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.

Yeah, the logical fallacy there is pretty sad, equating the definition of papal infallibility with meaning a dogmatic definition that NOTHING ELSE outside of what was defined can be infallible, i.e. as it being tantamount to a definition of non-infallibility.

Calling us heretics for this is a grave slander.

Theologians almost universally also hold that the Church is infallible in universal discipline, including canonizations, and Cardinal Franzelin along with Msgr. Fenton and others describe an "infallible safety" of the Magisterium ... so they must be heretics also.

You're a bad joke. Read Etsi Multa and tell us all where we "boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people [and the protestant ministers] 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.

You can start by posting the definitions approved and professed at V2.

Stubborn, you miss the entire point. Etsi Multa affirms the indefectibility of the Church as the reason why the Old Catholics were heretics for rejecting the definition of papal infallibility.  Nor did I ask you about Vatican II.

I asked you WHY (in principle) the Old Catholics were wrong to reject the definition of papal infallibility.  It can't because this was an infallible definition due to the infallible definition.  There must be some criterion for infallibility in place a priori to the Vatican I definition to guarantee it with dogmatic certainty.  That criterion Pius IX declares to be the indefectibility of the Church ... something which I was told that I "made up" and which doesn't exist.

They were wrong because they wrongfully did not believe that the doctrine being defined ex cathedra, was always the doctrine of the Church. They wrongfully believed it to be a new doctrine.

Who determines whether they were right or wrong, Stubborn, you?

No, that's not why Pius IX said they were wrong.  He said they were wrong because rejecting the definition would be contrary to the indefectibility of the Church in having defined it at Vatican I, not due to their incorrect discernment of Tradition.

This demonstrates once again where you have adopted a private judgment approach to the discernment of what is and what is not Traditional, i.e. are usurping and arrogating unto yourself precisely the role of the Magisterium, which is to make that discernment.  Otherwise, it's your opinion vs. the opinion of the Old Catholics.  You've long had this attitude where your own judgment is your ultimate rule of faith and is the measure and yardstick of objective truth.

Don't you see it's the same problem that Prots had with regard to Scripture?  For them, Scripture was the only rule of faith (whereas you would add Tradition), but the problem with that was that each Prot interpreted Scripture differently, resulting in the chaos of 23,000+ Protestant sects that exist today.  Same thing holds when Tradition (a second source of Revelation) is left to private judgment.  This is PRECISELY why Our Lord founded the papacy and the Magisterium.

It's for the Pope and no one else to be the ultimate arbiter of what is and what is not Traditional.  In this passage here, routinely distorted by R&R, Vatican I teaches:

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles. Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples

So Vatican I teaches that "the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter ... so that they might ... by his assistance ... religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles".

This is the very role of the Papal Magisterium, to expound or explain the Deposit or Faith (in Scripture and Tradition) ... it's not your job or your authority, Stubborn et al.

Now, R&R warp the expression that the Popes were not promised the assistance of the Holy Spirit to "make known some new doctrine" into meaning that, "If the Pope makes some new doctrine, he doesn't have the assistance of the Holy Spirit."  But this passage merely distinguishes the Magisterium from the initial Revelation or Deposit.  At no point does the Pope add to the Deposit, i.e., is not adding to Revelation, but is merely expounding the Revelation, but the assistance of the Holy Spirit is promised in order to have him do it "faithfully".

Archbishop Lefebvre reiterated this teaching, that the promises of Christ for the Papacy preclude the destruction we've seen with the Conciliar Church.  Do you reject or refute Archbishop Lefebvre?

The Magisterium. What the Church has always taught determines right from wrong.

Right, the same appeal to the St. Vincent of Lerins formula that the Old Catholics made.  They appealed to "what the Church has always taught" to reject infallibility, but you appeal to "what the Church has always taught" to accept infallibility.

Right up to Vatican I, there were many Catholics who rejected papal infallibility, including some approved Catechisms.  Maybe it wasn't as clear as you claim.  If it were objectively clear, there would be no need for a definition in the first place.  But that's why the Church defines dogmas, not because they haven't "always been taught" objectively, i.e. weren't always objectively part of the Deposit of Revelation, because they were, but because Catholics did not have dogmatic certainty about it, or it was being disputed among Catholics.

Ultimately, you are your own Magisterium, since you discern and decide "what the Church has always taught".

Right, the same appeal to the St. Vincent of Lerins formula that the Old Catholics made.  They appealed to "what the Church has always taught" to reject infallibility, but you appeal to "what the Church has always taught" to accept infallibility.

Right up to Vatican I, there were many Catholics who rejected papal infallibility, including some approved Catechisms.  Maybe it wasn't as clear as you claim.  If it were objectively clear, there would be no need for a definition in the first place.  But that's why the Church defines dogmas, not because they haven't "always been taught" objectively, i.e. weren't always objectively part of the Deposit of Revelation, because they were, but because Catholics did not have dogmatic certainty about it, or it was being disputed among Catholics.

Ultimately, you are your own Magisterium, since you discern and decide "what the Church has always taught".

It is not I who is my own magisterium, I do not teach, I go by what the Magisterium, i.e. the what Church has always taught. You do not understand it because you have a NO understanding of what the Church's Magisterium even is. The fact is, you have the identical understanding of what it is that pope Francis has.

The Old Catholics were wrong in their belief. You are wrong in your belief. How do you keep the faith without ever having had a pope?

Except that St. Paul was not the pope, so this does not apply.

He had the same infallibility and responsibility as St. Peter and the rest of the Apostles.

Ladislaus, I will pray for your conversion, because, as it stands, you are a pertinacious manifest heretic.  You've been corrected repeatedly that you promote heresy, but you obstinately refuse to retract it.  Of course you're your own Magisterium.  YOU decide what is and what is not in conformity with Tradition, just like the Old Catholics did.  St. Thomas taught this clearly that when you reject the Magisterium as your proximate rule of faith, you effectively make your own private judgment your own Magisterium.

So Ladislaus is right and the Old Catholics were wrong, because Ladislaus says so ... not because Pius IX and the Vatican Council said so ... but because Ladislaus said so.  Got it.  Can you even begin to grasp the absurdity of this?

I fixed it.