All Paul VI's constitution says is: "Here is my new missal, which I am creating by this new law.  Here are the changes in the new missal.  I wish this law go into effect on the 1st Sunday of Advent."  All his law does is create a new missal.  The use of it violates QP.

Spot on. This revolution is probably the only revolution in the history of the world where the enemy took over the fort without so much as a drop of blood ever having been shed. Initially, the people had "the Church", they had the faith, they had everything far as that goes -  and most (not all) abandoned it all of their own free will using authority as an excuse to do so - this much I was an eye witness to - they then handed that loss of faith down to the following generations so that today, this is what is.

"The Ring" is simply truth, Divine Truth found only within and taught by the Catholic Church. Could not one of the reasons  that "The Ring" does not assume authority or control, is because the whole truth is not accepted as such by everyone?

Spot on.

Oh, shut up already.  This is what you've chosen to believe.  Duly noted.  Myriad other Traditional Catholics think you're an idiot.

Both sides would benefit from a bit of humility.

Is the fact that the Pope who is supposed to be guided by the Holy Spirit did more damage to the Church than any heresiarch a problem?  +Lefebvre, the hero of all R&R, admitted that it was.

Is the fact that a vacancy would go on for 60 years a problem?  Of course it's a problem.

If both sides admitted that no solution is perfect, then a lot more progress can be made in the spread of Tradition.

Dear Mr. Humble,
The pope in fact IS guided by the Holy Ghost when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra. Try to always remember that amongst your "universal discipline" and your "magisterium that went off the rails".

You know, the biggest problem with the Traditional movement comes from the dogmatic idiots on both sides.  Much has been made of dogmatic sedevacantism, but dogmatic R&R, as preached by Praeter and Stubborn, is every bit as pernicious.

Of course, objectively, the Divine Truth is the Ring.  Question is not whether the ring exists, but who's in possession of it.  You have many Catholics on the Novus Ordo side who claims that the teaching of Vatican II is not inconsistent with said Divine Truth.  In your philosophy, you, Stubborn, have the authority to sift through what is taught by the Magisterium and decide what is and what is not in conformity with said truth (your ridiculous redefinition of Magsiterium notwithstanding).

The Church is always in possession of it, we access that truth through the Church, these days through one or more of the Church's faithful priests who are concerned only with the truth, not whether they guess right or not.

There is no need debating the definition of Magisterium. I embrace Pope Pius IX's definition of what the Church's Magisterium is. You call that a ridiculous redefinition.

While slightly off color, this meme could hardly be more appropriate than in response to this post ...

Not off color for you, not in the least. I did not expect you to agree - heaven forbid!

That's right, the conciliar church is not "The Church". So you should stop saying it is. The pope is not the Church either, neither is the hierarchy.

If the entire hierarchy can apostasise and lead the faithful to Hell without it being considered a defection, then the principle of indefectibility would be entirely meaningless. You won't find any theologian or authority suggesting such rot as the true hierarchy could ever lead souls to Hell.

Are you saying that you figured that we're in this mess via the use of your own wits? Do you not admit that you must have felt something was wrong and corresponded to graces that were offered to you? Do you think that God does not offer those same graces to every human creature? Certainly you agree that most people reject those graces - *those* are the ones who are content to go to hell while foolishly relying on the the popes authority to excuse them from their own sins.

I can't comment on what graces I've been given, only God knows. If the Trad position is correct, then yes NOers must be ignoring some of God's graces, as if one corresponds to all of God's graces He would never leave them wallow in error. But whether they are rejecting graces or not, it does not change the fact that the hierarchy is guiding them to Hell. Trads ignore the hierarchy for exactly this reason. The fact that man must listen to the hierarchy doesn't lessen the significance of what they are doing. It's like if a father teaches his child to sin, the child has free will to reject his father's errors, but that doesn't absolve the father of his guilt.

So you're without a pope for 60 years now - how much longer till you agree that you really have never needed a pope at all? 10 more years? 60 more years? 100 more years?

Why is it that you even need a pope?

Why is it that you even need a pope when you ignore him and everything he does anyway?

It's honestly baffling to me that you can agree that the hierarchy are leading souls to Hell and yet you don't think that poses any issue whatsoever with indefectibility. From the Catholic Encyclopedia once more:

By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard.

Sedevacantism would be a defection by loss of Apostolic hierarchy. R&R have a hierarchy, but one that is corrupted in faith and morals and has ceased to be a school of holiness as it teaches heresy and sin instead of true dogma, as well as having an invalid and blasphemous mass replace the true mass in 99% of parishes. Even their pope was ordained in a false rite.

So it's clear that sedevacantism cannot explain the Crisis, but neither can R&R as that position still violates the principle of indefectibility.