In other words you are claiming that the NO church is synonymous with the Catholic Church and is actually the same “infallible teaching authority” for nearly 2000 years?

 If this is the correct understanding of what you are trying to convey, then the Church has no real teaching function other than making dogmatic pronouncements every hundred years or so. If this is the correct understanding, the Church can have councils that contradict previous infallible teachings, give dubious sacraments, give encyclicals, bulls and other docuмents that promote not only error, but encourage sin.

Are you sure that’s the road you want to go down?

You think to trap me, you devil QVD, by then turning the tables and telling me I reject the definition.

However, this definition refers to the charism of infallibility by which the Pope, by a special assistance from the Holy Ghost, which is both positive and negative assistance, that assistance which was promised to him by Our Lord in the person of Peter, is infallible when defining questions of faith and morals. Outside of that, infallibility is only guaranteed by Tradition, that which is held everywhere and by all in space and in time. The pope does not enjoy this assistance outside of the Extraordinary Magisterium,

"The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. (De fide.)... the Vatican Council defined: 'The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra - that is, when in discharge of the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding Faith or Morals to be held by the Universal Church - by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals; and therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not in virtue of the consent of the Church. D 1839 cf D 466, 694, 1833-35'. For the proper understanding of the dogma the following points must be noted:... (b) the object of his infallibility is his teaching concerning Faith and Morals... (c) The condition of the Infallibility is that the Pope speaks ex cathedra. For this is required:  a. That he speak as pastor and teacher of all the faithful with the full weight of his supreme apostolic authority; if he speaks as private theologian or as the bishop of his diocese, he is not infallible; b. That he have the intention of deciding finally a teaching of Faith or Morals, so that it is to be held by all the faithful. Without this intention, which must be made clear in the formulation, or by the circuмstances, a decision ex cathedra is not complete. Most of the doctrinal expressions made by the Popes in their encyclicals are not decisions ex cathedra. d. The source of his assistance is the supernatural assistance of the Holy Ghost, Who protects the  supreme teacher of the Church from error... The Holy Ghost preserves the bearer of the supreme teaching office of the Church from a false decision (negative assistance) and leads him, where necessary, by external and internal grace to the right knowledge and correct statement of the truth (positive assistance)... cf D 1836" - Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Part II, Ch 2, No 8.

You've also never refuted the quote from Archbishop Lefebvre where he stated that the papacy is guided by the Holy Ghost and protected in such a way as to preclude the degree of destruction perpetrated by the Conciliar Church.

I was wondering something after reading these posts about R & R, papal infalibility, Church infalibility, sedevacantism.
When we say "Church condemned antiquarianism", that means it was pope Pius XII. that condemn that as error or heresy in one of his encyclical. I didn't find anywhere that Catholic Chruch condemned it before Pius XII. Maybe some of members could know about it, or find some older docuмent.
Do all R & R and sedevacantist conclude that this was infalible teaching? Is it teaching of a pope or Catholic Church? I think it was both, but it's not "ex cathedra". Ladislaus does have a point that if one day we would have a pope like Pius X. or Leo XIII., the same argument could use neomodernists, liberal bishops to reject that teaching about antiquarianism, or "Syllabus of Errors". Or when future holy pope (Angelic Pontiff maybe), condems Vatican II, New Mass, new Canon law, rites of sacraments, etc.
They would be in error as they are now. They would intepret Magisterium and not the pope. I'm not sedevacantist, but every position has "pro et contra" arguments.
Let's not call someone a heretic because of that. I believe that fr. Chazal is trying to point out. Many traditionalist lack charity, understanding the other persons when engaging these discussions. We need to do more prayer and penance than debates.

This crisis has no theological, moral or any kind of manual to follow.

The issue is why sedevacantists, just like the Old Catholics, refuse the definition of Papal Infallibility of Vatican I and try to make the Pope infallible without any conditions.
You may have missed the other thread where I cornered Ladislaus and he started this thread as a ruse to dodge the question.

I wasn't aware that sedevacantists refuse the definition of Papal Infallibility of Vatican I. I know that the Old Catholics outright reject it, however, I'm not sure exactly how sedevacantists refuse said definition. I didn't know you actually cornered Ladislaus on this issue.