what it ought to be, it was the Vatican Council. Everything which could compromise the name of ‘council’ was there to a superlative degree” (255). <...> (see also a number of similar letters to various people: 258-263). <...> It is noteworthy that about the same time Strossmeyer, with the weight of this compromise on his conscience, was trying to convert V. Solovyov to Catholicism."
Then I opened "Der Altkatholicismus" on these pages, 254-256,
where these fragments were, and noticed accidently, that in that same letters, quoted above, bishop Strossmayer wrote that "Letters from Rome on the Council" by Döllinger - this is the third link in my first message - "Quirinus" - is the most exact and the best history of the Vatican Council:
p. 254: "I'll read again your Letters. As far as I remember, they ["Letters from Rome on the Council"] - are the most exact and the best history of the Council. My dearest friend! It's impossible to imagine something more hindered and unfree, than this Council was. The most objectionable and absurd means..." (4.III.1871)
p. 255: "I've looked again through your Letters and repeat, that they are the most exact compendium of the Vatican Council. If ever in history a meeting was..." (10.VI.1871)
p. 256: "I don't remember, whether you have mentioned in your Letters, that after the speech of cardinal Guidi..." (10.VI.1871)