The "Nota Praevia", LG 25 on the ordinary magisterium, and the "Professio Fidei" of 1989. Interestingly, Msgr. Lefebvre rejected the aforementioned Professio - he said a clause had to be added to allow for private judgment "as long as this teaching is in conformity with tradition". Of course, such a clause was in no way in conformity with tradition - just take a look at St. Pius X's "Praestantia Scripturae", or his Allocution of 18 Sept. 1912.
The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. (Preceeding Note to Lumen Gentium)
In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. (Lumen Gentium 25)
Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act. (CDF, 1989 "Professio Fidei")
Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions. (St. Pius X, "Praestantia Scripturae")
If one loves the Pope, one does not stop to ask the precise limits to which this duty of obedience extends… one does not seek to restrict the domain within which he can or should make his wishes felt; one does not oppose to the Pope’s authority that of others, however learned they may be, who differ from him. For however great their learning, they must be lacking in holiness, for there can be no holiness in dissension from the Pope. Yet there are priests – a considerable number of them – who submit the word of the Pope to their private judgement and who, with unheard-of audacity, make their obedience to the Roman Pontiff conditional upon such personal judgement. (St. Pius X, Allocution given on 18 September 1912.)
When did that become a universally binding dogma of the Church?
8. They are free from all blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations. (St. Pius X, "Lamentabili sane")
The men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure. (Bl. Pius IX, "Tuas libenter")
22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church. (Bl. Pius IX, Syllabus of Modern Errors)
The Nova Praevia says JUST THE OPPOSITE. It makes NOTHING binding because nothing anywhere in the Council was formally declared as such! Do you even understand the things you are posting? Here is a comment from Ferrara and Woods on this, from a footnote on page 88 of The Great Facade, explaining the reason for this Nota:
"The most famous example [of the Pope acting decisively to prevent the Second Vatican Council from promulgating outright errors as Catholic doctrine] is Pope Paul's intervention forcing the Council to include the Nota Praevia to Lumen Gentium, which correct's LG's [Lumen Gentium's] erroneous suggestion that when the Pope exercised his supreme authority he does so only as head of the apostolic college, wherein the supreme authority resides. Paul was alerted to this problem by a group of conservative Council Fathers, who finally persuaded him of LG's destructive potential: 'Pope Paul, realizing finally that he had been deceived, broke down and wept.' Wiltgen, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, p. 232."
In fact, Pope Paul insisted that nothing be defined as binding without specifically so stating--and nothing ever was. How then can JPII excoriate the Archbishop for anything he believed contrary to the views of the Council?This is especially blameworthy, given the Pope's own history of casually tolerating even the most openly heretical opinions expressed by more liberal bishops. It is a double standard that is disgraceful and which will disgrace his memory for many centuries to come.
As for the citations of which you speak--these must be taken with a grain of salt. Why? BECAUSE NO POPE MAY DEMAND OBEDIENCE TO NOVEL DOCTRINES WHICH OPPOSE THE TEACHING MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN CLEARLY EXPRESSED. The preconciliar popes warned against the heresies of indifferentism and syncretism, for instance. Nothing JPII says can undo their doctrinal condemnations of precisely what he is trying to impose throughout his Church, even to the point of suppressing what is unique to Catholicism. Either he or they are wrong--and it cannot be they! --They have the entire history of the Church for twenty centuries on their side!