Indefectibility means the Church, as an organization, will last til the end of time.  It has nothing to do with the purity of the Church's teachings, which is related to infallibility.  You can't mix and match these two characters.
.
We are supposed to follow the UNIVERSAL magisterium (i.e. what has always been taught), not simply the current magisterium (which is fallible).  That's why it's called "Tradition" because it follows the maxim:  ubique, semper, et ab omnibus  (as St Vincent below explains).
.
St. Vincent of Lerins - “Moreover, in the Church itself, all possible care must be taken that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.”
.
If the current magisterium deviates from Tradition, they are anathema.  V2 is not imposed on any catholic under pain of sin; it is part of the ordinary/fallible magisterium.  This in no way impairs indefectibility because the continuance of the Church is not dependent upon the sanctity or orthodoxy of its Cardinals (including the hierarchy) but it depends on the organizational structure surviving which includes the lower clergy and laity.  As St Athanasius said during the Arian heresy, when 95% of the catholic world was heretical (including most of the hierarchy):
.
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ."
.
Currently, we are in the same predicament (and worse) than during the Arian crisis.  99% of the hierarchy/laity are heretics.  Those catholics who hold the pure, unblemished Faith are very few.  The Church still exists in these few, as Christ promised.

Indefectibility means that the Church will, until the end of time, remain essentially what She is. Many principles of the Church come from indefectibility (Disciplinary Infallibility, for example). She will never give something contrary to the Deposit of Faith/Gospel. This is exactly why the idea of Magisterium having to "conform" to Tradition is strange + novel. If it came from the authority of the Church, it's already known that it cannot be contrary to the Faith. Vatican II expresses a neoteric modernist faith; and thus falls under Saint Paul's anathema. From the blogspot article I linked (the writing of Fenton)--it's clear that there is never a reason to not submit to Ordinary Magisterium, though fallible, because it's impossible that Magisterium could cause one to embrace anything false... and this derives from indefectibility. There is nothing contrary to indefectibility in saying that we haven’t had a pope since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958 (It's absolutely specious to say that Vatican I condemns our theological position); and succession continues as CT posits. There were times during the Arian crisis, in which there were areas of Catholics without a non-heretical Bishop governing... the Church did not defect in its mission of teaching, governing and sanctifying then, because of the faithful remnant. But it *is* contrary to the indefectibility of the Catholic Church to say that true Popes could promulgate V2, officially endorse ecuмenism, promulgate the Novus Ordo, 1983 Canon Law, etc. And to concede that the Pope can be a heretic YET have ministry in the Church means that the gates of hell have prevailed:

Pope Vigilius, Second Council of Constantinople, 553: “… we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)…”

Pope St. Leo IX, Sept. 2, 1053: “The holy Church built upon a rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter… because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome.”

St. Thomas Aquinas (+1262): “Wisdom may fill the hearts of the faithful, and put to silence the dread folly of heretics, fittingly referred to as the gates of Hell.” (Intro. To Catena Aurea.)

And again, V2 is either UOM or Extraordinary Magisterium--infallible if Paul VI was Pope. It does not matter how many statements we can find of its alleged "pastoral" nature. We cannot invent a new theology of the Church just to acknowledge Francis. If we entertain that we can somehow reject it while it coming from the authority of the Church, we still have the problem of canonizations/NOM/errors in the 1983 Canon Law--they're supposed to be protected as a secondary object of the Church's infallibility.

Ah yes, only in the R&R could 99% of masses being invalid and "blasphemous", along with the clergy and pope teaching universal salvation and communion for divorceés among many other heresies, not constitute leading souls to hell.

People will *not* be lead at all to where they do not want to go, at least not for very long. To put it another way, people will only be led to where they want to go - that is simply the nature of our free will, that's how free will works - we do whatever it is we want to do.  

Why is it that *you* don't believe the errors and heresies taught by the clergy and conciliar popes, but (figuratively speaking) everyone else does?

This question is a core question as relates the title of this thread.

No power on earth will get *you* to follow the heresies taught by the pope and clergy against your will, no power on earth will get you to attend the NO service against your will, no power on earth can make you sin against your will, and no power on earth can lead your soul to hell unless you make a conscience decision of your own free will that you're content to go there - so why is it that you believe everyone else (figuratively speaking) can be led to hell by the conciliar popes and clergy, but not *you*?

Argument 1
1.  If a teaching/promulgation is not binding either a) under pain of sin, or b) with certainty of faith,
        then the Church's doctrine hasn't changed and this "teaching"/promulgation has nothing to do with infallibility/indefectibility.
2.  V2 & the new mass do not have to be accepted 1) under pain of sin, or 2) with certainty of faith.
     a.  V2 = theological speculation/quasi-heresy.
     b.  New Mass = quasi-heretical liturgy.
3.  Ergo, V2 and the new mass have nothing to do with infallibility/indefectibility, because the Church does not force anyone to accept/attend them.

The vast majority of Catholics are told must attend the NO under pain of mortal sin(no NO clergyman will tell you that you can stay at home as long as there's no Latin mass nearby). So yes, the attendance of the new mass is binding under pain of sin.

Argument 2
4.  Scripture, Tradition and Doctrine are binding on all Catholics, 1) under pain of sin and with 2) certainty of faith.
5.  Scripture, Tradition and Doctrine, as explained/taught by the Church, are 100% required for salvation.
6.  V2 and the new mass are optional and not required for salvation.
7.  V2 and the new mass are not part of the Church's official theology or Her official liturgy.
8.  Ergo, these novelties have nothing to do with infallibility/indefectibility, because the Church does not force anyone to accept/attend them.

Ecuмenical Councils are absolutely not optional, for one. The new mass being optional is your personal layman opinion which completely contradicts what the pope or any NO clergyman have said.

Argument 3a
9.   Quo Primum's law is still in force, as confirmed by Pope Benedict in 2007.
10.  QP commands all of the latin rite to use its missal (1962).  QP does not allow anyone to revise its missal.  Both of these commands under pain of grave sin.
11.  The new mass is illegal to attend because it violates QP.
12.  The new mass is not approved by the Church, no matter how many V2 popes use the new missal or promote it publicly.
13.  A pope can violate Quo Primum, just like any Catholic.  A pope is not above the law, and he must abide by it, if he fails to change it.
14.  Since no pope has changed QP, all popes who say, attend or promote the new mass are promoting an illegal and sinful act.
15.  The new mass' existence is not a violation of indefectibilty because it is, and always has been, illegal and therefore sinful.

QP does not forbid the pope to revise the missal, popes have done it many time before - it's order to not revise the missal is directed at bishops and priests to ensure the mass wasn't being altered in any individual dioceses/parishes.

Popes can of course violate canon law, but not when they're making laws. New laws override old laws.

The Church's mission is the salvation of souls. If the Church is leading people away from salvation by ordering them(under pain of mortal sin) to attend blasphemous and invalid masses, all while it teaches them heresies, then it has completely defected in its mission.

I'm not here right now to argue for sedevacantism - the 60 year vacancy is just as problematic for the Church's indefectibility. But from what I've seen, every position has its own problems and apparent impossibilities, and that's what makes the Crisis a mystery and why I agree with Matthew that there's no "one ring" discovered at present. This idea that 99% of masses said in Catholic Churches being invalid and every level of clergyman teaching blatant heresies doesn't pose any issues for the Church's indefectibility whatsoever is just ridiculous. Praeter would go even further and have you believe there's nothing wrong or unusual about now at all - it's perfectly fine to have a heretical pope who you ignore on 100% of what he says, who celebrates an invalid and blasphemous rite of mass that 99% of Catholics attend.

To say that the Church is leading people away from salvation is to say that Christ is leading people away from salvation. You cannot separate Christ from the Church, that's exactly what Protestants do.    

The Church's indefectibility has never been compromised nor will it ever. The pope and hierarchy is not indefectible because the they are not the Church, Christ is the Church - Christ and the Church are one and the same.


You do not like answering questions but I will ask you once again:
Why is it that *you* don't believe the errors and heresies taught by the clergy and conciliar popes, but (figuratively speaking) everyone else does?

The indefectibility and spotless/blemish-free nature of the Church and Her teaching is nothing novel.

The Church Triumphant is without spot or wrinkle, not the Church Militant, as St. Augustine explained to the Donatist heretics.   Regarding the teachings of the Church Militant, they are indeed “without spot or wrinkle” when they have been proposed definitively, not merely taught authoritatively.  

Pope St. Gelasius I, Decretal de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, 495: “Accordingly, the see of Peter the Apostle of the Church of Rome is first, having neither spot, nor wrinkle, nor anything of this kind (Ephesians 5:27).”

That applies to definitive teachings of the Pope, not everything a pope teaches authoritatively.

CT refers to the Cassiciacuм Thesis, also known as sedeprivationism.

Oh, the heresy of Guerard des Lauriers, which is being perpetuated by Bishop Sanborn.  The heresy that says the pope and bishops legally hold office, but lack the authority of the office they legally hold because – are you ready for this one – they had the intention to harm the faith when they were elected/appointed.  Try finding a precedent for that one before Vatican II.

Your point about Apostolicity is moot--none of the actual traditional/valid (Old Rite) Bishops have Ordinary Jurisdiction.

All that means is they are not legitimacy successors of the apostles, but that doesn’t change the fact that a hierarchy of legitimate successors of the apostles will always exist in the true Church.

“But, we could even say Ordinary Jurisdiction still exists; because the Eastern Rite Bishops are valid.”

Being validly ordained does not equate to having ordinary jurisdiction. Bishops receive their jurisdiction from a Pope; and even conceding that an antipope can validly appoint/confer jurisdiction, due to common error (which is an argument the members of your religion use in an attempt to escape the heretical conclusion that follows from their erroneous premises), the Eastern bishops would have immediately lost their jurisdiction if they adhered a false Church, i.e., “the Vatican II sect”.  Why?  Because a cleric who joins or publicly adheres to a non-Catholic sect is considered to have tacitly resigned (c. 2314.3) and loses his office, ipso facto, without a declaration (c. 188.4).    So, either you believe the “unholy Church that can contradict itself in so many ways, obliterate the traditional Faith and enforce a religion of modernism,” is the true Church, or you believe it's a false Church.  If it’s the true Church, you can’t be saved without belonging to it; if it’s a false Church, none of the Easter Bishop who have publicly adhered to it - and that's all of them - can possess jurisdiction.

I believe in a false Church? I don't believe in a Catholic Church that can teach substantial error from an Ecuмenical Council.

Then that proves you believed in a false Church. The Ecuмenical Council of Florence taught that the matter for ordination is the conferral of the chalice and paten. That was a common belief at the time, but is certainly false.  Pius XII rightly taught that the mater for Holy Orders is the laying on of hands, which the Council of Florence didn’t even mention (the only thing the Council of Florence said was the matter was the conferring of the chalice and paten).

Now, since you admit that you don’t believe in “a Catholic Church” that can teach error in an Ecuмenical Council, you have once again proven that the Material Church you believe in is a false Church, since the true Catholic Church can, and indeed has taught an error in an Ecuмenical Council.  

The Church you believe in does not exist in material reality and it never has.  It's a Church that is more perfect, and less able to err, than the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

You cannot say that Vatican II CAN come from the authority of the Church AND contain substantial error.

Sounds like you’ve been reading the writings of the heretic Bishops Sanborn, who equates authority with infallibility.  Try reconciling that with the Council of Florence’s error regarding the matter of Holy Orders.

It's then either Extraordinary Magisterium or Universal Ordinary Magisterium, both of which have to be infallible.

Neither the ordinary nor the extraordinary Magisterium are, per se, infallible.  They are only infallible when they teach definitively.  Vatican II and the Council of Florence were both exercises of the Church’s extraordinary magisterium.  Both erred, but neither did so when teaching definitively.

the Church founded by Christ has never taught that the Pope is unable to err in a magisterial teaching addressed to the universal Church? Are you serious?

I realize that will come as a surprise to an Old Catholic, or a sedevacantist, but the Church has never taught such a thing.  The true Church (as opposed to the Material Church you believe in) teaches that the Pope is infallible when he defines a doctrine, ex cathedra, not when he writes something in a docuмent addressed to the universal Church.  

The Church you believe in exists only in your imagination.  What you refer to as a “Material Church” is actually a phantasm that does not and has never existed in material reality.   It is a "Church" in which infallibility extends well beyond that of the true Church founded by Christ.  Unfortunately, you're never going to find a Church in material reality that corresponds to the Church that exists as a phantasm in your imagination.

To say that the Church is leading people away from salvation is to say that Christ is leading people away from salvation. You cannot separate Christ from the Church, that's exactly what Protestants do.    

The Church's indefectibility has never been compromised nor will it ever. The pope and hierarchy is not indefectible because the they are not the Church, Christ is the Church - Christ and the Church are one and the same.

That's the whole point. If the Church is leading people away from salvation, then it has defected. But the Church cannot defect. Ergo the Church cannot lead people away from salvation. Ergo an organisation that leads people away from salvation CANNOT be the Church.

You do not like answering questions but I will ask you once again:
Why is it that *you* don't believe the errors and heresies taught by the clergy and conciliar popes, but (figuratively speaking) everyone else does?

I used my own judgement to determine that their teachings were contrary to Church dogma and therefore heresy, and yes, like I know you'll bring up now, any Catholic can do that. But the fact that an educated and well-informed Catholic can determine that the hierarchy is teaching heresy, doesn't mean the hierarchy teaching heresy is not a problem. It doesn't change the fact that the Conciliar Church is actively leading souls to heresy and encouraging them to sin(e.g telling remarried "couples" they can go to communion). Leading souls to heresy and sin is the opposite of saving souls, it's the opposite of the Church's mission. So not only is the Conciliar Church failing in its mission, it's actually achieving the exact opposite. Leading souls away from salvation. Therefore the Conciliar Church has defected - it has embraced heresy(and indeed theologians in the past have said the "gates of Hell" refers to heretics/heresy) and it is leading souls astray. If the Conciliar Church has defected, and the Catholic Church can never defect, that would mean necessarily mean the Conciliar Church is not Catholic Church.

So don't try telling me that R&R doesn't have the same issue with indefectibility as sedevacantism has. In sedevacantism, we're without a pope for 60 years and soon to be without any hierarchy at all. In R&R we have a pope and hierarchy actively leading souls away from salvation, and a Church without the Mass(i.e one of the essential elements the CE says the Church cannot lose) - and also, if you're one of the R&R who say the new rite of ordination is doubtful(and I think most of them do), then we'd soon be without a hierarchy anyway.

From that I assert that neither position can fully explain the Crisis and that both positions have serious problems. You can argue that the sedevacantist position has more serious problems, but the assertion that the R&R position is without problems and can explain everything is just ridiculous and easily falsifiable.

That's the whole point. If the Church is leading people away from salvation, then it has defected. But the Church cannot defect. Ergo the Church cannot lead people away from salvation. Ergo an organisation that leads people away from salvation CANNOT be the Church.

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.

I used my own judgement to determine that their teachings were contrary to Church dogma and therefore heresy, and yes, like I know you'll bring up now, any Catholic can do that. But the fact that an educated and well-informed Catholic can determine that the hierarchy is teaching heresy, doesn't mean the hierarchy teaching heresy is not a problem. It doesn't change the fact that the Conciliar Church is actively leading souls to heresy and encouraging them to sin......

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.

So don't try telling me that R&R doesn't have the same issue with indefectibility as sedevacantism has. In sedevacantism, we're without a pope for 60 years and soon to be without any hierarchy at all. In R&R we have a pope and hierarchy actively leading souls away from salvation, and a Church without the Mass(i.e one of the essential elements the CE says the Church cannot lose) - and also, if you're one of the R&R who say the new rite of ordination is doubtful(and I think most of them do), then we'd soon be without a hierarchy anyway.

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?

From that I assert that neither position can fully explain the Crisis and that both positions have serious problems. You can argue that the sedevacantist position has more serious problems, but the assertion that the R&R position is without problems and can explain everything is just ridiculous and easily falsifiable.

Well I agree that your reasoning can never explain the crisis. So that much we agree on.

Look, this thread was not intended to blow up into a full R&R vs. SV debate.  Just stop already.

I lean sedeprivationist, but I readily admit that ALL the sides have issues.  SPism is the side I find to be the least problematic.  This is precisely the point of Matthew's post.

R&R rely on the fact that not everything the Pope teaches is infallible ... but then stretch it to the limits of credibility.  It's one thing for an isolated statement in an Encyclical to be wrong, but quite another for the entire Magisterium and Universal Discipline to go corrupt with Modernism, and to be actively leading souls to hell.  If people can lose their souls by adhering to the Magisterium, then the Church's mission has failed.

SVs rely on the fact that vacancies of the Holy See exist and that the Magisterium does not thereby go defunct.  Again, on their side, 60 years does stretch the limits of credibility.

SPs actual hold an in-between position, that the organs of the Magisterium continue to endure but they have gone dormant (in so many words).

But all sides are stretching the limits of credibility, because, to be perfectly frank, this entire crisis stretches the limits of Catholic credibility.