[Pax Vobis]

And frankly, it is precisely this dismissive attitude towards the pope which is behind the inordinate attempts of the likes of Siscoe and Salza to defend the proposition that popes have been heretical in the past.

I've not read their book entirely, but only parts.  They do make some good points and it seems to me that they are TRYING to balance the view that 'popes can do no wrong' which some sedes hold (not all) and which the current post-conciliar church holds as well.  And, one can make the argument that popes have erred in the past and walked the tightrope of heresy, even if years later it was shown they weren't TECHNICALLY heretical.  Fine.  But you have to admit that their actions were anything but orthodox, even if they weren't heretical.

It is just a futile attempt to undermine Papal authority and demonstrate that popes can fall into error judicially.

I don't see it as an attempt to undermine papal authority, but to try to distinguish and define the when, where and how papal authority is used, which can be complex.  It doesn't have to be complex, but it CAN be.
Further, to answer your contention that 'popes cannot fall into error judicially', I would say 1) that's WAY too general of a statement.  2) define 'judicially', and 3) the pope can fall into error as a human being and go to hell, but he cannot err officially as papal teacher or through his papal authority.

[Cantarella]

Christ founded the Church on St Peter, as the human GUARDIAN of the Faith, but the faith was not based on the papacy - it is based on the natural law and Divine Truth, which existed LONG before St Peter and the Apostles were even born.

Pax Vobis, I suggest you to read and meditate today on Matthew 16, 16:19.

¹⁶ Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
¹⁷ And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
¹⁸ And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
¹⁹ And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

On the annotation of 17. Blessed art thou, we find: "For it was of congruity and Christ's special appointment, that he upon whom he intended to found his new Church, and whose Faith we would make infallible, should have preeminence of this first profession of Christ's natural divinity, or, that he was by nature the very son of God a thing so far above the capacity of nature, reason, flesh and blood, and so repugnant to Peter's sense and sight of Christ's humanity, flesh, infirmities, that for the belief and public profession thereof he is counted blessed, as Abraham was for his faith: and hath great promises for himself and his posterity, as the said Patriarch had for him and his seed. According to St. Basil, because he excelled in faith, he received the building of the Church committed to him".

[2Vermont]

Absolutely.  They appeal to Tradition over and against the Magisterium, just as Protestants appealed to Scripture over the Magisterium.  Only difference is that Protestants had only one source of Revelation, but these so-called Trad Catholics have two.  Otherwise, there's no difference whatsoever.

THIS kind of thinking is what created sedevacantism ... and the most bitter and dogmatic sedevacantists.

How so?  

[2Vermont]

This.

And frankly, it is precisely this dismissive attitude towards the pope which is behind the inordinate attempts of the likes of Siscoe and Salza to defend the proposition that popes have been heretical in the past. It is just a futile attempt to undermine Papal authority and demonstrate that popes can fall into error judicially. The Protestants have attempted this also many times in order to prove that St. Peter (and successors) is not who the Church says he is.  

For example, the constant appeal to Galatians 2:11.  The Protestants used to use that Scripture verse against the papacy.  Now we have so-called Catholics using it against the papacy.

[Pax Vobis]

On the annotation of 17. Blessed art thou, we find: "For it was of congruity and Christ's special appointment, that he upon whom he intended to found his new Church, and whose Faith we would make infallible, should have preeminence of this first profession of Christ's natural divinity, or, that he was by nature the very son of God a thing so far above the capacity of nature, reason, flesh and blood, and so repugnant to Peter's sense and sight of Christ's humanity, flesh, infirmities, that for the belief and public profession thereof he is counted blessed, as Abraham was for his faith: and hath great promises for himself and his posterity, as the said Patriarch had for him and his seed. According to St. Basil, because he excelled in faith, he received the building of the Church committed to him".

I agree with you - the Church was founded upon St Peter and the papacy, of course.  I'm saying that the Faith (i.e. divine truths) is separate from the papacy, because it existed before Christ even came to earth, in part in the Hebrew religion.  St Peter was the 'rock' upon which Christ organized the human element of salvation, the fullness of the Faith, the completion of the Hebrew religion - the Church - through which, is dispensed grace and salvation and Divine Truth, which has existed before time, since its Divine.

Ergo, the pope's job is NOT to create doctrine (he cannot), nor to teach a new understanding of it (there's only one understanding) but to re-teach and clarify what was handed down from Christ to the Apostles.  As Vatican I says in Chapter 4, point 6:

6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

This means that
1) the Holy Spirit is promised as a protector, but the pope has to make use of this promise, which he does when he fulfils the requirements and speaks infallibily.
2) ergo, if the pope does NOT speak infallibly, then the Holy Spirit is not promised.
3) the pope cannot teach something new, nor will he ever, in an official capacity as infallible teacher.
4) the pope is supposed to use infallibility to 'religiously guard' and 'faithfully expound' the deposit of faith.
5) Expound means to 'present and explain in detail'.  This is what I mean when I say 're-teach and clarfiy'
6) The 'deposit of faith' is Scripture/Tradition
7) Ergo, the pope's faith is protected by the Holy Spirit when he speaks infallible for the purpose of 're-teaching and clarifying' the Scripture/Tradition.  Outside of this, he is not protected from error and his 'teaching' is as a fallible bishop of rome, and he could err if he is not orthodox, thus we pray for him that his personal faith be not corrupted and that he not lose his soul.

This is the teaching of Vatican 1, which we all must believe.

[Cantarella]

2) ergo, if the pope does NOT speak infallibly, then the Holy Spirit is not promised.

That is not how Catholics used to understand the Divine Assistance given to St. Peter and his successors in order to safeguard the Faith. In fact, I think the only group promoting this view with such vigor is the SSPX because they have an interest in a separatist R&R agenda.

It is simple, ask yourself, before the promulgation of Vatican I Pastor Aeternus, how did the Catholics believe in the pope infallibility as a whole? The precise conditions of the pope speaking ex-cathedra were not defined yet, still the overwhelming consensus that the pope could not fall into heresy or err in matters of faith was generally understood.

Furthermore, how many dogmas have been defined in such a way with the exact wording, after Pastor Aeternus?

[Cantarella]

7) Ergo, the pope's faith is protected by the Holy Spirit when he speaks infallible for the purpose of 're-teaching and clarifying' the Scripture/Tradition.  Outside of this, he is not protected from error and his 'teaching' is as a fallible bishop of rome, and he could err if he is not orthodox, thus we pray for him that his personal faith be not corrupted and that he not lose his soul.

This is the teaching of Vatican 1, which we all must believe.

R&R not only asserts that the pope is merely fallible outside of the strict parameters formulated in Vatican I (this is, only when speaking ex-cathedra), but they pretend that the conciliar popes have been actively causing harm to the entire Church by promulgating false teachings and defective liturgy. So it is not only that they are not infallible; but that they are proactively harmful. That is impossible.

[Ladislaus]

Ergo, the pope's job is NOT to create doctrine (he cannot), nor to teach a new understanding of it (there's only one understanding) but to re-teach and clarify what was handed down from Christ to the Apostles.  As Vatican I says in Chapter 4, point 6:

6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

....

bzzzt.  THE most universal R&R-distorted Vatican I passage.

This is simply a theological DEFINITION of infallibility, distinguishing it from revelation, clarifying that infallibility is not the revelation of new doctrine.  R&R typically distorts this to mean that if Pope teaches new doctrine, then he's not infallible ... completely uprooting the actual Vatican I definition that something is known to be infallible a priori if it meets the notes of infallibility.

[Ladislaus]

R&R not only asserts that the pope is merely fallible outside of the strict parameters formulated in Vatican I (this is, only when speaking ex-cathedra), but they pretend that the conciliar popes have been actively causing harm to the entire Church by promulgating false teachings and defective liturgy. So it is not only that they are not infallible; but that they are proactively harmful. That is impossible.

Pax refuses to touch this; he's obsessed with proving R&R from the notes of infallibility defined by Vatican I, but ends up creating a Magisterium that can be complete garbage (harmful to faith) outside of the rare occasions when these notes of strict infallibility are present.  He won't address this though.

[Pax Vobis]

It is simple, ask yourself, before the promulgation of Vatican I Pastor Aeternus, how did the Catholics believe in the pope infallibility as a whole? The precise conditions of the pope speaking ex-cathedra were not defined yet, still the overwhelming consensus that the pope could not fall into heresy or err in matters of faith was generally understood.

Papal infallibility was being distorted before Vatican 1, which is why it was necessary to define the parameters.

"The pope could not fall into heresy or err in matters of faith" is a generalization.  It requires distinctions, which V1 gave us.  Before the 1800s, the papacy was not under attack, nor had the Church been infiltrated by masons, to any degree comparative in history.  I see what you're saying, but you are assuming that the pope/clergy are orthodox, when you ask "what is the consensus/ordinary understanding of infallibility?".  If the clergy is orthodox, then the concerns about infallibility are a waste of time.  If they are not orthodox, and if they try to undermine church teaching through unofficial and pastoral means, then we must be on guard.  It is precisely because the Church has been infiltrated that the distinctions I am making are necessary - otherwise, we should all just shut up, sit in the pews and take whatever rome gives us.

[Pax Vobis]

This is simply a theological DEFINITION of infallibility, distinguishing it from revelation, clarifying that infallibility is not the revelation of new doctrine.

Of course it is.  But it proves that the pope CANNOT teach new doctrine because such an idea is foreign to catholicism.  There is nothing new.

  R&R typically distorts this to mean that if Pope teaches new doctrine, then he's not infallible ... completely uprooting the actual Vatican I definition that something is known to be infallible a priori if it meets the notes of infallibility.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.  Can the pope ever teach new doctrine?  1) No, because there's no such thing as new doctrine.  2) No, because indefectibility would not allow the Church to err in Her official teachings.  3) V1's definition is supposed to give us the parameters on when the pope teaches infallibly, in a solemn way.

[Pax Vobis]

Pax refuses to touch this; he's obsessed with proving R&R from the notes of infallibility defined by Vatican I, but ends up creating a Magisterium that can be complete garbage (harmful to faith) outside of the rare occasions when these notes of strict infallibility are present.  He won't address this though.

I've addressed this many times.  You've addressed this as well, when you posted the link to the sspx article describing the magisterium.  I believe there are different levels of magisterium - the current hierarchy is fallible in its normal teaching functions (i.e. outside a council), unless it agrees with scripture/tradition/church traditions.  If it is orthodox then it is infallible, because it agrees with 'what has always been taught' (which consists of all the solemn, infallible dogmas and orthodox teaching that is consistent for the past 2,000 years).  

You will not admit that the magisterium can err in any way, because you will not distinguish between the current magisterium (i.e. current hierarchy) and the CONSTANT teachings of the church (i.e. all orthodox hierarchys for 2,000 years), which is called the UNIVERSAL magisterium (meaning it never changes).  You apply the word universal to mean 'all the current hierarchy' which it could mean, but that is not its main definition.  Universal means 'over the course of Church history' - the constant, perpetual, orthodox teaching of the Faith.  For some reason, you always mention the 'time element' as a problem, but I still don't get why, since Church history shows that while doctrine does not change, Her understanding of small details does improve and become better known over time.  But the essentials never change.  If you pick up a catechism from the 1900s and compare it to one from right after Trent, they will agree essentially.  

You want to throw me in the camp of R&R just because I'm arguing that V2 was a fallible, erroneous council.  But again, you fail to admit that V2 is not like all the other ecuмenical councils, even though it fulfilled the general requirements of being one.  You want to argue that the hierarchy can come along and change the catechism essentially.  No way that can happen and v2, technically, did not do that, because its changes were of a subjective and non-binding manner.  Therefore, I say that V2 was the first non-infallible, non-binding, ecuмenical council in history.

Where I see the problem for the conciliar church is that post-V2, the hierarchy used V2's loopholes, ambiguities and contradictions to "promote" heresy onto the faithful, using their "interpretation" of the council.  This is why the modernists bishops speak of "the spirit of the council".  They mean their heretical ideas pawned off as 'teachings', which technically are not contained in V2, which is why there are a large portion of "conservative" novus ordo-ites who can read the council and say "well, I don't see anything wrong here".  The contradictions can make the council both good and bad.  However, the actual 'changes' to the faith happened through the fallible bishops and theologians, who made mountains out of molehills, corrupted doctrine and confused the faithful.  You say that this could not happen.  If it could not - then why does Christ warn us of 'wolves in sheep's clothing'?  He's referring directly to corrupt clergymen.

This is where I see that the hierarchy erred (not the magisterium, because such 'interpretations were not official, nor binding' and still aren't).  This is where I see that the post-conciliar popes personally gave into heresy, as they pushed their heretical agenda, while proclaiming that it came from the "spirit of the council" because the church was "guided by the Holy spirit" during the council (which is only true if the pope makes use of his infallibility, which he did not).  There is nothing anti-catholic about the fact that the clergy can lose the faith.  And if they lose the faith and promote err (as happened during Arianism) such promotion is not binding, and they have not changed Church Teaching, but only the application of it, or their interpretation of it.  Therefore since it's not official teaching, we are free to debate it, especially when such an interpretation did not come from a council but from the bishops, priests and theologians, many of whom were/are communists, freemasons and joos.

I do not defend V2 in order to defend the post-conciliar papal actions.  I'm only making a distinction that V2 did not officially err; it contained many ambiguities and contradictions and for this, its docuмents need to be publicly burned in St Peter's square - but the errors came AFTER the council when the clergy "interpreted" and "instructed" the faithful incorrectly.  The heresy of V2 was post-council, PERSONAL heresy of the clergy on a grand, organized scale, not OFFICIAL, Church-sanctioned, council heresy.  Therefore, Fr Chazal is correct when he says that these heresies "impounded" the clergy and we catholics need to separate ourselves from them and treat them as un-orthodox.  

[Cantarella]

Papal infallibility was being distorted before Vatican 1, which is why it was necessary to define the parameters.

"The pope could not fall into heresy or err in matters of faith" is a generalization.  It requires distinctions, which V1 gave us.  

Pax Vobis, the promise of Divine Assistance does not exclusively apply whenever the Pope speaks ex-cathedra. The Church further teaches that Divine Assistance is also given to the Pope when he exercises his ordinary Magisterium.

From the Cathechism:

892. Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

[Cantarella]

For example, the constant appeal to Galatians 2:11.  The Protestants used to use that Scripture verse against the papacy.  Now we have so-called Catholics using it against the papacy.

Thank you for the reference. Yes, heretics use this verse maliciously to promote open revolt against the Pope, instead of brotherly fraternal correction which this verse does allow for. The protestants infer that Peter did fail in Faith and therefore, that popes can fail in Faith also; but this is not true. If you notice, St. Peter's error was not in Faith, but in conversation or behavior. In such a case, when popes have personal faults, they may and have indeed been reprehended and admonished in the past in a zealous spirit of charity (St. Paul, Jerome, Augustine, Cyprian, etc.); instead of a contentious spirit of malice (think Luther, Calvin, Novatus, etc). Again, popes may err in their private teachings and writings, but their Faith cannot fail. It is certain they cannot err in doctrine. This is yet another scriptural verse whose annotation mentions this impossibility of Peter's Faith failing:

The heretics hereof again infer, that Peter then did err in faith, and therefore the Popes may fail therein also. To which we answer, that howsoever other Popes may err in their private teachings or writings, whereof we have treated in the Annotation upon these words That thy Faith fail not: it is certain that St. Peter did not here fail in Faith, nor err in doctrine or knowledge.

[Ladislaus]

I think what he’s saying is that sv is a reaction to bad r&r theology.  

Yes, in many, though obviously not all, cases, people move towards SV when confronted with the egregious theological problems with R&R.