Problem with this, Sean, is it doesn't confront the view of what I've called the Lad group - that a valid ecuмenical council couldn't teach error like V2. That view, which you and I disagree with, is opposed your view; it doesn't recognize a form/substance distinction. If it's valid, it's protected from error; so that view goes. It was the nearly unanimous view prior to the Council.

I know you cited one work of one (I believe) pre-Vatican II theologian, but I haven't read that, and the opposing authority is overwhelming. That (Lad's view) was the view of the theologians and manualists.

So, as I said, that view must be confronted head on as wrong, or else concede to the Sede argument. I can't concede to the Sede argument because a usurpation of the hierarchy to teach error and even heresy makes a mockery of the very protection of the Church that the Sedes say is afforded the Church: what good is it if such a usurpation could take place?

So, I disagree, and say the prevalent indefectibility view is wrong. I don't see another option if I were to remain honest and rational, and avoid contradiction. And I believe that Catholic truth is that - honest, free of contradiction, and rational.

I wish Vigano would confront the Conundrum, and not dance around it.

I understand what you are saying, but to the extent that you are accurately describing Lad’s position, I would say, as a sedeprivationist, he’s being inconsistent in his position:

They skirt the sedevacantist snare by positing a pope, but one without any actual authority or jurisdiction (ie., a pope materially, but not formally).  In other words, a different kind of pope than any sort of pope described in the manuals, encyclicals, bulls, councils, or any magisterial teaching.

Vigano is saying pretty much the same thing regarding councils as Lad/SP’s are saying regarding the pope:

The form (materialiter) of an ecuмenical council is there, but the substance (formaliter) -traditional Catholic doctrine infallible via either the extra or ordinary magisterium- is missing:

Its a different kind of council in the same way SP’s posit a different and unheard of kind of pope.

In principle, sadly, these V2 papal claimants are more Catholic than many of the modern R&R.  This notion of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church has been the constant teaching of the Church, from the Fathers, Doctors, theologians, etc.  Montini is right.  Often the enemies of the faith know the principles of the faith better than Catholics.

It's easier to fool others that way!  

We're not the ones following blind guides.

Give me a break. You literally follow men that will not at all stray from the teachings of Abp. Lefebvre, despite everything that has happened since his death. And then turn around and use the fallible opinions of theologians to support their position rather than the Magisterium or Papal teachings.

The quotes you posted are beautiful. They are one and all, talking about teachings, not the pope.

Pope Pius IX clearly articulated what the Magisterium is in Tuas Libenter: "...all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith."

You're right. They aren't talking about the Pope, they're talking about the infallibility of the Magisterium in response to what Pax was asking about a "definition" of what the Magisterium is.

Common-sense dictates, based upon the quotes I cited, that the Magisterium is synonymous with Tradition. Therefore, since many of you call yourselves "traditional Catholics" what Catholic Tradition can you follow other than the authentic Magisterium?

The Catholic Encyclopedia even equates Tradition with the living Magisterium:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

Given that many of you seem to think that a manifest heretic can also be a valid Pope, and therefore part of the Church, you deny the Magisterial teachings of several Popes on that point:

Pope St. Celestine I, Council of Ephesus, 431:
“… ALL HERETICS corrupt the true expressions of the Holy Spirit with their own evil minds and they draw down on their own heads an inextinguishable flame.”

Pope Innocent IV, First Council of Lyons, 1245:
“The civil law declares that those are to be regarded as heretics, and ought to be subject to the sentences issued against them, who even on slight evidence are found to have strayed from the judgment and path of the Catholic religion.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum #13:
"can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others."
[...]
"he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith."

Canon 1325.2: "After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one is] a heretic;"

Pope Paul IV, cuм ex Apostolatus Officio, #6:
6. In addition, if ever at any time it should appear that any Bishop (even one acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate), or any Cardinal of said Roman Church, even a Legate as previously stated, or even a Roman Pontiff prior to his promotion or elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy, then
his promotion or elevation, even if it be uncontested and carried out by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, invalid, and void;

Pro-tip: Every. Single. Man claiming to be the Pope after Pius XII can be proven to have been a manifest heretic before their election, without even getting into the ipso-facto loss of office for manifest heresy after their election.

And to reiterate once more, there is no reading into these statements per Vatican I:

Ch. 4, 14. Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

Give me a break. You literally follow men that will not at all stray from the teachings of Abp. Lefebvre, despite everything that has happened since his death. And then turn around and use the fallible opinions of theologians to support their position rather than the Magisterium or Papal teachings.

You're right. They aren't talking about the Pope, they're talking about the infallibility of the Magisterium in response to what Pax was asking about a "definition" of what the Magisterium is.

I posted the definition of what the Magisterium is as explained by Pope Pius IX. How anyone can disagree with what he says is beyond me.

Pro-tip: Every. Single. Man claiming to be the Pope after Pius XII can be proven to have been a manifest heretic before their election.

No argument from me here. Certainly the popes since at least Pope St. Pius X knew what they were doing when they mandated that even heretic cardinals were to partake in the election - which means the mandate admits that even heretic cardinals could indeed be elected pope.....

"No Cardinal can in any way be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff on the pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever; We, in fact, suspend these censures only for the effect of an election of this sort; they will remain in their own force in other circuмstances." - Pope St. Pius X, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis

No argument from me here. Certainly the popes since at least Pope St. Pius X knew what they were doing when they mandated that even heretic cardinals were to partake in the election - which means the mandate admits that even heretic cardinals could indeed be elected pope.....

"No Cardinal can in any way be excluded from the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff on the pretext or by reason of any excommunication, suspension, interdict, or other ecclesiastical impediment whatsoever; We, in fact, suspend these censures only for the effect of an election of this sort; they will remain in their own force in other circuмstances." - Pope St. Pius X, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis

No, Stubborn, this is not referring to "heretic cardinals", which don't exist. It is referring to Catholic cardinals who have incurred minor excommunication for some crime other than heresy, schism or apostasy. Individuals who have incurred minor excommunication are still members of the Church, unlike heretics. You believe a non-Catholic can be the head of the Church, meaning you don't believe the Church is one in Faith. Next time you sing "Unam, sanctam, catholicam" at a Sung Mass, think about what that really means. It does not mean the Church is some heretical sect made up of both Catholics and heretics. The Mystical Body of Christ professes One (unam) Faith.

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”

Your fallacious objection was completely refuted long ago here: https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/cardinal-elects-excommunicated-pope/

Also: Pope Leo XIII, Testem Benevolentiae, Jan. 22, 1899: “Where Peter is, there is the Church.” You reject this, for you believe Francis is the head of the Conciliar Church, i.e. "Where Peter is, there is not the Church".

Your fallacious objection was completely refuted long ago here: https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/cardinal-elects-excommunicated-pope/

They won't read the refutation because it comes from MHFM. That much has already been made clear earlier in the thread when I posted clear refutations of the heretical R&R position on Vatican II by MFHM and NOW, and they were dismissed because of the source, rather than the arguments.

They won't read the refutation because it comes from MHFM. That much has already been made clear earlier in the thread when I posted clear refutations of the heretical R&R position on Vatican II by MFHM and NOW, and they were dismissed because of the source, rather than the arguments.

If that's the case, then we are dealing with bad-willed heretics who receive not the love of the truth... they are no different to the liberals who will dismiss evidence against the vaccine because the source isn't from the mainstream media. In this case it's bad-willed false trads who only accept Eleison comments or the Angelus or Fr. Wathen's sermons as a valid source...