CathInfo.com

You're constantly begging the question that the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church and that the Conciliar hierarchy has teaching / governing power to exercise in the first place.

So, are you Salza or Siscoe?

You'll need to define what you mean by the Conciliar Church.  If you mean the visible society comprised of the local Church of Rome and the diocese and eparchies throughout the world in union with it, that is indeed the indefectible Catholic Church founded by Christ, and to deny it is heresy. So hopefully that's not what you are referring to as the Conciliar Church.  

If the visible society described above was the indefectible Church with four marks in 1958, it is the indefectible Church with four marks today.  If it's not the indefectible Church with four marks today, it never was.   Christ's promise that "the gates of hell shall not prevail" applies to the visible, hierarchical society, as such.  It doesn't mean there will always been a remnant of "true believers," which is what the Protestant heretics claim.  

If the visible society described above was the indefectible Church with four marks in 1958, it is the indefectible Church with four marks today.  If it's not the indefectible Church with four marks today, it never was.

What an absurd logical nonsequitur.

Pope St. Pius V or Pope St. Pius X, had they been timewarped to the present day to behold the Bergoglian church, would not recognize it as the Catholic Church, for it lacks all the marks of the Catholic Church.  They would think it to be some depraved Protestant sect.  And that's how most of the faithful become Traditional Catholics.  It isn't because of some deep theological analysis of Vatican II or the New Mass.  It's because their sensus Catholicus finds the pre-Vatican II Church and the Conciliar Church to be two completely different entities.  God doesn't require the faithful to have advanced degrees in theology to be able to identify the Church.  And that is where, as Vatican I teaches, private judgment does play a role in the assent of faith, in the preliminary assessment of whether the Church has the authority of Christ.  But the faithful recognize that Bergoglio's is not the Voice of the Shepherd.

You did not answer the question of whether you are either Salza or Siscoe.

If you think that Joe Biden, Nancy Peℓσѕι, and Jorge Bergoglio are Catholics and that Traditional Catholics are not, then your Catholic sense has been thoroughly warped by your faulty core principles.

By your principles, those faithful Catholics who during the Arian crisis rejected the Arian usurpers, and the saintly bishops who went around consecrating parallel Catholic bishops to replace them, they were all outside the Church, while the Arian usurpers were in rightful possession of their sees.  In fact, by your principles, had the Arians succeeded in getting one of their own onto the See of Peter, the Arians would all be inside the Church and the true orthodox Catholics outside.  I hope you can start to see the absurdity of your purely legalistic view of the Church.  And, yes, St. Athanasius did hold that even if the Church were reduced to a handful of faithful, there would be the Catholic Church.

By your principles, those excommunicated by Nestorius before his official removal from office by Rome would have been outside the Church, while Nestorius remained inside the Church.  Ooops.  Pope St. Celestine taught otherwise, that true orthodox Catholics could not be removed by Nestorius from the moment he began to preach heresy (years before he was formally removed).  He was, according to the Pope, at that time in a state of "excommunicandus" and therefore suspended, in a state similar to what Father Chazal describes in his ecclesiology.

What an absurd logical nonsequitur.

An absurd logical non sequitur?  Are you serious?

What is absurd about the logic?  If the visible society comprised of the local church of Rome and the diocese throughout the world in union with it was the true Church with four marks in 1958, it is the true Church with four marks today,  since the same Church that possesses the four marks also enjoys the attribute of indefectibility.  The promises of Christ pertain to the visible Church as such:

“The Church of Christ, by the revelation and institution of Christ himself, is essentially visible; and this visible Church is the Church to which his promises pertain; promises, namely, that she would be perennial and indefectible, and that in her and by her men would find sanctity and salvation.” (Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, vol. 1, 3^rd ed. 1927, ) 

Ladislaus: Pope St. Pius V or Pope St. Pius X, had they been timewarped to the present day to behold the Bergoglian church, would not recognize it as the Catholic Church, for it lacks all the marks of the Catholic Church. 

If by “Bergoglian Church, you mean the visible Church described above – church of Rome and diocese throughout the world in union with it - you have just denied indefectibility of the Church.  You are nothing but a neo Protestant heretic who happens to like the Traditional Mass, and every time you profess to believe in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church during Mass, you lie to God and to yourself.  You believe in the idea of a Church with four marks, you reject the actual Church with four marks.  That makes you a heretic, since the actual existing Church with four marks is not only an article of faith, it is an object of divine and Catholic faith.  You deny the object.

Hopefully one day you convert to Catholicism, since extra ecclesia nullo salus.

Moderator: Cool it with the personal accusations. This particular dogmatic argument is getting a bit hot. Hopefully you're just speaking rhetorically here.