CathInfo.com

This argument isn't about infallibility in the strict sense, as defined by Vatican II.  It's about the indefectibility of the Church.

R&R (as represented by SeanJohnson and a few others here on CI ... NOT Archbishop Lefebvre) basically blaspheme (and would have been burned at the stake on orders of a St. Robert Bellarmine), and they destroy the Catholic Church ... all to rescue Bergoglio.

If the Church founded by Our Lord Jesus is capable of ...

1) holding an Ecuмenical Council that has led the entire Church astray into Modernism
2) replaced the Catholic Mass with pile of rubbish with dubious validity and also blasphemous (replacing the Offertory with a тαℓмυdic table prayer)
3) taught garbage to the Church for >60 years now (where most of their Encyclicals aren't fit to be used for toilet paper)
4) canonized some of the greatest evil-doers in the history of the Church
5) has led sols to hell for >60 years,

then there's no use for a Church, then the Prots were right (while being wrong on the details), and the Old Catholic were right, and the Eastern Orthodox are right, and the promises of Our Lord meant nothing, and the Catholic Church would just be a pile of rubbish overall.  Absit.

In short, we behold here in the Conciliar Church a brand new religion.

Never mind blaspheming the Holy Catholic Church, just to save Bergoglio.

I wonder where it is that you learned this. Do you understand that all of the conciliar popes and hierarchy are in 100% full agreement with you? - which explains why they are so adamant about the new religion, but pretty much makes you look crazy for being against the whole thing.

According to your reasoning and if this is in fact true, then V2 did not "publish a bunch of Modernist garbage" for the simple reason that it could not have.

Every Catholic Father, Doctor, pre-Vatican II theologian is "in 100% full agreement with [me]".

As for your second statement above, I've tried to get that nonsense out of your head a dozen times already.  You beg the question that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church.  No, an Ecuмenical Council did NOT "publish a bunch of Modernist garbage" ... because it was not a legitimate Ecuмenical Council.  But for some reason, you can't break out of this mental rut you're in.

Every Catholic Father, Doctor, pre-Vatican II theologian is "in 100% full agreement with [me]".

As for your second statement above, I've tried to get that nonsense out of your head a dozen times already.  You beg the question that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church.  No, an Ecuмenical Council did NOT "publish a bunch of Modernist garbage" ... because it was not a legitimate Ecuмenical Council.  But for some reason, you can't break out of this mental rut you're in.

No they are not in agreement with you.

The conciliar church is not the Catholic Church, I thought that was settled a long time ago.

Whatever you want to call V2, it was convened by a pope and included all Catholic bishops, and also some prots - and it most certainly "published a bunch of Modernist garbage."