Mithryndylan,

Is it still "proximate" when it's an ordinary magisterium that is now remote some 60 or so years?

Is your methodology better because you judge this ordinary magisterium (and all since John XXIII or Paul VI) by a prior magisterium, while those who deny BOD judge the ordinary magisterium by the infallible and solemn magisterium?

For one, I'll take the Feeneyite approach, which does not involve the Holy Ghost abandoning the magisterium at a set date in history or at the beginning of a certain pontificate, but accepts that an ordinary magisterium that is not about defending what was believed "always, anywhere, by all" goes beyond the Holy Ghost's protection and can err and still be the One True Church without contradicting that protection , obviously (because acting beyond it), and doesn't have your problem of explaining how heresy can overrun the duly-elected, governing hierarchy in areas where it should be immune from error and indefectible according to your "manuals" and theologians.

I've been doing this for years and usually drop out after a brief return to it (because it's a vital question and won't go away) because there isn't a hidden observation that's going to convince the other side - someone would have found it by now.

We wait on the Lord to resolve it, and the sooner the better. 

It is possible that a member of the Jєωιѕн Nation, who rejects Our Lord, may have the supernatural life which God wishes to see in every soul

Why is LoT a heretic? Because of the aforementioned clergy (plus many many more...) who are the architects of this modernism. Lot cannot be called a heretic and the others regarded as upstanding defenders of the Catholic faith. Nay, they would also have to be heretics too. Unfortunately.

Question for 'LOT':

Since you believe that Catholics are supposed to form their positions not from primary magisterial or dogmatic texts, but from what theologians state, hold or teach about such texts, please specifically identify the basis or authority on which you reject Vatican II, considering that the 'approved theologians', including Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, accepted it and considered it to be orthodox.  Fenton not only accepted Vatican II's heretical teaching on the Church, but he considered it to be an improvement.

Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, on Vatican II, Nov. 23, 1968: “I have just about made up my mind to start a new book. I shall write on the notion of the Church. Nothing like this has appeared since the Council. Within the book I hope to have quite a bit to say about the Council. I must be very careful. If a sincere Catholic writes a book it’s either ignored or brutally attacked. I must make no mistakes. My main thesis will have to be that the Catholic theology on the Church has been improved but in no way changed by the Council. I must start with the basic notion of the Church, which is that of a people ‘transferred’ from the kingdom of darkness into the realm of light. The Council left out the background of the Church. It minimized or glossed over the fact that the Church faces opposition, not just from hostile individuals, but from the ‘world.’”

Please tell us: what is your basis or authority for rejecting the teaching of Fenton and other 'approved theologians' on the consistency of Vatican II with past teaching?  

Lay Modernese for "in contradiction to what is irreformable" i.e., heretical. :heretic:

Have you just said something anti-Catholic?  I'm not interested in what you have to say.  Why don't you find a non-Catholic forum to post on.