Stubborn, an ardent disciple of Father Wathen, to the point that he cites Father Wathen as if he were a Magisterial source, is adamant that the NOM is a great sacrilege, and yet attributes this great sacrilege to the Church.  Do you have any earthly idea of what you're saying, claiming that the Catholic Church has promulgated a Rite of Mass for use as its official public worship that is sacrilegious?  That goes even a step further than the proposition anathematized by Trent.

Of course, Father Wathen could in fact be just as Magisterial as any Catholic pope, for if his writing conforms with Tradition then it has the same authority as a papal encyclical which also happens to conform with Tradition.

Fallible opinions of clerics, like Fr. Wathen, do not override the pronouncements of a Pope or Council or the Magisterium. And looking for a deeper meaning in what the Church herself has dogmatically pronounced, such as heretics being OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH, I quote for the umpteenth time, is a heresy against Vatican I Session 3, 4.14:
Quote

Quote

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.

That the chair is vacant is a dogma now? Another dogmatic sede?


Sacred dogma:

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." - Unam Sanctam Pope Boniface VIII 1302

According to the position being advanced by Stubborn and now also Decem, barring a solemn definition, in theory, the works of Father Wathen and Papal Magisterium are of equal authority, since both only have authority in so far as they're in conformity with Tradition (as determined by Stubborn) ... which of course makes Stubborn the final authority.  That's in theory.  In point of fact, Father Wathen's works have greater authority than the post-v2 Magisterium because they're more in conformity with Tradition.

This is a joke, where teaching "authority" is not a priori but is a posteriori ... after it's approved by the discernment of Stubborn and Decem.

Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (#6), June 26, 1749: "The Church’s judgment is preferable even to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching."

Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi dominic gregis (#45), Sept. 8, 1907: "It goes without saying that 'if anything is met with among the scholastic doctors which may be regarded as something investigated with an excess of subtlety, or taught without sufficient consideration; anything which is not in keeping with the certain results of later times; anything, in short, which is altogether destitute of probability, We have no desire whatever to propose it for the imitation of present generations.'"

Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (#21), Aug. 12, 1950: "This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church."

Yes. Lad avoids the consequences of his position and its inconsistencies.

He says you reject the indefectible Magisterium by saying it could produce error in its ordinary Magisterium, but he says it produces error in its ordinary Magisterium. Yet when he does it, it's presumably not denying the indefectible, ordinary Magisterium:

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/bergolio-says-there-many-restorers-in-usa-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii/msg830604/#msg830604

He accuses you of tautology, yet avoids the tautology of his own position, which presents the similar circular argument he accuses you of:

https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/bergolio-says-there-many-restorers-in-usa-who-do-not-accept-vatican-ii/msg830825/#msg830825

He avoided the the first post (as is his wont when cornered), and avoided the tautology in the second by not addressing the point head on, but by simple claiming, in essence, "heresy."

We believe that Holy Mother Church is truth, and when she is speaking with the authority given to her to proclaim the Gospel, she is inerrant and to be trusted completely. Sometimes her teachers stray and teach contrary to Revelation, like the teachers under the Old Covenant before her (the Pharisees, who sat in "Moses seat" with legitimate authority, Mt. 23:2)), who, despite that legitimate authority, could teach things against the true Revelation of God by their erroneous teachings (Mt 15; Mk 7).

So Lad's view encompasses an indefectible Church that teaches erroneously where he says it can't, and his personal views abound in contradictions - claims of rejecting an inerrant ordinary Magisterium when he rejects it, claims of tautology when his views are tautological, etc.

Contradiction abounding, where it can't: where the Truth is.

We reject his contradictions, and believe that the Church is the true Church of Christ, and seek her as she truly is, and where asserts her true authority and invokes the charism of the Holy Ghost: when she defines and proclaims the Gospel of Christ.

upholding the indefectibility of the Church and holding that she cannot become corrupt in faith, morals, or public worship ... yeah, that's NO.  You've pretty much crossed the line into insanity.