You know what I think, I think that the SSPXers have been so long using the sedevacantes as a whipping boy, as an extreme to be avoided, that they now 50 years later, can't come to admit that they may have been wrong. I do not believe that any thinking R&R person really believes with certainty of Faith that the Vatican II "popes" are really popes, so, they themselves really do not believe what they say.

What is there to be wrong about? Sedes believe popes cannot do what the conciliar popes have done, it is due to this belief that the sedes decide the conciliar popes have not been popes.

As for me, if someone put a gun to my head and made me choose true or false pope - I'd choose true pope. If I am wrong, oh well, it would only mean that I prayed daily for a false pope. But I would be correct to all who accept reality. 

 

Putting everything you have written below, It appears that you contradicting yourself, you say the popes are only protected from teaching errors concerning teachings "which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium",

and you say the conciliar popes are teaching those errors and that the popes may have taught those errors before:  "I cannot say why, or if no other pope preached abominations like the conciliar popes...." "We know with absolute certainty that all the evil things the conciliar popes have done and continue to do, is not only not Catholic, it's anti-Catholic - we can say this without any scruple whatsoever because it is reality",

You are saying that the popes are divinely protected from teaching those errors that Vatican II popes are teaching. What kind of divine protection is that? I do not get it.

The V2 popes have taught error to the whole world, no one disputes this. The reason they teach errors we can really only guess, but there is nothing to stop them from doing so except their own conscience or Divine Providence should God choose to do so.

Reality proves they can preach error all over the place whenever they want - with one exception. The only time that the pope is divinely protected from teaching error, is when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra. 

Per V1, Ex cathedra means:
"1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church"....

The above is the definition of Defining a Doctrine Ex Cathedra as defined at V1. *This* is the dogma, we are bound to believe *this*. *This* is what is disputed. It is disputed because it is to disbelieve the dogma whenever people imagine the pope enjoys infallibility even when he's *not* defining a doctrine ex cathedra. Let *that* truism sink in for a minute.

Continuing the definition, it goes on to say that when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra, it is only at that time that; ...."he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrines concerning faith or morals".

It doesn't say, as some cardinals and theologians have said and people believe it says, that the pope enjoys the divine assistance pretty much at all times, it doesn't say anything of the sort - if that is what you read it to say, you are putting a meaning to those words that the words themselves do not say.

It is as Fr. Wathen states in TGS: "Papal infallibility covers a most rigidly and specifically circuмscribed area, the most narrowly-defined, I might add, of all the areas of his sovereignty".

Try this - using the definition of V1 above, please quote a NO doctrine, any NO doctrine, one that any of the V2 popes defined ex cathedra. When you discover that there is no such doctrine, you will discover that none of the V2 popes infringed upon the doctrine of his infallibility, at the same time you will hopefully discover that nothing stops popes from preaching error, even to the whole world - unless they were to define a doctrine ex cathedra.

Your own posts contract themselves

No, they don't.

1) The definition of when the pope is infallibly protected from error is one subject.
2) All those things we are bound to believe is another subject.

Obviously if the pope teaches anything not found in #2, he will not be defining a doctrine ex cathedra, rather, he will likely be teaching a new doctrine (heresy).  

Exactly where is it that you think you are seeing contradiction?  

C'mon now, will you do this? ---> using the definition of V1 in my previous post, please quote a NO doctrine, any NO doctrine, one that any of the V2 popes defined ex cathedra.

Ladislaus has written volumes to you on this subject , so I do not need to say more. Your argument is full of holes. By your reasoning all the encyclicals and quotes from all the popes through history are not infallible.

Sedevacantism, where the blind lead the blind, and where no one can be found who has even a rudimentary understanding of basic Catholic doctrine. You sedevacantist heretics and apostates make the Novus Ordos look like St. Thomas Aquinas by comparison.   Here's what you ingoramuses would have learned in 6th grade if you were raised before Vatican II:

Baltimore Catechism:

Question 164: When does the Church teach infallibly?
 
Answer: The Church teaches infallibly when it defines, through the Pope alone, as the teacher of all Christians, or through the Pope and bishops, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by all the faithful.
 
(a) The Holy Father must intend to use his supreme, apostolic authority when he teaches infallibly.
 
(b) The Pope can teach without speaking infallibly; for example, he does this in his encyclical letters.

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: ‘One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,‘ and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.
We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: ‘Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.’ [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23- 24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: ‘Feed my sheep‘ [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John ‘there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.’ We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: ‘Behold, here are two swords‘ [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: ‘Put up thy sword into thy scabbard‘ [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered for the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: ‘There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God‘ [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.

For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: ‘Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms‘ and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: ‘The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man‘ [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven‘ etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Sedevacantism, where the blind lead the blind, and where no one can be found who has even a rudimentary understanding of basic Catholic doctrine. You sedevacantist heretics and apostates make the Novus Ordos look like St. Thomas Aquinas by comparison.   Here's what you ingoramuses would have learned in 6th grade if you were raised before Vatican II:

Your problem is that you limit the Magisterium's charism of truth to the .5% of Catholic doctrine that has been defined according to the strict notes of infallibility.  But your understanding of this equates to the a defectible Magisterium, where 99%+ of it can become thoroughly corrupt and polluted and can by adherence to it lead souls to hell.  That crosses the line into blasphemy.

Monsignor Fenton:

... God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.

THIS is the Holy Catholic Church I believe in, and not that blasphemous caricature of yours where the Magisterium could actually be the greatest force in the world for the promotion of error and the ruination of souls.  You guys argue that the Church has defected if there's no material occupant in the See, but the greater act of defection is for the occupant of the See to be leading souls to hell.  Now THAT is a defection, and not a mere vacancy of the See.  Why would the Lord bother guaranteeing the material continuity of the Church when the formal continuity has ceased to exist?  It would be better NOT to have a Magisterium than to have one that can lead souls to hell by adherence to it.  Otherwise, a soul condemned to hell for following the teachings of Vatican II could rightly protest to God at his judgment that, "Lord, I was following what YOUR Pope and YOUR Vicar was teaching me; how can you condemn me for that?" -- which brings us full circle to Msgr. Fenton's point.

You have effectively turned our Holy Mother Church into a whore, and God WILL call you out for this at your judgment.

I've been at this for 25 years now...

You've been at this for 25 years and you think everything contained in a Papal encyclical is infallible?  

You've been at this for 25 years and you think everything contained in a Papal encyclical is infallible?  

Please refer to the Msgr. Fenton statement above.  He was in particular dealing with Papa Encyclicals.  Strictly infallible?  Negative (unless otherwise indicated in the language of the Encyclical).  Infallibly safe and generally protected from being able to cause harm?  Affirmative.  God would protect a true pope from releasing something like Amoris Laetitia.