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…..

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.

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.

And surely what these sons of perdition intend is quite clear from their other writings, especially that impious and most imprudent one which has only recently been published by the person whom they recently constituted as a pseudo-bishop. For these writings attack and pervert the true power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff and the bishops, who are the successors of blessed Peter and the apostles; they transfer it instead to the people, or, as they say, to the community. They obstinately reject and oppose the infallible magisterium both of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church in teaching matters. Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred.

1. We adhere faithfully to the Rule of Faith laid down by St. Vincent of Lerins in these terms: "Id teneamus, quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est; hoc est etenim vere proprieque catholicuм." For this reason we preserve in professing the faith of the primitive Church, as formulated in the oecuмenical symbols and specified precisely by the unanimously accepted decisions of the Oecuмenical Councils held in the undivided Church of the first thousand years.


2. We therefore reject the decrees of the so-called Council of the Vatican, which were promulgated July 18th, 1870, concerning the infallibility and the universal Episcopate of the Bishop of Rome, decrees which are in contradiction with the faith of the ancient Church, and which destroy its ancient canonical constitution by attributing to the Pope the plentitude of ecclesiastical powers over all Dioceses and over all the faithful.

Better than having me answer, it, let Pope Pius IX answer it in his condemnation of the Old Catholics, Etsi Multa

Quote

And surely what these sons of perdition intend is quite clear from their other writings, especially that impious and most imprudent one which has only recently been published by the person whom they recently constituted as a pseudo-bishop. For these writings attack and pervert the true power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff and the bishops, who are the successors of blessed Peter and the apostles; they transfer it instead to the people, or, as they say, to the community. They obstinately reject and oppose the infallible magisterium both of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church in teaching matters. Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecuмenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred

.
But, then, since this teaching of Pius IX wasn't "infallible", then maybe he was wrong here too, no?  Maybe Pius IX was wrong in his Syllabus and other Encyclicals.  Maybe St. Pius X was wrong to condemn Modernism (perhaps it he just misunderstood it).  Aren't all these papal teachings what constitute Tradition?  But since they weren't technically infallible, maybe they were all wrong, and Vatican II was the proper course correction?

As Vatican I taught about papal infallibility, it's actually ROOTED IN the indefectibility of the entire Church.  Pope Pius IX affirms this here, that the reason the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility is dogmatically certain is because the entire teaching Church, meaning the entire body of bishops in union with the Pope, cannot error in such a matter ... since that would constitute a defection of the Church.

Here Pius IX effectively teaches the indefectibility of the Church (and some aspects of it) ... which R&R claim has never been taught by the Church.

If there's no indefectibility of the Church, then there's no dogma of papal infallibility and, who knows?, perhaps the Old Catholics were right in their claim that papal infallibility is not Traditional, right?

Here's the Old Catholic Declaration of Utrecht.  Sound familiar?

How do you post such manure with a clear conscience?

A reply to indisputably refute this BS post would be TLDR and would fall on deaf ears.