Any Catholic who believes that The Pope is the true Vicar of Christ on Earth, and is 100% completely honest with himself, is forced by mere logic to adopt the Sedevacantist position. Any other Catholic position is to be completely in denial. The truth isn't always pretty. Often times it's downright sad and bitter but, as the old saying goes, it's better to be slapped in the face with the truth than to be kissed with a lie. 

He clearly was not talking about the conclavist groups, but you chose to go there.  He was focusing on the Traditional clergy having a united front.

And reconstituting the hierarchy, 2V. His very words. Do you think that does not imply resuming ordinary jurisdiction with a Pope? How would they receive their jurisdiction otherwise? Perhaps you should ask him? He was thus promoting a very serious error, nothing less than schism, which required a serious answer, given that we are on a forum which is the "de facto home of the Resistance". But for him it is only permissible now, apparently, with all the 'respectable' bishops that we currently have in the various schools of 'Tradition', but it was not acceptable for the previous 20-odd conclavist groups who held graver concerns over previous Popes.

The thing I notice most about R&R people on this forum is that they seem to more concerned with sedevacantism and those who hold this position than the heresy, apostacy and blasphemy coming from the man they claim to be thier pope.

Most, if not all R&R people who are on this forum, are here because it is the 'de facto headquaters of the Resistance'. Why are Sedevacantists on this form is what I would like to know... if not to subvert the Resistance? Perhaps it is because, in spite of yourselves, you gravitate towards true Catholicism? I am not one bit "concerned with sedevacantism and those who hold this position", except for the salvation of their souls. I have no desire whatsoever to read the opinions of sedevacantists, nor to discuss the matter. However, it is continually thrust upon us and we are forced, ad nauseam, into replying to limit the damage done by your false arguments to those unwitting R&R souls who happen onto this forum, believing it to be an R&R forum, seeking the good doctrine of Archbishop Lefebvre and his faithful companions and followers in Catholic Tradition.

The number of down votes I anticipate for this post will speak for itself, right here on "the de-facto discussion headquarters for the SSPX Resistance", "the #1 forum for SSPX Resistance news and discussion in the English-speaking world".

One might think that an R&R Catholic could feel at home on this forum. It more often feels like enemy territory. Please respond all you fellow R&Rers and tell us if you do not feel the same.

... seeking the good doctrine of Archbishop Lefebvre and his faithful companions and followers in Catholic Tradition.

The number of down votes I anticipate for this post will speak for itself, right here on "the de-facto discussion headquarters for the SSPX Resistance", "the #1 forum for SSPX Resistance news and discussion in the English-speaking world".

Define "Resistance".  Is Father Chazal Resistance?  Most of us SP type shave no problems whatsoever with his sedeimpoundist position.

As for the "good doctrine of Archbishop Lefebvre", you're very selective about filtering things out that you don't like.  +Lefebvre was very open to sedevacantism, publicly stated several times that the Papacy is guided by the Holy Spirit, and also stated publicly that the Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the Catholic Church.

Yes, it's absolutely Matthew's choice.  If he wants to kick us out, I'd be happy to set up an alternative forum to relocate the SVs / SPs from here to there.  And both forums would likely whither away due to lack of activity, since most of the activity here entails these debates about the Crisis and about Catholic ecclesiology, from which I learn a great deal even when I don't agree with various posters about one or another subject.  I've disagreed with posters in all the different "camps" or factions here.  So, for instance, while I disagree with Sean Johnson about many things, I was in agreement with him regarding the question of +Vigano (against many of the sedevacantists).  Most sedevacantists are rather hostile to "Feeneyism", while I'm a strong proponents of a nuanced variation of it.  I've agreed and disagreed with just about every personality out there in the Traditional Catholic world.

I find the forum useful in the same regard you have mentioned. In many of the same ways. The Fr. Feeney and EENS debates were always great opportunities to expand understanding. 

I would change your statement to be in conformity with the entirety of Vatican I, which teaches that Peter and his successors have been gifted with a never-failing faith, and that the See can never be blemished by error, and that the dogma itself derives from the notion that the Papacy is the source of unity in faith for the Church. 

Stop your sophistry.

There are two answers to your post.

Firstly, without even reading the rest of the Council docuмent, there is a very important question to ask. What is infallible in a Council? Is it every word of every docuмent? Or the definitions? Of course, it is the definitions which are held to be infallible, and what does the definition say (see below)? Why would the Church place all of those conditions there for infallibility if it could have simply said the Pope is infallible "every time he teaches on faith and morals"? It's simple. Stop trying to complicate things. Submit to the Church. Furthermore, the Council states that this definition is IRREFORMABLE. An anathema is attached to anyone who does not accept it as it is, unreformed! Stop your perfidious reforming of Vatican I.

Secondly, and I have responded to you with this explanation before, you must read how the very docuмent that defines infallibility explains these very characteristics that you cite: 1. never failing faith and 2. the Apostolic See unblemished by error. It is precisely in the infallibility as defined by the Council that, according to the very docuмent itself, these two characteristics of never failing faith of Peter and the First See unblemished by error consist. It is pure fantasy on your part to imagine that it means that the Pope can teach no error in faith or morals at all. Read the docuмent for goodness' sake:

In Summary it says "For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter... that by His assistance they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation... for they (the Roman Pontiffs) knew very well that this See of Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise... I have prayed for thee that thy faith not fail... This gift of truth and never failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors SO THAT they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away from the poisonous food of error..." But since in this age there are not a few who disparage the authority of the Holy See "We judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative" which Our Lord attached to the office of Pope, "THEREFORE, faithfully adhering to the tradition received... we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma..."

You know the meaning of the word "therefore"? It means for this reason, on account of this.

Listen, Ladislaus, and hear the Church. It is because of this never failing faith of Peter, because of the First See being unblemished by error, that the Council defines the prerogative that Our Lord attached to the office of the Papacy, that infallibility which Our Divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy, the tradition faithfully received, the very meaning of its freedom from error and unfailing faith. What is that prerogative? Freedom from error whenever the Pope teaches on Faith and morals? Is that what it says? Read and submit to the Church and stop corrupting the Faith of the Church:

• To satisfy this pastoral office, our predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving teaching of Christ should be spread among all the peoples of the world; and with equal care they made sure that it should be kept pure and uncontaminated wherever it was received.
• It was for this reason that the bishops of the whole world, sometimes individually, sometimes gathered in synods, according to the long established custom of the churches and the pattern of ancient usage referred to this apostolic see those dangers especially which arose in matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure that any damage suffered by the faith should be repaired in that place above all where the faith can know no failing [59] .
• The Roman pontiffs, too, as the circuмstances of the time or the state of affairs suggested,
  
  
  • sometimes by
    
    
    • summoning ecuмenical councils or
    • consulting the opinion of the churches scattered throughout the world, sometimes by
    • special synods, sometimes by
    • taking advantage of other useful means afforded by divine providence,
  • defined as doctrines to be held those things which, by God’s help, they knew to be in keeping with
    
    
    • sacred scripture and
    • the apostolic traditions.
• 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 Saviour to the prince of his disciples: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren [60] .
• This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this see so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
• But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office.
• Therefore,
  
  
  • faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
  • to the glory of God our saviour,
  • for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
  • for the salvation of the christian people,
  • with the approval of the sacred council,
    
    

    ---

  • we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
    
    
    • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
      
      
      • that is, when,
      • in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
      • in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
      • he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
    • he possesses,
      
      
      • by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
    • that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
    • Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to REJECT THIS DEFINITION of ours: let him be anathema.

I am sure you all understand that I harbour no ill will towards anyone. We are all Catholics here and we all love the sinner and hate the sin, love the erring but hate his error. So don't take my comments the wrong way. Nor am I trying to change this forum or suggest to Matthew how he should run it. I was simply making what seemed an appropriate response to what was said by one of my sede friends... :-)