Would've expected this to be active but one only hears crickets.

R&R, please explain why the Old Catholics were wrong.  This should be interesting.

Old Catholics rejected the definition of papal infallibility because they decided it was contrary to Tradition.  Before you rely upon the notion that a Pope is infallible when solemnly defining a dogma, recall that papal infallibility was the dogma in question and thus it's a circular argument.  Pope was infallible in defining papal infallibility because papal infallibility is a dogma.  So you can't use that.

Please explain why the Old Catholics were wrong to do what they did.

Heck, the Old Catholic "Declaration of Utrecht" opens with the exact same appeal to St. Vincent of Lerins that Traditional Catholics use.

This is one of your best posts! I’m interested in reading the responses. 

The Old Catholic Churches came into being as a result of the Pope’s claim to authority beyond his own diocese of Rome.

Took three seconds to google it.

The Old Catholic Churches came into being as a result of the Pope’s claim to authority beyond his own diocese of Rome.

Took three seconds to google it.

Not an answer as usual.

They have no logical response.

Give us the logic, Hank, or one of your friends. Why are you waiting for us to tell you? What is your point? How does it change the Church's definition? How does it prop up sedevacantism? We are all ears. Please tell us why you are not condemned like the Old Catholics for rejecting the conditions of the Church's definition.

Not an answer as usual.

Looking in the mirror?

Here, I will give you an example:

Do you think R&R is the result of the Pope’s claim to authority beyond his own diocese of Rome?

Come on, QVD, please break the suspense. I give in. What is the answer? Let us see if Lad likes your explanation.

Remember, it has to justify why you reject the definition of Vatican I and hold that the Pope is infallible every time he teaches on faith and morals. You need to be able to reform the definition with your answer so as to be able to get rid of all those conditions that make the sedes uncomfortable, without incurring the anathema that the Council pronounces against those who do not accept the irreformable definition. Not a difficult ask is it, I mean for a sede who accepts everything the Magisterium tells him on faith and morals? There is no contradiction here is there QVD? Is there Hank? Is there Ladislaus? Is there Miracle of the Sun?

Who needs to answer a question? Please don't keep us waiting. Nice simple straight forward answer please.

It’s really amusing how you try to corner those of us who hold the sedevacantist position into an argument that’s not actually our argument. Good try! Now you really should answer Lads question….

But, I will appease you first.

1) No one is denying the definition of Papal Infallibility as expressed at the Vatican Council, the most you can accuse us of is *expanding* the definition, which is not the case and wouldn’t be heretical.

2) Infallibility is *not* limited to excathadra pronouncements. In other words, everything that is infallible does not necessarily have a dogmatic pronouncement.

3) Any official teaching coming from the Church via her normal channels or directly from the pope himself is, at the very least, infallibly safe.

4) *Nothing* in those teachings can, in any way, be harmful to souls. In other words, they are ALL infallibly safe.

Now your turn, answer Lad’s question…..