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.

Precisely.  "Well, St. Pius X did not engage infallibility when condemning Modernism.  Neither did Pius IX."  Based on the R&R position, what says that Vatican II wasn't right in effecting a course correction to "fix" these "errors" by Pius IX, St. Pius X, Gregory XVI, Pius XI, etc.

This Sedevacantist "X" account writes that some Sedevacantists misunderstand what is meant by "infallibly safe":



Source

If you read the text of Cardinal Franzelin, it doesn’t seem to say what this “X” fellow says it means. It seems to me that it supports our position. (See attachment)


The following is from Canon George Smith in an article in the Clergy Review expressing what Catholic’s have to believe:


“…that much of the authoritative teaching of the Church, whether in the form of Papal encyclicals, decisions, condemnations, replies from Roman Congregations -such as the Holy office - or from the Biblical Commission, is not an exercise of the infallible Magisterium.  And here once again our cautious believer raises his voice: 
“Must I believe it?” 

The answer is implicit in the principles already established.  We have seen that the source of the obligation to believe is not the infallibility of the Church but her divine commission to teach.  Therefore, whether her teaching is guaranteed by infallibility or not, the Church is always the divinely appointed teacher and guardian of revealed truth, and consequently the supreme authority of the Church, even when it does not intervene to make an infallible and definitive decision on matters of faith or morals, has the right, in virtue of the divine commission, to command the obedient assent of the faithful.  

In the absence of infallibility the assent thus demanded cannot be that of faith, whether Catholic or ecclesiastical; it will be an assent of a lower order, proportioned to its ground or motive.  But whatever name be given to it - for the present we may call it belief - it is obligatory; obligatory not because the teaching is infallible - it is not - but because it is the teaching of the divinely appointed Church.  It is the duty of the Church, as Franzelin has pointed out, not only to teach revealed doctrine but also to protect it, and therefore the Holy See “may prescribe as to be followed or proscribe as to be avoided theological opinions or opinions connected with theology, not only with the intention of infallibly deciding the truth by a definitive pronouncement, but also - without any such intention - merely for the purpose of safeguarding the security of Catholic doctrine.”  If it is the duty of the Church, even though non-infallibly, to “prescribe or proscribe” doctrines to this end, then it is evidently also the duty of the faithful to accept them or reject them accordingly.”

If you read the text of Cardinal Franzelin, it doesn’t seem to say what this “X” fellow says it means. It seems to me that it supports our position. (See attachment)


The following is from Canon George Smith in an article in the Clergy Review expressing what Catholic’s have to believe:


“…that much of the authoritative teaching of the Church, whether in the form of Papal encyclicals, decisions, condemnations, replies from Roman Congregations -such as the Holy office - or from the Biblical Commission, is not an exercise of the infallible Magisterium.  And here once again our cautious believer raises his voice:
“Must I believe it?”

The answer is implicit in the principles already established.  We have seen that the source of the obligation to believe is not the infallibility of the Church but her divine commission to teach.  Therefore, whether her teaching is guaranteed by infallibility or not, the Church is always the divinely appointed teacher and guardian of revealed truth, and consequently the supreme authority of the Church, even when it does not intervene to make an infallible and definitive decision on matters of faith or morals, has the right, in virtue of the divine commission, to command the obedient assent of the faithful. 

In the absence of infallibility the assent thus demanded cannot be that of faith, whether Catholic or ecclesiastical; it will be an assent of a lower order, proportioned to its ground or motive.  But whatever name be given to it - for the present we may call it belief - it is obligatory; obligatory not because the teaching is infallible - it is not - but because it is the teaching of the divinely appointed Church.  It is the duty of the Church, as Franzelin has pointed out, not only to teach revealed doctrine but also to protect it, and therefore the Holy See “may prescribe as to be followed or proscribe as to be avoided theological opinions or opinions connected with theology, not only with the intention of infallibly deciding the truth by a definitive pronouncement, but also - without any such intention - merely for the purpose of safeguarding the security of Catholic doctrine.”  If it is the duty of the Church, even though non-infallibly, to “prescribe or proscribe” doctrines to this end, then it is evidently also the duty of the faithful to accept them or reject them accordingly.”

Which attachment?

How does this work? St Alphonsus taught that BoD does not remit ALL temporal punishment for sin, while Trent teaches initial justification does. And that's assuming BoD is a real doctrine and not a mistake.

Can you take a break from the Pseudo Feeneyite stuff? Start a new thread and don’t derail this one.

Can you take a break from the Pseudo Feeneyite stuff? Start a new thread and don’t derail this one.

Sorry if this post sounds a bit rude, my apologies.

Okay.  You were just reposting what I posted.  Thanks.

Yes, no problem.

BTW: I will post the other pages of the Angelus article if you’d like?

Not a surprise given that's how PV started to "answer" the OP right from the start: 

Well, it is a very novel way of explaining to us why you reject the dogma of Papal Infallibility as defined by the Church. And look at the gallery of heretics surrounding him, egging him on and upvoting his post.

Maybe, like Hank, you missed the fact, 2V, that this thread was not a start of a discussion, but an attempt by Ladislaus to justify his refusing to accept the unreformed definition of Papal Infallibility on another thread where we were discussing it. But you should know, because you did exactly the same thing on yet another thread again, when confronted with the definition. A Catholic is required under pain of damnation to accept the dogma exactly as it is promulgated by the Church, not explain it away by historical circuмstances or any other devious means.