THE ROCK
(LA ROCCIA)

By: Joseph Cardinal Siri

From “Il Dovere Dell’Ortodossia”

Page 6 in Il Dovere Dell’Ortodossia

and originally published in RENOVATIO II (1967), fasc. 2, pp. 183-184

Red bold print added for emphasis.

In The Gospel of Matthew (16,18) the “roccia” (rock), is not only a person, but also an “istituzione” (institution).

The Church founded by Christ on that “roccia” (rock) – Peter, appears clearly (in the aforementioned cited Gospel) acquiring solidity, stability, indefectibility.

The bond between the firmness of the “rock” – Peter – and the firmness of the Church appears totally beyond discussion, that one cannot make any undue inference, qualifying that same Church like “roccia” (the rock).

Here we speak of that rock. As Christ wants it.

That placed, there are many important considerations to be made.

The Church provides security because it is the “roccia” (rock), not thick, and not sand. It deals with a significance that goes beyond the material sense of the metaphor: in fact the rocks of the earth crumble in time, due to the effects of the elements. This “roccia” (rock) will never crumble, nor flake, given that its solidity is guaranteed in the text of Matthew until the end of time. The “rock” remains and no one will scratch it, implicated as she is in a divine undertaking. But on occasion some men may take from others the vision of the rock. Other things may be made to seem like the rock, other things that may appear to all as such. The distinction is a profound one, even if the errors of these men are capable of veiling the reality (truth), they cannot destroy it. The question, easy for all, that presents itself is one of the visibility of the rock. If then situations should occur, that took from certain men the visibility of the “roccia” (rock) in the Church, the consequences would be grave. Those that convert to the Church, convert because they are convinced that they have found the “roccia” (rock), not doubt, hesitation, contradiction or doctrinal anarchy. One converts when one knows that ones hope is not futile. Taking away the visibility of the “roccia” (rock): what happens?

It is necessary that the “roccia” (rock) remains visible in her unity and her invulnerability.

Maybe it is best that we emerge from the metaphor for a moment. Here are the elements from which the Church can be in her significance, full and pure, considered the “roccia” (rock).She has for her head and divine guarantor Jesus Christ. He has assigned to her the four distinctive marks mentioned in the Nicene Creed

It (the Church) has legitimate and secure sacramental efficacy.

It has ability to reconcile, a distinction that cannot be disregarded (or omitted) between the truth acquired with certainty and hypothesis, opinion, the always free search. In total because in her (the Church) operates an Infallible Magisterium.

The infallible Magisterium is tied to the hierarchical structure of the Church. It is for this reason that he who does not see the hierarchy, does not see the “roccia” (rock). He loses and does not acquire easily the security.

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: Cantarella

The correct term for this is Ecclesia-Vacantism and is explained beautifully by Nishant right below. Since there is currently no solution to sedevacantism stricto sensu it irremediably leads the sedevacantist into a position of Ecclesia - Vacantism, which is manifestly heretical. Can a pious sedevacantist step in here and explain how exactly (if he is really willing to follow the end of his personal conclusions) can he NOT fall into the following heretical proposition?

Some sedevacantists (most prominently John Lane) reply to this argument by saying that an anti-Pope can validly appoint bishops on the basis of supplied jurisdiction for the good of the Church. But in general I agree, Apostolic Succession is the biggest problem of sedevacantism - where are the bishops with ordinary jurisdiction (succession of Holy Orders is not enough to maintain Apostolic Succession)? This is why sedeprivationism seems very probable to me, as it removes this obstacle, and it also avoids the errors of R&R.

Yes, Bishop Guérard des Lauriers created his thesis on material / formal succession, because he knew that sedevacantism stricto sensu was an evident unsolvable heresy. I am not SSPX R&R either and do not justify breaking communion with Rome over a supposed defection of the Magisterium; so I do not argue from that angle; but there are some problems with the sedeprivationist position as well. It is not that easy.

Perhaps Ladislaus can offer some light here: first, only material succession (without formal apostolic succession) is no different than schismatic succession (what the Eastern Orthodox have: material apostolic succession alone; but nor formal). For true apostolic succession to occur, both material and formal succession must exist. Another problem is that it seems to also posit a defection of the Magisterium and thus compromise the indefectibility of the Roman and Universal Church. Again, what happened with the True Church of Christ in Vatican II Council?, either not a substantial changed occurred (only seemed to have occurred) or the True Church of Christ defected. This is true for both SV and SSPX. I do not believe in the radical division pre/post Vatican II as if the Church had collapsed over night (both SV and SSPX share the radical historical rupture view) but in the continuity of religion where heresies and schisms must actually exist so the Elect can merit by combating them and to distinguish them from the reprobate.

I am sorry Cantarella. Perhaps I have been rude to you in the past, I apologize if that was the case.

I would like to try and answer your question directly and honestly.

The main issue you raise, which is no small issue, is that the Magisterium of the Church cannot defect.

I agree with this. It cannot defect, and it has not defected.

Now, I will do my best to explain why I believe this is the case.

1. The Church's Magisterium is the teaching authority she has from Christ. The commission to "Go and teach all nations." And "He who hears you hears me."

2. It is for THIS reason that the heresies and innovations and schismatic new rites we see and abhor cannot be acts of the Church's Magisterial Teaching.

3. But because the Magisterial Teaching is directly connected to the Magisterial Office, if the teaching is defective, the office is defective, for the office cannot produce false teaching. To assert otherwise is to assert that Christ is responsible for heresy, blasphemy and schism. It would be to say that Christ had wrought it.

that this is so, we can turn to Pope Pius XII:

In Humani Generis he says:

"Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official docuмents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians."

So the Pope clearly teaches that the authentic Magisterium of the Church is an exercise of the authority of Christ. It is in fact the case that when we hear the Pope Teaching in an Encyclical, we hear the voice of Christ.

But error is not imputable to Christ, therefore, as I said above, etc. It is also for this reason that the Non-Infallible Magisterium has only a LIMITED capacity for error. It cannot err so badly as to lead souls into spiritual disaster. Because it is an act of Christ's own authority, which is not mocked.

Now, you make this contention:

Via Nishant:

"It is the idea that the entire Episcopate, the ecclesia docens, has ceased to exist. This thesis [henceforth ecclesia-vacantism for brevity's sake] is manifestly heretical, because it is a word for word denial of the dogma of the Church's Apostolicity. It is heretical and Protestant to say or think that the Catholic Church can cease to be Apostolic. If someone who holds this thesis furthermore says Catholics cannot err in good faith or become heretics when they do, I accuse that person of being a manifest heretic, for holding to this heresy."

and you said:

"This is all very well but where is this Ordinary and Universal Magisterium found today, 24 of November in the year of Our Lord 2015?. If there is no current Magisterium nor teaching authority, then where the sedevacantists are learning their Catholicism from? The Magisterium must always exist and is visible. To say otherwise is heresy.

 Please provide real answers as if you actually understood the topic instead of cut & paste treaties."

Now, there is a clear error here, though it is implicit, and it is on two counts:

1. What is implied is that if the overwhelming majority of bishops of the world defect, the Church's Magisterium defects. This is not true, because the Magisterium of the Church does not fundamentally lie with the bishops, but with the Pope. This can be seen in that their authentic and ordinary magisterium can only be exercised if they are united to HIM, and that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium can only exist if united to the POPE. Therefore, the body of bishops is not strictly necessary for the Magisterial authority of the Church, what is Necessary is the Pope.

2. No Sedevacantist claims the entire episcopacy is defunct. For example, even Fr. Cekada would admit all the Eastern Catholic Bishops have Apostolic Succession. In addition, we have several Bishops that have valid apostolic Succession, namely the Thuc Bishops and the Lefebvre Bishops, and Mendez Bishops, Kelly and Santay (Interesting Fact, Archbishop Thuc was granted a Motu Proprio by Pius XI to consecrate Bishops with what was basically Patriarchal power. He didn't need Rome to approve the consecrations, so to say he consecrated without mandate is not exactly true ). So nobody in their right mind is claiming apostolic succession has died out, that would be impossible, because then the Papacy would be literally defunct.

Since we know the Pope is the source of all Magisterial Authority, that leads to an interesting question: Can the Church exercise her Magisterial Authority during an interregnum? If there is no Pope for several years, as was the case twice in the Middle ages, what happens to the Church's teaching authority? Apparently, there can be no Ordinary Universal Magisterium, because the bishops cannot exercise it in unity with the Pope, because there is none.

This is what Msgr Charles Journet says in his "Church of the Incarnate Word":
https://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin3.htm

“We must not think of the Church, when the Pope is dead, as possessing the papal power in act, in a state of diffusion, so that she herself can delegate it to the next Pope in whom it will be re-condensed and made definite. When the Pope dies the Church is widowed, and, in respect of the visible universal jurisdiction, she is truly acephalous. But she is not acephalous as are the schismatic churches, nor like a body on the way to decomposition. Christ directs her from heaven ... But, though slowed down, the pulse of life has not left the Church; she possesses the power of the Papacy in potency, in the sense that Christ, who has willed her always to depend on a visible pastor, has given her power to designate the man to whom He will Himself commit the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, as once He committed them to Peter.

— “During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid mode of election (Cardinal Cajetan, O.P., in De Comparata, cap.xiii, no. 202). However, in case of permission (for example if the Pope has provided nothing against it), or in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown who the true Cardinals are or who the true Pope is, as was the case at the time of the Great Schism), the power 'of applying the Papacy to such and such a person’ devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God.”

When the Church has no Pope, she is widowed. She is headless in a sense, but not ultimately. Christ himself directs her from heaven. AND she posses the Power to delegate a man to the Papacy, which she possesses potentially. And if that Bishop is delegated by the Church as Pope, he can rightly order Jurisdictional issues and ratify all that was done irregularly and through supplied jurisdiction.

After that, the Church's Ordinary Universal Magisterium will be up and running.

BUT, there is also another option as to what happens to the Church's Magisterium, and it is suggested by Tanquerey:

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/magisterium.htm

"The ordinary and universal magisterium is that which is carried on daily through the continuous preaching of the Church among all peoples. It includes:

 1. The preaching and proclamations of the Corporate Body of Bishops,
 2. universal custom or practice associated with dogma,
 3. the consensus or agreement of the Fathers and of the Theologians,
 4. the common or general understanding of the faithful.

Regarding Point 4 he says:

"4. The Common Understanding of the Faithful

295 Revealed doctrine can be discovered not only among the Pastors and other leaders who teach with the Pastors, but also among the faithful who with a common or general understanding profess a unanimous faith.

In order that this common understanding be a criterion of revelation, it must be:
a. certain and clear,
b. unanimous,
c. concerned with important matters of faith and of morals.

The fact that the general agreement of the faithful is then a criterion of revelation is proved:

a. From the indefectibility of the Church. We have already stated that the Church cannot fail. But the Church would be failing in essentials if she were a society of erring souls. Therefore.

b. From the Fathers. For example, St. Augustine, in refuting the Pelagians, proved the existence of original sin in little children and the need, therefore, of baptism for these, from the common understanding of the faithful. This he regarded as a very strong argument of faith.

296 Other pertinent notes on this subject are these:

a. This infallibility in believing is often-times called passive infallibility; it depends on active infallibility (in teaching) which should always direct it.

b. We should avoid the error of those who think that the Church teaching merely confirms the opinions of the Church learning.4 For the Church teaching must pass judgment on these opinions, approve them or condemn them, and in this way direct the faith of her subjects and turn them from error.

c. Therefore, the faithful in the Church are in no way the teachers, they do not define authoritatively, but they give their belief. The Teachers impart and define the truth which all believe. But God is able to employ the faithful to promote some devotion, for example, the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus; but even in such an instance all proceeds under the authority of the Bishops — they alone are the authoritative judges and proclaimers of the faith."

SO, to be clear here, I am not saying the Laity can displace the Bishops as teachers when there is no Pope. I am saying that, in a prolonged interregnum, when the Authentic Ordinary Magisterium does not seem able to be exercised, the Entirety of the Church still retains her infallibility in matters of faith and morals, not in regard to TEACHING, but in regard to PRESERVING.

This is necessary, in order for the Church not to fail.

Let us suppose there WAS a prolonged interregnum where the number of bishops was reduced to a small number widely dispersed throughout the world:

In order for the Church as SUCH in this state not to defect, the Faith of ALL the members in TOTO is to be considered a criterion of revelation that is passively infallible. This is the weakened state of the Church Msgr Journet talks about above, where she is widowed, but still directed by Christ.


Now the question may arise, "But can the Church REALLY be so long without a Pope?"

Well the theologians think it is possible.

In 1882 a book was published in England called The Relations of the Church to Society — Theological Essays, comprising 29 essays by Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly S.J., one of the leading theologians of his time.

This is what he wrote in one of his essays:

“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope — with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.”

He goes on to say:

“The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here. If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical. They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation. Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant. But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be. Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise. What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit. We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfil His promises; not allow anything to occur at variance with them; that He will sustain His Church and enable her to triumph over all enemies and difficulties; that He will give to each of the faithful those graces which are needed for each one’s service of Him and attainment of salvation, as He did during the great schism we have been considering, and in all the sufferings and trials which the Church has passed through from the beginning. We may also trust He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself to by His promises. We may look forward with a cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the troubles and misfortunes that have befallen in the past. But we, or our successors in future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment. I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever. All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.”

SO, to sum up Cantarella:

Even if the Church were reduced to a handful of laity and bishops, all operating on supplied jurisdiction, she would not cease to exist.

1. She possesses the Papacy potentially. She could designate a Bishop to take the office who would then restore ordinary jurisdiction and Positive teaching authority.

2. It is indeed possible to go for a very long time without knowing where the true Pope is. During this time, the Church herself supplies jurisdiction to those bishops who take emergency action for the salvation of souls.

3. She retains her Ordinary Universal Magisterium PASSIVELY through the common faith of all the bishops and the faithful, which faith, even without a Pontiff, cannot fail. For Christ himself directs her from heaven.

It is precisely for THESE reasons that the idea of heresy on the part of the Sedevacantists is untenable, because the theologians indicate to us that we can survive this.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: Stubborn

We refuse to obey popes and the magisterium because they want us to offend God.

I have never read a statement which would expose the absurdity of R&R position more clearly and forcefully than this one.

I'm pretty sure that's because you've been duped into embracing the Cekadian version of the "always automatically infallible  UOM".

This has nothing to do with infallibility, everything to do with indefectibility of the Church. If the Magisterium went astray so far to command you to directly offend God it means that Mother Church has defected. What you effectively promote (although I'm sure thats not what you intend to say) is denial of indefectibility of the Church. R&R supporters usually don't realize it and rather focus on the doctrine on infallibility, missing indefectibility.

Well, at least I have a Magisterium, as such, there is always hope that through the grace of God they could convert, regain their sanctity and do what they can to lead the Church out of this mess. That is why as Catholics, we are bound to pray for them daily.

So you have a Magisterium which consistently teaches grave error for last 50 years leading vast majority of the Church astray to offend God. If this is not defection of the Church, I don't know what is. R&R effectively denies Church's indefectibility.

And what do you have? No Magisterium at all for the last 50 years. Presumably you and the other SVs - and me and the other trads - have all kept the faith in that time - how is that possible without a pope or Magisterium? How much longer do you say that the Church can survive without a pope or magisterium?

It is SVism that eliminates the Magisterium, this in and of itself is what effectively denies Church's indefectibility. If SVs actually believed in the indefectibility of the Church, then they would understand that;
If these two Doctrines [Infallibility and indefectibility] be true, then whatever the popes [and Magisterium] have said or done, whatever they ever say or do, will not be a violation of the Church' s attribute of infallibility.
And no matter what anyone does, whether from within or without, he will not succeed in destroying the Church. The enemies of Christ's Church do not believe this, which explains why they will never cease to try.    

The point was about the visibility and material continuity of the Magisterium pre / post Vatican II Council, which Ecclesia-Vacantism does not allow for, thanks to a supposed Episcopal mass apostasy; not the orthodoxy of Pope Francis you read in the Jєωιѕн media and Novus Ordo Watch.  

You believe that Francis and the rest of the post Vatican II hierarchy represent such visibility and continuity....and yet it does not.  You say the Catholic Church is the Vatican II Church.  If it is, you need to answer the same question you pose to the rest of us :  where are Catholics learning Catholicism from within that church?

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: Stubborn

We refuse to obey popes and the magisterium because they want us to offend God.

I have never read a statement which would expose the absurdity of R&R position more clearly and forcefully than this one.

I'm pretty sure that's because you've been duped into embracing the Cekadian version of the "always automatically infallible  UOM".

This has nothing to do with infallibility, everything to do with indefectibility of the Church. If the Magisterium went astray so far to command you to directly offend God it means that Mother Church has defected. What you effectively promote (although I'm sure thats not what you intend to say) is denial of indefectibility of the Church. R&R supporters usually don't realize it and rather focus on the doctrine on infallibility, missing indefectibility.

Well, at least I have a Magisterium, as such, there is always hope that through the grace of God they could convert, regain their sanctity and do what they can to lead the Church out of this mess. That is why as Catholics, we are bound to pray for them daily.

So you have a Magisterium which consistently teaches grave error for last 50 years leading vast majority of the Church astray to offend God. If this is not defection of the Church, I don't know what is. R&R effectively denies Church's indefectibility.

And what do you have? No Magisterium at all for the last 50 years. Presumably you and the other SVs - and me and the other trads - have all kept the faith in that time - how is that possible without a pope or Magisterium? How much longer do you say that the Church can survive without a pope or magisterium?

It is SVism that eliminates the Magisterium, this in and of itself is what effectively denies Church's indefectibility. If SVs actually believed in the indefectibility of the Church, then they would understand that;
If these two Doctrines [Infallibility and indefectibility] be true, then whatever the popes [and Magisterium] have said or done, whatever they ever say or do, will not be a violation of the Church' s attribute of infallibility.
And no matter what anyone does, whether from within or without, he will not succeed in destroying the Church. The enemies of Christ's Church do not believe this, which explains why they will never cease to try.    

"The ordinary and universal magisterium is that which is carried on daily through the continuous preaching of the Church among all peoples. It includes:

 1. The preaching and proclamations of the Corporate Body of Bishops,
 2. universal custom or practice associated with dogma,
 3. the consensus or agreement of the Fathers and of the Theologians,
 4. the common or general understanding of the faithful.

 Regarding Point 4 he says:

 "4. The Common Understanding of the Faithful

 295 Revealed doctrine can be discovered not only among the Pastors and other leaders who teach with the Pastors, but also among the faithful who with a common or general understanding profess a unanimous faith.

 In order that this common understanding be a criterion of revelation, it must be:
 a. certain and clear,
 b. unanimous,
 c. concerned with important matters of faith and of morals.

The fact that the general agreement of the faithful is then a criterion of revelation is proved:

 a. From the indefectibility of the Church. We have already stated that the Church cannot fail. But the Church would be failing in essentials if she were a society of erring souls. Therefore.
 
 b. From the Fathers. For example, St. Augustine, in refuting the Pelagians, proved the existence of original sin in little children and the need, therefore, of baptism for these, from the common understanding of the faithful. This he regarded as a very strong argument of faith.

 296 Other pertinent notes on this subject are these:

a. This infallibility in believing is often-times called passive infallibility; it depends on active infallibility (in teaching) which should always direct it.  

 b. We should avoid the error of those who think that the Church teaching merely confirms the opinions of the Church learning.4 For the Church teaching must pass judgment on these opinions, approve them or condemn them, and in this way direct the faith of her subjects and turn them from error.

 c. Therefore, the faithful in the Church are in no way the teachers, they do not define authoritatively, but they give their belief. The Teachers impart and define the truth which all believe. But God is able to employ the faithful to promote some devotion, for example, the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus; but even in such an instance all proceeds under the authority of the Bishops — they alone are the authoritative judges and proclaimers of the faith."

Not all SVs are also EVs.  Sedeprivationism solves that problem quite nicely, thank you very much.

But, you know, what's the point of having a visible/material continuity when any formal/Magisterial continuity has been completely severed?  You R&R are obsessed with the material continuity.  Who cares if there's material continuity when the only purpose these people serve is to undermine the Traditional Magisterium of the Church?  It would be better of if their material continuity would be severed entirely than to have them there polluting the faith.  You see a major problem with "indefectibility" regarding visible/material continuity but somehow have blinders on and think it's perfectly OK for the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church to defect, so long as someone has his large posterior planted in the chair.  What else is the point even of the material continuity except that Our Lord guaranteed this to safeguard the Church and the faith?

Thank you for stating this Ladislaus.  I don't think any of us have claimed to be "EV"'s, so I'm unsure why the change in direction.

Quote from: Stubborn

The Magisterium is not automatically infallible. If they do not teach that which the Church has always taught, teach that which enjoys the Church's universal and constant consent, teach that which the Church has infallibly and solemnly decreed, they can err - as the post V2 Magisterium proves.

The Magisterium is infallible, as taught by the Church.  I have no clue as to the "Cekadian" version you keep talking about, but I am certain when it comes from the popes.

Quote from: Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.

Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own.

Quote from: Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri

To this magisterium, Christ the Lord imparted immunity from error...

...God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.

The Magisterium cannot err and is unable to be mistaken.

The Magisterium does not introduce new and novel ideas to the faithful.  On the contrary, it's only purpose is to guard, protect, and pass on to the faithful the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

Lets examine your quote from Pope Leo XIII:

"Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium."

Where do the SVs claim the permanent magisterium is? I agree with Pope Leo, those in office hold them legitimately. SVs maintain they all lost their offices due to their heresies which effectively rejects the teaching that the Living Magisterium is permanent - so this quote from pope Leo is against SVs.

"He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own......(this is where you ended your quote. - in order for it to make sense and to make my point, I am adding this next sentence).......
As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true."

Please note that nothing which came from V2 is declared to be contained in the deposit of divine revelation. This declaration that Pope Leo XIII speaks of is a necessary criteria in order for Catholics to be bound to the teaching. When that criteria is not met, it is not binding, it is not infallible and we are not bound to believe it.


And the quotes from Pope Pius XI and from every other pre-conciliar pope will agree so there is really no sense to debate from this angle.

It is as I've been saying - The Church does not teach SVism, only SVs teach SVism.