[Quo vadis Domine]

Yes, the generalities and assumptions of Catholicism 101.  You reduce the Catholic Church to utter meaninglessness, to a clown who walks around Rome in a white cassock protected by the Holy Spirit only once or twice per century, but otherwise capable of issuing an endless stream of utter garbage from the See of Peter and of promulgating a "Mass" that is offensive to God and harmful to souls.  While there's walls of papal teaching, including the teaching of Vatican I, that the Magisterium of Holy See cannot ever be blemished by error, you claim that the Magisterium has become a veritable open sewer gushing Modernism, heresy, religious indifferentism, and moral corruption into the Church and into the world.

Your minds are so corrupted by a non-Catholic view and sensus of the Church that probably the first thing that a new Holy Pope would have to condemn, even before Modernism, would be the heresies held by many of the R&R type Traditional Catholics, reaffirming and reasserting the authority and the prerogatives of the Holy See.

This ☝️☝️☝️ 

I’ve been saying this for years, when God sees fit to give us a true pope, the R&R position will be condemned by him into oblivion!

[Quo vadis Domine]

It's full of generalities and assumptions.  I know what Ladislaus is saying, and the dangers, but much is unprovable, because many of the terms in question have not been adequately defined/explained by the Church.  Hardly any of us can point to the "source of truth" and agree on what is/isn't the magisterium.  Without this, it's all an opinion.  And I'm tired of people ramming their opinions down other's throats.

The indefectibility of the Church is not an opinion. If not dogmatic (which I tend to believe) it is, at the very least, a mortal sin against faith. People with the same mind set as Stubborn have called into doubt this doctrine.

[Quo vadis Domine]

The indefectibility of the Church is not an opinion. If not dogmatic (which I tend to believe) it is, at the very least, a mortal sin against faith. People with the same mind set as Stubborn have called into doubt this doctrine.

I should have said: *to deny or doubt it* is, at the very least, a mortal sin against faith. 

Whether or not it is a dogma, you still unfortunately end up in Hell if you deny it. Think about that!

[Pax Vobis]

While there's walls of papal teaching, including the teaching of Vatican I, that the Magisterium of Holy See cannot ever be blemished by error

Blah, blah, blah...the word 'Magisterium' has about 50 different definitions, depending on which theologian you read.  The Magisterium (proper) can never err.  The fallible magisterium can.  What's the difference?  We don't know exactly, that's why this debate is never-ending.

[Pax Vobis]

The indefectibility of the Church is not an opinion.

What are the limits of this indefectibility?  Can anyone point to a source that is unquestionably clear and detailed?  No.  So we're left to endlessly debate it, as God allows the Church to go through this crisis, until the future Church explains it all.  That's why this debate is never-ending.

[Ladislaus]

What are the limits of this indefectibility?

Clearly when the "Magisterium" has become a sewer pipe flushing souls into hell, with corrupt doctrine, religious indifferentism, and corrupt moral standards, the line has been crossed and the Church would have failed in her mission.  If that isn't failure, there's no such thing, and so long as the one or two dogmas promulgated are correct and there's a guy walking around in Rome with a white cassock, we're all good, right?

[Quo vadis Domine]

Clearly when the "Magisterium" has become a sewer pipe flushing souls into hell, with corrupt doctrine, religious indifferentism, and corrupt moral standards, the line has been crossed and the Church would have failed in her mission.  If that isn't failure, there's no such thing, and so long as the one or two dogmas promulgated are correct and there's a guy walking around in Rome with a white cassock, we're all good, right?

It’s impossible for me to understand what goes through their minds. They may as well believe that Bruce Jenner is a woman! 

[Your Friend Colin]

What are the limits of this indefectibility?  Can anyone point to a source that is unquestionably clear and detailed?  No.  So we're left to endlessly debate it, as God allows the Church to go through this crisis, until the future Church explains it all.  That's why this debate is never-ending.

Can you point to a source that is unquestionably clear and detailed regarding the existence of Guardian Angels? 

No, but I’m assuming you believe every man has one given that the Church has taught this throughout the centuries even without an “ex cathedra” solemn pronouncement. To deny or doubt this Catholic doctrine would warrant some degree of censure. And if you do believe this, you are admitting that not everything a Catholic must believe is  expounded in a dogmatic formula. 

[Nadir]

Can you point to a source that is unquestionably clear and detailed regarding the existence of Guardian Angels?

Matt 18:10
See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.

[Stubborn]

The indefectibility of the Church is not an opinion. If not dogmatic (which I tend to believe) it is, at the very least, a mortal sin against faith. People with the same mind set as Stubborn have called into doubt this doctrine.

I will be bold here and tell you that although we play an absolutely essential part, you have zero clue, no idea whatsoever and absolutely do not know what our part is, what part we play as regards the Church's indefectibility.

Hint, it's got nothing whatsoever to do with the pope.

[Stubborn]

I should have said: *to deny or doubt it* is, at the very least, a mortal sin against faith.

Whether or not it is a dogma, you still unfortunately end up in Hell if you deny it. Think about that!

Snip from a sermon given by Fr. Wathen, please point out what you believe is heretical, or wrong. Or if you are in complete agreement. Note: there is no mention of the pope.

"...Furthermore that no matter how much tragedy with which history is strewn, Christ moves towards His glorious triumph. With His resurrection was the announcement that He would have his victory, when he emerged from the tomb, He proved that there was no force, no power greater than He. And He proved that if He was invincible, then that which He would establish is also invincible, namely His Church.

It really does not matter therefore that throughout history the Church suffer terrific blows, that it at times – and these times almost have always prevailed – that the Church suffer it’s terrible embarrassments, it’s setbacks.
Despite all this, despite all appearances and despite whatever losses, Christ is triumphing in the Church and He is proving His power, His invincibility and He is succeeding in doing what He came to the world to achieve and God the Father is fulfilling the purposes of His creation.

If it were not so He would never have created anything to begin with. If it could be, that Almighty God could set in motion anything out of which He could not draw whatever He wished, then He would never had done anything like that and He indeed would not be infinite in the first place..."

[Stubborn]

Clearly when the "Magisterium" has become a sewer pipe flushing souls into hell, with corrupt doctrine, religious indifferentism, and corrupt moral standards, the line has been crossed and the Church would have failed in her mission.  If that isn't failure, there's no such thing, and so long as the one or two dogmas promulgated are correct and there's a guy walking around in Rome with a white cassock, we're all good, right?

How is it that you are able to post this, and say ^^ this? I believe there are 2 reasons:
1) You do not believe what you posted before, which begs the question, why did you post it if not to prove the popes you quoted are wrong?
2) Your understanding of what the Church's Magisterium is, per the quotes you posted, altogether wrong, if not heretical.

[Ladislaus]

How is it that you are able to post this, and say ^^ this? I believe there are 2 reasons:
1) You do not believe what you posted before, which begs the question, why did you post it if not to prove the popes you quoted are wrong?
2) Your understanding of what the Church's Magisterium is, per the quotes you posted, altogether wrong, if not heretical.

You're back to the old insanity (it's really a mental disorder) where you can't understand that we do not hold the V2 papal claimants to be popes nor their "teachings" to be Magisterium.  What part of this do you not understand?

[Stubborn]

You're back to the old insanity (it's really a mental disorder) where you can't understand that we do not hold the V2 papal claimants to be popes nor their "teachings" to be Magisterium.  What part of this do you not understand?

You contradict your own papal quotes by saying the Magisterium is corrupt, basing this on your erroneous opinion that the V2 papal claimants are not popes does not change this fact - it is as if your erroneous opinion justifies contradicting the Church teaching that the Magisterium is always immune from error.

FYI, to constantly repeat over and over as you do that the Magisterium is corrupt, is contradicting the Church's clear teaching which you yourself posted. To go essentially word for word contrary to what the Church teaches is heresy regardless of your erroneous opinion on the popes' invalidity. 

Which is why I said I believe there are two reasons for this....
1) You do not believe what you posted before, which begs the question, why did you post it if not to prove the popes you quoted are wrong?
2) Your understanding of what the Church's Magisterium is, per the quotes you posted, altogether wrong, if not heretical.

Always remember, there's a whole lot more to sedeism than a vacant chair.

[Ladislaus]

You contradict your own papal quotes by saying the Magisterium is corrupt, basing this on your erroneous opinion that the V2 papal claimants are not popes does not change this fact - it is as if your erroneous opinion justifies contradicting the Church teaching that the Magisterium is always immune from error.

  It just doesn't stop.  Sedevacantists hold that the teachings of the V2 Papal claimants are NOT Magisterium, and it is precisely due to the recognition that the Papal Magisterium cannot become corrupt, and that many R&R (including yourself) are the ones who claim that the Magisterium can become corrupt.  Of course, you have a bizarre definition of Magisterium where you exclude "false teaching" from being "Magisterium" and therefore the incorruption of the Magisterium becomes reduced to a tautology.  But no Catholic theologian has ever defined "Magisterium" as dependent upon subsequent examination by Stubborn et al.