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.

This is absolutely correct.  THIS is where private judgement has a legitimate role, in examining the motives of credibility.

“Private judgement” is necessary in all aspects of life and faith. In reality, hierarchical ecclesiastical authority is limited to determining what constitutes the articles of faith, what is opposed to the aforementioned, protecting the Church from pernicious matters opposed to the faith, and by creating temporal-spiritual disciplines to safeguard the Church and the faithful in all aspects of life as it relates to faith and morals.

Everything else is “private judgement.”

-Knowing that the Catholic Church is the one true Church.
-Knowing that the articles of faith have historic apostolic continuity.
-Knowing that a man at a given time is Pope.
-Knowing that the Pope really said X.
-Knowing how to understand and interpret a Papal or Church statement on any matter.

All of this requires the mind and these matters are only as certain as the mind of the person understanding them. There is an objective reality and it is only through intellect that we can know what it is and its certainty is dependent on the mind that reached it.

The indefectibility of the Church is related to the de fide credenda dogma of the perpetuity of Papal succession defined in the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church “Pastor aeternus.” The dogma of the indefectibility of the Church is moreover closely related to the doctrine of the permanence of the Church, and although it has not been proclaimed in an independent extraordinary decree of its own, it is considered a secondary object of the infallibility of this teaching, and as such, is a tenenda infallible teaching in its own right. The indefectibility of the Church is listed by Dr. Ludwig Ott as a sententia theologice certa (“theologically certain teaching” or Sent. certa.) dogma, meaning that it is a teaching that the Magisterium has definitively proposed. The dogma of the indefectibility of the Church has been summarized as follows: “The Church is indefectible, that is, she remains and will remain the Institution of Salvation, founded by Christ, until the end of the world” (XIV).

I'm not sure why you wrote this in reply to my earlier post, but there are a few minor errors in what you wrote that I will clear up.  First, permanence of the Church (which is an aspect of the Church's promise of indefectibility), is not a secondary object of infallibility. It is a primary object (a revealed truth - Mt 28:20)), and, even if it has not been solemnly defined by a single definitive act, it is certainly a truth that has been infallibly proposed by the force of the ordinary and universal magisterium.

A secondary object of infallibility is a truth that has not been revealed, but which is necessary to preserve the revealed deposit.  The assent "tendendas" (to be held) is owed to secondary objects that have been definitively proposed.  The assent owed to a primary object of infallibility that has been infallibly proposed by the ordinary and universal magisterium (such as the doctrine of the permanence of the Church) is that of divine and Catholic faith.

But since you agree that the perpetuity of papal succession is de fide, do you believe there as been perpetual successors of Peter up to the present day, or do you believe the last Pope died 65 years ago?

I'm not sure why you wrote this in reply to my earlier post, but there are a few minor errors in what you wrote that I will clear up.  First, permanence of the Church (which is an aspect of the Church's promise of indefectibility), is not a secondary object of infallibility. It is a primary object (a revealed truth - Mt 28:20)), and, even if it has not been solemnly defined by a single definitive act, it is certainly a truth that has been infallibly proposed by the force of the ordinary and universal magisterium.

A secondary object of infallibility is a truth that has not been revealed, but which is necessary to preserve the revealed deposit.  The assent "tendendas" (to be held) is owed to secondary objects that have been definitively proposed.  The assent owed to a primary object of infallibility that has been infallibly proposed by the ordinary and universal magisterium (such as the doctrine of the permanence of the Church) is that of divine and Catholic faith.

But since you agree that the perpetuity of papal succession is de fide, do you believe there as been perpetual successors of Peter up to the present day, or do you believe the last Pope died 65 years ago?

Yes, the permanence of the Church is a primary object of infallibility. I was referring to indefectibility as a secondary object of infallibility closely related and necessary for the dogma of permanence.

I believe there have been perpetual successors of Peter and there will continue to be such. The last Pope, Pius XII, passed away and there has been an interregnum of 65 years that will be resolved in due time. This is no different than the death of a Pope and the time it takes to elect another as has already been said about this ad nauseam.

I do not believe in Ecclesiavacantism.

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. 

Interesting that the Protestants arrived at the same conclusion about the Roman Catholic Church after the Council of Trent.  They maintained that the Church post-Trent was a New Church that taught a New Religion, just like the Sedevacantist heretics believe the Church post-Vatican II is a New Church that teaches a New Religion.  There is another parallel between the Protestants and Sedevacantists.

If the Roman Catholic Church - i.e., the Church of Rome and all the particular churches throughout the world in union with it - lacks the four marks, where is the infallible, indefectible Church with four marks, outside of which there is no salvation? 

I've been asking Sedevacantist heretics this question for years, and all I ever get in reply is a blank stare. 

I believe that the last pope died in 1989 (about 33 years ago).

Mystici Corporis Christi: "69. Now since its Founder willed this social body of Christ to be visible, the cooperation of all its members must also be externally manifest through their profession of the same faith and their sharing the same sacred rites, through participation in the same Sacrifice, and the practical observance of the same laws. Above all, it is absolutely necessary that the Supreme Head, that is, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, be visible to the eyes of all, since it is He who gives effective direction to the work which all do in common in a mutually helpful way towards the attainment of the proposed end."

So much for the Siri Theory.  Moreover, how could Siri have been  the Pope when he remained a member of the "Vatican II sect" that you claim lacks the four marks?  How can the member of a false Church be the Pope of the true Church?