Right. This was covered when I was in seminary in “Cults” class. Not sure if that was the exact verbiage, but the concept was there.
Which is one of the complaints by TradCats against V2.
Conservative Novus Ordo Catholics who object to the drastic changes call them "abuses" that result from the "misinterpretation" of Conciliar teachings. They point to many fine and orthodox statements in support of their contention. Those on the other hand who are on the forefront of the Revolution - the Liberal post-Conciliar Catholic - can justify almost anything they wish by recourse to the same documents. The much debated issue as to whether the Council is only an "excuse" or in fact the "source" of the "autodemolition" of the Church is entirely beside the point. Whatever the case may be, as the Abbe of Nantes has pointed out, "there is not a heresiarch today, not a single apostate who does not now appeal to the Council in carrying out his action in broad daylight with full impunity as recognized pastor and master" (CRC May 1980)....It is then the ambiguity of the Conciliar statements which allows for any interpretation one wishes. - Rama Coomaraswamy, M.D.; http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html
While Caths attack Bible Christians for ascertaining the validity of church teaching by examination of Scripture (the most ancient reliable source), and interpreting Scripture apart from submission to their church, the same engage in ascertaining the validity of church teaching by selective examination of historical Cath church teaching, and what constitutes submission to their church is subject to their interpretation of what it is and means.
Thus you have V2 RCs calling TradCats "Protestant," and traditionalists calling V2 Catholics liberal CINOs.
Consider how the TradCats understand historical Cath church teaching such as teaches that,
'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)