(3) When we say "Ordinary", we mean all teachings of the Church taught in the usual, day to day manner through the Church's hierarchy, priests, nuns, parents, teachers, and so on.

Right, so that must mean the Novus Ordo missae is the legitimate form of the Mass, as are the Modernist teachings, Amoris Laetitia, Traditionis Custodes, et al because they are "taught in the usual, day to day manner through the Church's hierarchy, priests, nuns, parents, teachers, and so on." Therefore, you have no right to reject anything that these prelates teach and promulgate because they are the ordinary teachings of the Church and have been since the 60s. You may as well admit the Rat's the ordinary/extraordinary distinction.

No, it is altogether ridiculous to say R&R follow the condemned error.  To be clear, the pope is infallible only when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, beyond that he can do exactly what the conciliar popes have done, and worse if he chooses to do so.

But the problem here isn't just that these "popes" have chosen to do erroneous and heretical things, but that these same teachings have become part of the ordinary practice of the spotless Bride of Christ (Ordinary Magisterium). In essence, saying that the Immaculate Bride can be a harlot and offer false teachings. It admits that She can be defective, which is heresy. That is the core of the problem here, not that the Pope can err in his theological opinions.

The error of the sedes is the idea that the infallibility that protects the Church in all that concerns faith or morals, also protects it from every and all error detrimental to the Church and Faith. This apparent irremediable error is  one of the fundamental errors of sedeism.

She is protected insofar as she cannot allow error and heresy to be part of Her universal ordinary or extraordinary magisterium, which is what has happened. What you say about the Pope is true and isn't even debated by sedevacantists. The whole problem here is the indefectibility of the Church.

Right, so that must mean the Novus Ordo missae is the legitimate form of the Mass, as are the Modernist teachings, Amoris Laetitia, Traditionis Custodes, et al because they are "taught in the usual, day to day manner through the Church's hierarchy, priests, nuns, parents, teachers, and so on." Therefore, you have no right to reject anything that these prelates teach and promulgate because they are the ordinary teachings of the Church and have been since the 60s. You may as well admit the Rat's the ordinary/extraordinary distinction.

No. "Ordinary" simply means the usual manner in which *the Church's* teachings are taught and handed down, not the way the NO teachings are perpetrated upon the lethargic faithful. Because they are NO teachings, we not only have the right, we have the obligation to reject them.

But the problem here isn't just that these "popes" have chosen to do erroneous and heretical things, but that these same teachings have become part of the ordinary practice of the spotless Bride of Christ (Ordinary Magisterium). In essence, saying that the Immaculate Bride can be a harlot and offer false teachings. It admits that She can be defective, which is heresy. That is the core of the problem here, not that the Pope can err in his theological opinions.

Impossible. The Church's Magisterium is derived from the Deposit of Faith, therefore nothing new can ever be added, taken away, or in any way "become part of" it, which means NO teachings are not part of and will never be part of the Church's Magisterium. What the new teachings of the NO in fact admit, is that they are *not* part of the Church's Magisterium, therefore they can never blemish or ever hope to destroy the spotless bride of Christ. 

She is protected insofar as she cannot allow error and heresy to be part of Her universal ordinary or extraordinary magisterium, which is what has happened. What you say about the Pope is true and isn't even debated by sedevacantists. The whole problem here is the indefectibility of the Church.

The indefectibility of the Church is foundational, that She will last until the end of time is dogma. Whomever doubts this, or in any way believes otherwise concerns themselves about it for absolutely nothing. 

It is impossible, absolutely impossible for error and heresy to be part of the Church's Magisterium which is *always* infallible. When we see/hear the Conciliarites preaching heresy and all manner of error, it is ipso facto that we know that those things they are teaching, are not of the Church's Magisterium.

What R&R's usually do not understand that the "universality" of the Magisterium is not in time, but in space. A moral unanimity among the Pope and the Bishops around the world. That's why Popes, theologians and even saints, like St. Augustine say "The Universal Church spread in the world". It's easy.

The Church cannot teach error in Ordinary Magisterium. Tuas Libenter of Pius IX is very clear about the authority of Ordinary Magisterium. Sapientiae Christianae and Satis Cognitum of Leo XIII too. Casti Conubii (yes, the encyclical about Marriage) of Pius XI. Humani Generis of Pius XII. They all teach that you must NOT dissent the Ordinary Magisterium. And there are even more docuмents and theologians talking about that, and I can spend the day quoting them. But that's sufficient.

The sede mind fascinates me. 


 

The sede mind fascinates me.

Not as much as R&R ignorance frustrates me.

No. "Ordinary" simply means the usual manner in which *the Church's* teachings are taught and handed down, not the way the NO teachings are perpetrated upon the lethargic faithful. Because they are NO teachings, we not only have the right, we have the obligation to reject them.

Impossible. The Church's Magisterium is derived from the Deposit of Faith, therefore nothing new can ever be added, taken away, or in any way "become part of" it, which means NO teachings are not part of and will never be part of the Church's Magisterium. What the new teachings of the NO in fact admit, is that they are *not* part of the Church's Magisterium, therefore they can never blemish or ever hope to destroy the spotless bride of Christ. 

The indefectibility of the Church is foundational, that She will last until the end of time is dogma. Whomever doubts this, or in any way believes otherwise concerns themselves about it for absolutely nothing. 

It is impossible, absolutely impossible for error and heresy to be part of the Church's Magisterium which is *always* infallible. When we see/hear the Conciliarites preaching heresy and all manner of error, it is ipso facto that we know that those things they are teaching, are not of the Church's Magisterium.

What Church are you even talking about here? Because you're clearly talking about two different bodies. If the "pope" and his prelates are legitimate, then their teaching is legitimate and part of the ordinary teaching of the Church. But, you're making up your own definition of what does and does not constitute ordinary magisterium. To say that the post-conciliar teachings are illegitimate additions to the deposit of faith is to say that there is some other body here aside from the Church implementing these things, as these same post-conciliar teachings are coming right from the men you claim are undoubtedly popes.

Is this the mystical hydra that R&Rs have conjured up for themselves to cope with a "non-Catholic Pope"? The single-headed, two-bodied abomination?
The post-conciliar "Catholic Church" according to R&R:

Not as much as R&R ignorance frustrates me.

Then it must be the truth that frustrates you.

What Church are you even talking about here? Because you're clearly talking about two different bodies. If the "pope" and his prelates are legitimate, then their teaching is legitimate and part of the ordinary teaching of the Church.

There is the Universal or Catholic Church, and there is it's ape, the conciliar church. The pope and his prelates are legitimate, but their teachings, being NO, are not.

But, you're making up your own definition of what does and does not constitute ordinary magisterium. To say that the post-conciliar teachings are illegitimate additions to the deposit of faith is to say that there is some other body here aside from the Church implementing these things, as these same post-conciliar teachings are coming right from the men you claim are undoubtedly popes.

I never said they are illegitimate additions to the Deposit of Faith, in fact I said the exact opposite, I said there can be no additions:

"Impossible. The Church's Magisterium is derived from the Deposit of Faith, therefore nothing new can ever be added, taken away, or in any way "become part of" it, which means NO teachings are not part of and will never be part of the Church's Magisterium."

And I repeated that when I said:

It is by their errors that it is "ipso facto that we know that those things they are teaching, are not of the Church's Magisterium."

You misunderstand what the Church's Magisterium even is. You see the pope/hierarchy as the magisterium itself, whereas the Church's Magisterium are teachings from the Deposit of Faith taught to the Universal Church. The popes or councils or whomever is not the magisterium. To continue to think this way will keep you disbelieving the  dogma of the indefectibility of the Church.

Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#18), Dec. 31, 1929: “… God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.” ... “To this magisterium Christ the Lord imparted immunity from error...”

Pope Leo XIII, Caritatis Studium (#6) July 25, 1898: The Magisterium “could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.


There are many other similar teachings on the Church's Magisterium. A sede poster from the past who I really liked was banned used to post them, sadly all his posts were deleted as well, but they all said the same thing as above - the Magisterium is always infallible, referring to teachings of the Church, not the pope/hierarchy.

Unless you understand it this way, you are forced to accept that the Church has indeed defected, or as Lad likes to put it, "has gone off the rails", which of course is not only impossible, it is contrary to the above papal quotes as well as the dogma of the Church's indefectibility. 

Here you go, old friend...


Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri
“… God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.”

Pope Leo XIII, Caritatis Studium
The Magisterium “could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.”

Pope Pius X, Editae Saepe
“... only a miracle of that divine power could preserve the Church... from blemish in the holiness of Her doctrine...”

Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas
“... the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum
“The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic magisterium.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos
“Therefore, it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain ‘restoration and regeneration’ for her (the Church) as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to any failing health or dimming of mind or other misfortune.”

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos
“During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: ‘The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”

Pope Hadrian I, Second Council of Nicaea
“… Christ our God, when He took for His Bride His Holy Catholic Church, having no blemish or wrinkle, promised he would guard her and assured his holy disciples saying, I am with you every day until the consummation of the world.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 9
“…the Spouse of Christ is uncontaminated and modest, knowing only one home, and she guards the sanctity of their marriage bed with chaste modesty.”

Pope St. Siricius, epistle (1) Directa ad decessorem
“And so He has wished the beauty of the Church, whose spouse He is, to radiate with the splendor of chastity, so that on the day of judgment, when He will have come again, He may be able to find her without spot or wrinkle [Eph. 5:27] as He instituted her through His apostle.”


The Magisterium of the Church is infallible....always and forever.

Thank you! I purposely left off your name (if you're him) but either way thanks and I definitely hope you stick around for good!

These teachings are the ones I was talking about, these teachings show the Church teaches that the Church and the Church's magisterium simply cannot "go off the rails," not ever, not even with puny, insignificant errors.

I think it was Bl Anne Catherine Emmerich who said that March 25 is the holiest day of the year:
1.  Day that Adam was created
2.  Feast of the Annunciation
3.  Good Friday

Quite a lot of symbolism there, if true.

Fascinating. March 25th was a day I became quite familiar with before I returned to the Faith, as being half-Greek, I knew that date first and foremost as Greek Independence Day. 

Perhaps this is an additional tie between that date and the Consecration of Russia? Remember that it was the Greek Church that initiated the Great Schism, after all. The Russians followed the Greeks in schism, but if the Consecration was done rightly, we would see a holy reversal. Russia would return to the unity of the One True Church, and Greece would follow.  

It sadly seems that, as the release of the apparent text of this year's consecration attempt shows us, it will be a failure. But perhaps the real thing will take place on this date in the future?