See, the entire POINT of the Magisterium, the reason for its existence, is to authoritatively interpret and safeguard the Deposit of Faith.  R&R have developed a mentality where it's up to individual Catholics to sift through the Magisterium, effectively making themselves their own doctrinal authority.

Matthew 15:1-14

1 Then came to him from Jerusalem scribes and Pharisees, saying:  2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the ancients? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread.  3 But he answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition? For God said:  4 Honour thy father and mother: And: He that shall curse father or mother, let him die the death.  5 But you say: Whosoever shall say to father or mother, The gift whatsoever proceedeth from me, shall profit thee. 6  And he shall not honour his father or his mother: and you have made void the commandment of God for your tradition.  7 Hypocrites, well hath Isaias prophesied of you, saying:  8 This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me.  9 And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.  10 And having called together the multitudes unto him, he said to them: Hear ye and understand. 11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.  12 Then came his disciples, and said to him: Dost thou know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandalized?  13 But he answering them, said: Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.  14 Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit.

Romans 15:4 -  For what things soever were written, were written for our learning: that through patience and the comfort of the scriptures, we might have hope.

1 Corinthians 10:11 - Now all these things happened to them in figure: and they are written for our correction, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

Great that you brought up the High Priest teaching error. St. Jerome says that by rending his garments the High Priest signified the loss of his office.

The ipso facto loss of office principle is maintained by all the Doctors of the Church and, as St. Robert Bellarmine said, by all the ancient fathers.

Chapter 8. The Indefectibility of the Church

197

We declare, moreover, that, whether one considers its existence or its constitution, the Church of Christ is an everlasting and indefectible society, and that, after it, no more complete nor more perfect economy of salvation is to be hoped for in this world. For, to the very end of the world the pilgrims of this earth are to be saved through Christ. Consequently, his Church, the only society of salvation, will last until the end of the world ever unchangeable and unchanged in its constitution. Therefore, although the Church is growing—and We wish that it may always grow in faith and charity for the upbuilding of Christ's body—although it evolves in a variety of ways according to the changing times and circuмstances in which it is constantly displaying activity, nevertheless, it remains unchangeable in itself and in the constitution it received from Christ. Therefore, Christ's Church can never lose its properties and its qualities, its sacred teaching authority, priestly office, and governing body, so that through his visible body, Christ may always be the way, the truth, and the life for all men.


Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College. The Church Teaches: Docuмents of the Church in English Translation . TAN Books. Kindle Edition.

I believe the Sede position, and the "traditional" understanding and bloated claims of the Magisterium regarding its "indefectibility," ...

Many of you have a very simplistic understanding of "visibility" of the Church, while forgetting about the fact that the Church has to also be One and Holy.  When Catholics are forced to effectively be in "schism" from the "hierarchy" to keep the faith, that destroys the note of Oneness, and don't get me started on the "Holiness" of the V2 sect, as it's done nothing but cause the destruction of souls.

Let's start with what Visibility is NOT.  Visibility does not mean there always has to be an actual pope.  We have had many periods of sede vacante. 

This is irrelevant, and you know this, as we've discussed it before. A visible "governing body" of the Church is not gone when the seat is vacant. So the "indefectiblity" of the Church, as explained for example by the fathers in their schema for Vatican I, is not violated.

Visibility does not mean that it's always clear where the visible unity of the Church happens to be.  We saw that during the Great Western schism.  Visibility does not mean that nearly all the episcopal sees in the Church cannot be usurped by non-Catholics.  We saw that during the Arian crisis, where estimates are that upwards of 97%-99% of episcopal sees were usurped by Arian heretics. 

To point out the obvious: 97-99% (even if true) is not "all the episcopal sees," which would be 100%. And, most importantly, the Church still had a true head, a true pope, that principle and source of unity . . . unless you want to argue that Liberius was a heretic, lost the papacy, and was not a true pope. You have argued against that position before, so I do not think you would argue that now.

A Church reduced to a true pope with 1-3% of bishops would be a small, indefectible Church, but a Church with a legitimate "governing body," and an indefecitible Church in accordance with the understanding of the Vatican I fathers nonetheless.

Visibility, as per St. Robert Bellarmine's understanding of membership in the Church, refers to incorporation into the Church through the Sacraments and profession of the one true faith.  Those are essential hallmarks of the Church's visibility, whereas the actual presence, the identity of the pope and/or the Church's bishops can fluctuate.

There's a difference between essential visibility and accidental visibility.  Take for instance the fact that human beings are essentially both body and soul.  But after death and before the final resurrection of the dead, there are human beings in Heaven (and other places) who are still essentially human, essentially consisting of body and soul, despite the fact that they do not currently happen to have bodies, and are invisible / spiritual in nature.  But this does not change their essential nature or make them cease to be human, and this absence of a body is accidental to that nature and temporary.  Same thing holds of the papacy and the episcopacy.  There's no compromise to the essential visibility of the Church for there to be a prolonged vacancy of the Holy See, nor for the majority of the episcopal sees to have been usurped.

So we need to drop this absurdly simplistic view of "visibility" from the R&R crew, while they at the same time jettison one of the essential hallmarks, namely, the profession of the One True Faith.

The rest of the above is irrelevant.

I gave you a definition of "indefectibility," that of the Vatican I fathers. It is not violated by any of your examples, not by a) a period of sede vacante; b) the Arian crisis; or, 3) the Great Schism, where you still had a "governing body" of the Church, true bishops with jurisdiction, though there were rival papal claimants.

However, the explanation of the Vatican I fathers is violated by the current Magisterium that has devolved upon us after 60 years of Conciliarism. One could name a visible member of the legitimate governing body continuing the presence of Christ on earth as a "ruler" in His kingdom during any of your 3 examples.

Name one now.

And let's cut to the chase. Do you reject the explanation or understanding of "indefectibility" proposed by the Vatican I fathers? If so, what is your understanding of "indefectibility," and give us your source? Does it require a Church with the authority of Christ as ruler, or just a Church that doesn't teach falsely or provide false means of sanctification?

I am unaware of a definition or understanding of "indefectibility" that doesn't require the Church to carry on the 3 attributes of Christ in His stead until His return as teacher, sanctifier and ruler of men.

I will wait to see what you propose as a definition.

Since we need to combat the shameless lies now being told and since you won't bother to look yourselves, since it doesn't fit your narrative:

Did Archbishop Lefebvre admit that sedevacantists might well be right?

1. “You know, for some time, many people, the sedevacantists, have been saying, ‘there is no more pope’. But I think that for me it was not yet the time to say that, because it was not sure, it was not evident…” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

2. “The question is therefore definitive: is Paul VI, has Paul VI ever been, the successor of Peter? If the reply is negative: Paul VI has never been, or no longer is, pope, our attitude will be that of sede vacante periods, which would simplify the problem. Some theologians say that this is the case, relying on the statements of theologians of the past, approved by the Church, who have studied the problem of the heretical pope, the schismatic pope or the pope who in practice abandons his charge of supreme Pastor. It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)

Did he frequently and respectfully allude to the sedevacantist explanation of the crisis?

1. “To whatever extent the pope departed from…tradition he would become schismatic, he would breach with the Church. Theologians such as Saint Bellarmine, Cajetan, Cardinal Journet and many others have studied this possibility. So it is not something inconceivable.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

2. “Heresy, schism, ipso facto excommunication, invalidity of election are so many reasons why a pope might in fact never have been pope or might no longer be one. In this, obviously very exceptional case, the Church would be in a situation similar to that which prevails after the death of a Pontiff.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

3. “…these recent acts of the Pope and bishops, with protestants, Animists and Jєωs, are they not an active participation in non-catholic worship as explained by Canon Naz on Canon 1258§1? In which case I cannot see how it is possible to say that the pope is not suspect of heresy, and if he continues, he is a heretic, a public heretic. That is the teaching of the Church.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

4. “It seems inconceivable that a successor of Peter could fail in some way to transmit the Truth which he must transmit, for he cannot – without as it were disappearing from the papal line – not transmit what the popes have always transmitted.” (Homily, Ecône, September 18, 1977)

5. “If it happened that the pope was no longer the servant of the truth, he would no longer be pope.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000)

Did he consider sedevacantists to be upright members of the Church?

Undoubtedly. He rebuked certain over-zealous Society priests who refused the sacraments to sedevacantists. He collaborated with Bishop de Castro-Mayer after the Brazilian prelate had made his sedevacantism quite clear. He accepted numerous seminarians from sedevacantist families, parishes or groups. He patronised the Le Trévoux “Ordo” with its guide to traditional places of worship throughout the world, which has always included (and still does) certain known sedevacantist Mass centres. He was at all times well aware of the presence of sedevacantists among the Society’s priests.

Did he avow that his persevering recognition of Paul VI and John-Paul II was due more to heroically cautious hesitation than to any solid conviction?

1. “While we are certain that the faith the Church has taught for 20 centuries cannot contain error, we are much further from absolute certitude that the pope is truly pope.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

2. “It is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope. For twenty years Mgr de Castro Mayer and I preferred to wait…I think we are waiting for the famous meeting in Assisi, if God allows it.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, published in The Angelus, July 1986)

3. “I don’t know if the time has come to say that the pope is a heretic (…) Perhaps after this famous meeting of Assisi, perhaps we must say that the pope is a heretic, is apostate. Now I don’t wish yet to say it formally and solemnly, but it seems at first sight that it is impossible for a pope to be formally and publicly heretical. (…) So it is possible we may be obliged to believe this pope is not pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

Did he envisage declaring the legal vacancy of the Holy See if the situation continued unchanged?

1. “That is why I beseech Your Eminence to …do everything in your power to get us a Pope, a true Pope, successor of Peter, in line with his predecessors, the firm and watchful guardian of the deposit of faith. The…eighty-year-old cardinals have a strict right to present themselves at the Conclave, and their enforced absence will necessarily raise the question of the validity of the election” (Letter to an unnamed cardinal, August 8, 1978.)

2. “It is impossible for Rome to remain indefinitely outside Tradition. It’s impossible… For the moment they are in rupture with their predecessors. This is impossible. They are no longer in the Catholic Church.” (Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987, Ecône)

Did he insist that settling the question of whether the Vatican II “popes” were truly popes or not was an important duty, not to be evaded?

1. “…a grave problem confronts the conscience and the faith of all Catholics since the beginning of Paul VI’s pontificate: how can a pope who is truly successor of Peter, to whom the assistance of the Holy Ghost has been promised, preside over the most radical and far-reaching destruction of the Church ever known, in so short a time, beyond what any heresiarch has ever achieved? This question must one day be answered…” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

2. “Now some priests (even some priests in the Society) say that we Catholics need not worry about what is happening in the Vatican; we have the true sacraments, the true Mass, the true doctrine, so why worry about whether the pope is heretic or an impostor or whatever; it is of no importance to us. But I think that is not true. If any man is important in the Church it is the pope.” (Talk, March 30 and April 18, 1986, text published in The Angelus, July 1986)

Did he hold that Vatican II was unequivocally schismatic?

“We believe we can affirm, purely by internal and external criticism of Vatican II, i.e. by analysing the texts and studying the Council’s ins and outs, that by turning its back on tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, it is a schismatic council.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

Did he hold that Vatican II was unequivocally heretical?

In an interview with Mr Tom Chapman’s Catholic Crusader in 1984 the Archbishop expressly characterised the decree on Ecuмenism (Unitatis Redintegratio) as “heretical”.

Did he believe it impossible to interpret Vatican II in an orthodox sense?

“Do you agree to accept the Council as a whole? Reply: Ah, not religious liberty – it isn’t possible!” ((Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987, Ecône. The Archbishop’s words imagine the kind of interrogation his seminarians would have been submitted to if he had accepted the terms of agreement John-Paul II was offering him, entailing a Cardinal-Visitor entitled to grant or refuse the ordination of seminarians. The reply is the reply he assumes his seminarians would have to make and he goes on to explain that such a reply would have enabled the Cardinal-Visitor to refuse the seminarian’s ordination – his reason for refusing the deal.)

Did he reject outright all the conciliar reforms?

“We consider as null…all the post-conciliar reforms, and all the acts of Rome accomplished in this impiety.” (Joint Declaration with Bishop de Castro Mayer following Assisi, December 2, 1986)

Did he say that Vatican II and its “popes” had founded a new, false and schismatic religion?

1. “It is not we who are in schism but the Conciliar Church.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000 – these words appear in the original un-corrected version of the sermon as recorded and reported in the press)

2. “Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy. These are not words in the air. It is the truth. Rome is in apostasy… They have left the Church… This is sure, sure, sure.” (Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987, Ecône)

3. John Paul II “now continually diffuses the principles of a false religion, which has for its result a general apostasy.” (Preface to Giulio Tam’s Osservatore Romano 1990, contributed by the Archbishop just three weeks before his death)

Was he forthright in stating that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church?

1. “This Council represents, in our view and in the view of the Roman authorities, a new Church which they call the Conciliar Church.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

2. “The Church which affirms such errors is both schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is therefore not Catholic.” (July 29, 1976, Reflections on the Suspension a divinis)

Did he deny that the members of the new Vatican II Church were Catholics?

1. “To whatever extent pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (July 29, 1976, Reflections on the Suspension a divinis)

2. “To be publicly associated with the sanction [of excommunication] would be a mark of honour and a sign of orthodoxy before the faithful, who have a strict right to know that the priests they approach are not in communion with a counterfeit Church…” (Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6, 1988, signed by 24 SSPX superiors, doubtless with Archbishop Lefebvre’s approval)

Did he question the validity of the new rites of Mass, ordination and episcopal consecration?

1. “This union which liberal Catholics want between the Church and the Revolution is an adulterous union – adulterous. This adulterous union can only beget bastards. Where are these bastards? They are [the new] rites. The [new] rite of Mass is a bastard rite. The sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know whether they are sacraments that give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives us the Body and the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. (…) The priests emerging from the seminaries are bastard priests.” (Homily preached at Lille, August 29, 1976, before a crowd of some 12,000.)

2. “If we think that this reformed liturgy is heretical and invalid, whether because of modifications made in the matter and form or because of the reformers’ intention inscribed in the new rite in opposition to the intention of the catholic Church, evidently we cannot participate in these reformed rites because we should be taking part in a sacrilegious act. This opinion is founded on serious reasons…” (Ecône, February 24, 1977, Answers to Various Burning Questions)

3. “The radical and extensive changes made in the Roman Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and their resemblance to the modifications made by Luther oblige Catholics who remain loyal to their faith to question the validity of this new rite. Who better than the Reverend Father Guérard des Lauriers to make an informed contribution to resolving this problem…?” (Foreword contributed to a book in favour of the thesis of invalidity by Fr Guérard des Lauriers. Écône, February 2, 1977)

4. Moreover Archbishop Lefebvre personally conditionally re-ordained many priests who had been ordained in the 1968 rite and re-confirmed those purportedly confirmed in the new rite or by the new bishops.

Did he hold that John-Paul II and his henchmen were excommunicated “antichrists”?

1. “So we are [to be] excommunicated by Modernists, by people who have been condemned by previous popes. So what can that really do? We are condemned by men who are themselves condemned…” (Press conference, Ecône, June 15 1988)

2. Post-consecration statement (Summer 1988), SSPX school Bitsche, Alsace-Lorraine: “the archbishop stated, going even beyond even his 15th June press conference, that those who had excommunicated him had themselves long been excommunicated.” (Summary in the Counter-Reformation Association’s, News and Views, Candlemas 1996)

3. “The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by antichrists, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below (…) This is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the antichrists.” (Letter to the future bishops, 29 August 1987)

Did he rejoice to be separated from the Church of John-Paul II?

1. “We have been suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and from the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong.” (July 29 1976, Reflections on the Suspension a divinis)

2. “…we do not belong to this religion. We do not accept this new religion. We belong to the old religion, the Catholic religion, not to this universal religion as it is called today. It is no longer the Catholic religion…” (Sermon, June 29, 1976)

3. “I should be very happy to be excommunicated from this Conciliar Church… It is a Church that I do not recognize. I belong to the Catholic Church.” (Interview July 30 1976, published in Minute, no. 747)

4. “We have never wished to belong to this system that calls itself the Conciliar Church. To be excommunicated by a decree of your eminence…would be the irrefutable proof that we do not. We ask for nothing better than to be declared ex communione…excluded from impious communion with infidels.” (Open Letter to Cardinal Gantin, July 6, 1988, signed by 24 leading SSPX priests, doubtless with Archbishop Lefebvre’s approval)

Did he consciously employ a sedevacantist seminary professor at Ecône, ordain and assign ministries to sedevacantist clergy, and send his seminarians to gain pastoral experience with a sedevacantist priest at his month-long summer camp each year?

He did indeed. We shall not run the risk of setting the poursuivants on the heels of those involved by naming persons who in many cases are still sedevacantist and still members of the SSPX or in collaboration with it. Any priest who was at Ecône in the days of the Archbishop will confirm our answer.

What does St. Jerome, or teachers of his stature or higher in the Magisterium, say about the possibility of the papacy and hierarchy of the Church being totally "usurped" such that there would be those in control of those offices teaching falsely and leading men to hell: I'll tell you - they said it was impossible.

Here's how the fathers of Vatican I understood it and expressed it in their explanation of the Church's indefectibility in the "schema" for the Council:

You keep switching topics when you're refuted. I could give you tons of quotes to refute your newest nonsense but it'd be of no use.