CathInfo.com

This is a perfect example the ignorance of Sedevacantists, and the false conclusions they reach by the use of their private judgement.

Mr. Ladislaus, what is de fide (Dei Filius, Vatican I) is that a doctrine is infallibly propose by the ordinary and universal magisterium when 1) all the bishops of the world agree that 2) the doctrine in question is a revealed truth that must be assented to with divine and Catholic faith.  The universality of the teaching alone does not suffice for it to be infallibly proposed; it must also be proposed definitively as revealed, for it to be infallible by the force of the ordinary and universal magisterium.

False.  This problem of Vatican II is not some quibbling about whether this, that, or the other isolated proposition meets the notes of infallibility.  This is about the indefectibility of the Church as a whole, with Vatican II and the NOM all taken together.  Nevertheless, it's one thing for a proposition to be mistaken and quite another for the Church to be able to teach HERESY to the entire Church.

It would not be possible for a Pope even in a non-infallible docuмent to teach HERESY.  Would Pius XII have been prevented from the Holy Spirit in issuing an Encyclical which taught that, say, Our Lord's Resurrection was just a spiritual resurrection and not a physical one?  Unequivocally yes.

You attempt to apply the notes of infallibility as strictly defined to this problem (and your assertion that the remaining 99% of the non-infallible Magisterium can go corrupt) is basically heretical.

Two steps:

First, by examining the motives of credibility and arriving at the conclusion that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ.  This can be achieved by the use of reason, and quite easily with the help of actual grace. 

Second. By accepting that what the true Church teaches is true.  Since the Church teaches that the magisterium is an infallible teacher, it follows that if the Church infallibly proposes a doctrine as having been revealed by God, the person will believe that the doctrine in question is revealed - and they will believe it, not based on their private judgment, but on the infallible authority of the infallible Church teaching.

That is how a non-Catholic comes to believe that there is an infallible teacher that has infallibly taught a doctrine that was revealed by God.

This is absolutely correct.  THIS is where private judgement has a legitimate role, in examining the motives of credibility.  Traditional Catholics look at the Conciliar counterfeit Church and recognize that it lacks the Marks or Notes of the One True Church found by Christ.  It's about a bigger picture than quibbling over the precise limtis of infallibility.  In its doctrine and its publish worship, it is simply unrecognizable as those of the Catholic Church.

If you were to time-warp St. Pius X to today and have him behold Berogligo and his teachings and watch the Novus Ordo Mass being celebrated, would he recognize it as the Catholic Church?  Absolutely not.  THAT is what the question is here.  I've long prescinded from debating about whether this, that, or another isolated doctrine is true or false.  God does not expect the average Catholic to be a theologian, but He taught that the sheep that are of His fold recognize the voice of their Master.  We do not recognize the voice of Our Lord in this counterfeit imposter Church.  That is how most Catholics become Traditional Catholics, not by reading theology manuals and studying the text of Vatican II, but by their sensus Catholicus informing them that, "this thing, whatever it is, is not the Catholic Church."

I became a Traditional Catholc after reading St. Alphonsus for the first time.  I simlply compared the sensus Catholicus behind his writing with that of the Novus Ordo and recognized instinctively the massive contradiction, that there were two essentially different things here.  At the time I knew precious little about what was in Vatican II.