This principle of your is nowhere proven:  "Indefectibility requires that the Church always (until the "end times") have a [actual, vs. in potentcy] governing body that teaches authoritatively and truly."

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.

Sorry, but this is utter nonsense.  Only 1-3% of all the episcopal sees remained Catholic during the Arian crisis  97-99% of the bishops went Arian.  This is in fact the reason for the famous quote from St. Athanasius that the Church reamins with the true faithful, even if they're reduced to a handful.

And Universal Peaceful Acceptance is also nonsense to the extent that it can effectively convalidate a bogus pope.  We've actually had TWO cases in history were a legitimate reigning pope was still alive but went into exile.  After he went into exile, a new Pope was elected and Universally Accepted.  So now this "Universal Acceptance" principle can depose legitimate popes?  Nobody has ever proven this principle.  It's just stated as if it were some dogma.  I've never seen it proven.  In fact, Paul IV's cuм ex apostolatus clearly indicated the opposite.  While it was partially disciplinary, there's an assumed theological position there that undercuts univeral acceptance.  He stated that even if "all" accepted a heretic pope, he would be no pope.  Really?  But this Universal Acceptance would make him pope, would it not?  There's definitely a role to play for UAP, but it cannot render an illegitimate pope legitimate.  If there were truly a "Pope Joan" scenario, where some future tranny got elected pope, and the entire Church accepted the tranny, she would still not be pope.  Similarly, if Gregoy XVII (Siri) was the legitimate Pope, he could not be forced out of office under duress, and the subsequent acceptance of Roncalli could not depose Gregory XVII.

I really can't believe things have gotten this bad that "Trad Catholics" are pushing shameless overt Protestantism now.  Unbelievable.

St. Paul is being misapplied.  Your Prot reading of that passage to justify Totalism doesn't trump actual Catholic theology.  St. Paul did not say that the Pope could teach heresy, just that if someone ELSE came along who preached heresy.

Welcome, Hardicanute. Your learned input is much appreciated. You've been silent too long.

But I disagree. The Totalist position would not have a problem if your number 1 from that post of yours I recently cited were true: we are in a prophesied end times that is sui generis and departs from the norm of an indefectible governing body that held always prior to the age of the consummation, and the final return of Our Lord. This is a "miracle" (a rather dark one) and an outlier, like a miracle by God in the physical realm that doesn't disprove the laws of physics, even when it departs from them.

Hi DecemRationis. Thank you for your warm welcome, kind words, and participation in this thread.

I understand your viewpoint. The concern would then be whether we can have epistemological certainty about our era being the end times. Many past generations thought as such and were wrong. That being the case, it’s difficult to justify an abandonment of certain ecclesiological principles on a point of doubtful certainty.

I think his point is that "totalism" leads to those 6 possibilities.  He has since modified his position somewhat and is now claiming that "totalism" leads inescapably to conclavism.  It is unclear whether or not he thinks it leads inescapably to any of the other possibilities (or maybe all of them?).  While I don't rule out the possibility of the very close proximity to the end of the world (#1) or maybe I should say I think it may even be probable, I can't say that there won't be another pope before the world ends.  And I see no insurmountable obstacle to another Catholic pope reigning before the end of the world.  The funny thing is that those 6 possibilities are not ruled out by any of the existing positions with respect to the status of the Conciliar "popes".  I mean, if you think Bergoglio is actually the pope, I don't blame you if you think the world will be ending soon.