2.  Also, 'indefectibility' has never been fully explained, nor its limits.

It's been very adequately defined.  If the Church loses its notes, it's no longer the Church and therefore it has defected.

So if the Church became corrupt now, why were the Prots wrong in saying that the Church had become corrupt back then?  St. Pius X didn't condemn Modernism with the notes of infallibility.  Maybe he was wrong, and V2 was a welcome correction.  Pius IX didn't issue the Syllabus with the notes of infallibility.  Maybe he was wrong and V2 again corrected his error.  Maybe Gregory XVI and Pius XI's encyclicals that are always cited by Trads were wrong, and Vatican II corrected them.  You basically turn the Magisterium into a joke, and turn yourselves into your own rule of faith.  Ultimately it is YOU who decide what's Catholic and what isn't rather than the teaching authority of the Church.

You guys are pushing a blend of Protestantism, Old Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy.  You are incapable of citing a single teaching of the Magisterium or even of a pre-Vatican-II theologian who says it's possible for the Magisterium to become so corrupt as to justify severing communion with the Catholic hierarchy.

There's nothing complicated about this.  I can and have posted a veritable wall of papal teaching about the integrity of the Church's Magisterium.

You guys just keep telling yourselves that you aren't basically Old Catholic heretics ... and you might come to believe it, but God knows the truth.  It's really shameful how you throw the Holy Catholic Church under the bus to save this degenerate heretic Jorge Bergoglio, just so you can hang a "pope picture" up in the vestibule, and take comfort in some clown walking around Rome in a white cassock.  Shameful and pathetic.

It's been very adequately defined.  If the Church loses its notes, it's no longer the Church and therefore it has defected.

Ok, define "notes".  Which circles back to "what part of the magisterium is infallible?"  And therein lies the issue.

So if the Church became corrupt now, why were the Prots wrong in saying that the Church had become corrupt back then?  St. Pius X didn't condemn Modernism with the notes of infallibility.  Maybe he was wrong, and V2 was a welcome correction.  Pius IX didn't issue the Syllabus with the notes of infallibility.  Maybe he was wrong and V2 again corrected his error.  Maybe Gregory XVI and Pius XI's encyclicals that are always cited by Trads were wrong, and Vatican II corrected them.  You basically turn the Magisterium into a joke, and turn yourselves into your own rule of faith.  Ultimately it is YOU who decide what's Catholic and what isn't rather than the teaching authority of the Church.

Calm down.  When you say "corrupt", how is that defined theologically?  Again, it goes back to what part of the Magisterium is infallible and which part can err.  If the part that can err, does err, then such is ALLOWED to corrupt.  The infallible part can never be corrupt.

But you argue as if "no part" of the Magisterium (which definition, the Modernists expanded, in order to confuse) can be corrupted.  Which is false.  By definition, the fallible magisterium can become corrupted, because a fallible magisterium can err.

You're the one who keeps pushing the "Fenton-theory" of the infallible, non-infallible Magisterium.  It's a stupid theory and he was pushing such to brainwash people into swallowing V2...

It all boils down to this...
1.  The 'magisterium' (outside of the extraordinary use) has never been clearly defined or explained.
a.  If we all knew where the infallible magisterium began and ended, then there would be no crisis in the Church because everyone could easily see that x or y was doctrine or novelty.
b.  The Modernists knew this, and pushed the limits of such, (which God allowed), and so spread confusion.

I want to add that it should be noted that Lad and others make statements referring to a "corrupt magisterium" or a magisterium that "has gone of the rails, or a "non-infallible magisterium." All of these ideas serve only to confuse because a "non-infallible magisterium" is an altogether erroneous and misguided term that directly contradicts the Church's teachings in the above link.

Per the popes in the above link, there can no more be a "non-infallible magisterium" then there can be a "non-infallible dogma" - iow, there is no such a thing as a non-infallible magisterium. Whoever does not understand this needs to study and believe the papal teachings in the above link, which was supplied initially by Lad, solely for the purpose so he could contradict them, ultimately in order to remain firm in his efforts toward maintaining his sedeism.

But it is really not complicated at all once one believes what the popes teach, maybe that's too simple, I don't know. 

Yes, the prodigal son exemplifies the matter in that just as he never ceased to be the father's son, Catholics never cease to be sons of holy mother the Church.

But this is more likened to the character of baptism. The son nevers stop being the son (a person never loses the marks on their soul) but he does go outside the house and has to return by his own volition.

No matter how much the father (mother church) eagerly desires to see him back, if he doesn't return how can he enter the house once more?

But this is more likened to the character of baptism. The son nevers stop being the son (a person never loses the marks on their soul) but he does go outside the house and has to return by his own volition.

No matter how much the father (mother church) eagerly desires to see him back, if he doesn't return how can he enter the house once more?

The character of Baptism is imprinted on the soul of every person ever validly baptized, but as St. Thomas teaches, "...Baptism without faith is of no value. Indeed, it must be known that no one is acceptable before God unless he have faith..." 

It is that faith that makes baptized adults, Catholic. Once they have that faith, they will be a Catholic in this life and in the next whether in heaven or hell, which will add to their shame if they end up in hell. It will be a part of their "worm that dieth not." IOW, it will be part of their eternal regret - because like all sinners, all he had to do to be absolved was go to confession - by his own volition. No different than you, me, and all other Catholics who go to confession when they need to - of our own volition. No different at all.

Do you believe that Heresy is a mortal sin?

Do you believe that only Catholics are permitted to use the sacrament of Penance (and Extreme Unction).

Supposing you correctly answered yes to both questions, all you need to do now is accept the truth that all Catholics who have fallen into mortal sin, including the mortal sin of heresy, are urged by the Church to use the sacrament of penance, and if they do are absolved from their mortal sins - and as you have stated in the past, God forgets those sins no matter how grievous they were.

If you correctly answered yes to both questions but still cannot accept the result of those answers I supplied below those questions, then you have trapped yourself in a self imposed conundrum, by your own volition.

I dunno, something just seems illogical/nonsensical. If someone is outside the church they are outside the church...

The character of Baptism is imprinted on the soul of every person ever validly baptized, but as St. Thomas teaches, "...Baptism without faith is of no value. Indeed, it must be known that no one is acceptable before God unless he have faith..."

It is that faith that makes baptized adults, Catholic. Once they have that faith, they will be a Catholic in this life and in the next whether in heaven or hell, which will add to their shame if they end up in hell. It will be a part of their "worm that dieth not." IOW, it will be part of their eternal regret - because like all sinners, all he had to do to be absolved was go to confession - by his own volition. No different than you, me, and all other Catholics who go to confession when they need to - of our own volition. No different at all.

Even here it's strange. You says that baptism without faith is not acceptable. That faith makes one Catholic. But baptism is the sacrament of faith...

It's the mark on their soul that will add to their pain. Regardless if they become catholic or not as adults.

And is there a difference  between being Catholic and being a member of the church?

I dunno, something just seems illogical/nonsensical. If someone is outside the church they are outside the church...

That's right, 100% correct, and if the heretic was never Catholic, or if the agnostic, prot, Hindu, Jєω etc, was never Catholic, they are outside of the Church. One must first be a Catholic in order for them to always be Catholic.

When a Catholic loses his faith and becomes a heretic, he is not outside of the Church. He remains a Catholic, member of the Church on earth until death. And whatever else he does, whatever other sins he commits in this life, the Church urges him to and he has the opportunity of going to confession and being absolved of all his sins, including his sins of heresy until his last breath in the sacrament of Penance, and if repentant in his last agony he may also receive the Last Rites - which means he can receive the sacraments of Penance, Holy Eucharist and Extreme Unction - and be saved. We know the Church permits these sacraments only to Catholics, to members of the Church.

It only seems illogical/nonsensical until you accept that heresy, schism and apostacy are sins, or mortal sins, and that all sins of whatever type and however grave can be forgiven in the sacrament of penance, which is a sacrament only for Catholics. So provided that one was once a Catholic, having the opportunity to make use of these sacraments, they remain a Catholic. It is really very simple. They are of course typically not Catholic in their actions, words or deeds, but Catholic none the less - and in dire need of confession.

Even Fred and Bob knew and embraced this truth. However, once they chose to go sede, this truth was among the first to go because it had to be among the first to go. Even tho they twist this truth, and get others to twist this truth, this something that must be done in order to make it mean something contrary so as to use as a support for their sede narrative.

This is only one example of why DL correctly stated that there is more to sedeism than simply a vacant chair.