You, like Lad, have a NO understanding of what the living magisterium is. FYI, non-sede trads are already in submission to the living magisterium.

If non-sede trads were already in submission to the living magisterium then they would belong to their pope's church and submit to his formal teachings. They would also have no problem whatsoever with the recent canonizations of Pope Saint John XXIII, Pope Saint Paul VI and Pope Saint John Paul II. 

As I said, you have a NO understanding of what the living magisterium is.

Apparently, you believe that the living magisterium is not to be followed when it declares or rules on something you don't agree with. If I am wrong, then please address the recent Pope Saint canonizations issue and your stance on it since you claim to have already submitted to the "living magisterium." If John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II are not forever saints to be venerated, then that means canonizations are not infallible acts of the Church and every single saint in history is now up for revision. If they are forever saints to be venerated, then you should have no issue with saying "Pope St. Paul VI Pray For Us"  

+Lefebvre:

ultimately I agree with you; it's not possible that the Pope, who is protected by the Holy Ghost, could do things like this.  There we agree; it's not possible, it doesn't fit, this destruction of the Church ...

From there he proceeds to examine various possible explanations for what has happened.  He goes through various theories about the Pope being drugged, a prisoner, insane, replaced by a double ... and dismisses them as implausible and (French) "aberrantes", translated in the video as "crazy", but more like "off the wall" or "wild" or "out in left field".

Then he concludes that Sedevacantism is possible:

so it can be said that the Holy Father, in effect, that it's not possible that a Pope could do all this, therefore he's not Pope.  This reasoning is worth, this reasoning, I don't know, I don't say what's going on and there are several scenarios, maybe this one has merit ... we'll know the truth later ... and this is something that is far from impossible ... you know this is something that isn't impossible and theologians have studied this problem ... and we would have had for all this time a Pope who wasn't Pope.  This is possible.

Archbishop Lefebvre AGREED with the MAJOR of the sedevacantist reasoning, namely, that a Pope is protected by the Holy Ghost form perpetrating this degree of destruction.  And that is all we're advocating here, the SAME POSITION that +Lefebvre articulates in this speech.

So I submit to you R&R who dispute this that WE are the "faithful heirs" of +Lefebvre on this particular point, and he does not agree with your rejection of the Holy Ghost's overall protection of the papacy that would preclude such destruction.

+LEFEBVRE is ON OUR SIDE HERE !!!

And this is why +Lefebvre shies away from the ultimate SV conclusion ... a lack of certainty regarding the MINOR of the SVs.  After saying that SVism has merit and is far from impossible, he goes back into meandering around the various other explanations out there, drugged pope, double of the pope, etc.  He dismisses them.  But he realizes that it COULD theoretically be SOMEthing like that going on.  He didn't bring up the possibility that Montini might have been blackmailed on account of his sodomy (not something out of the question).  So because there COULD be some other possibility that we don't know to explain this.

BUT AT NO POINT DOES LEFEBVRE DENY (BUT, RATHER, AFFIRMS) THE POINT THAT'S BEING DEBATED HERE, that the protection of the Holy Ghost over the papacy would preclude this degree of destruction.  R&R simply ignore this and keep reasserting their pretension that +Lefebvre backs them up that the Papacy can corrupt the Church.  But the actual truth is that he "agrees with [the sedevacantists]" on this essential point of contention.

I myself have said that I don't care what explanation you come up with.  If you want to claim that Montini was replaced by a big-eared crooked-nosed double while being kept captive in a dungeon, drugged up and in chains (Palmar group believed this and "canonized" Montini as a martyr) as far as I'm concerned, more power to you.  But the key is that you CANNOT deny the indefectibility of the Church and of the papacy, and +Lefebvre agrees with us here, NOT YOU.

Here's the SV argument:

MAJOR:  Holy Ghost's protection over the Papacy precludes his having perpetrated this degree of destruction.
MINOR:  Montini et al. perpetrated this degree of destruction.
CONCLUSION:  Montini was not the pope.

+Lefebvre holds the conclusion to have merit and not be impossible.  But where does he hesitate?  He hesitates because he lacks complete certainty regarding the MINOR of the sedevacantist proposition, but at no point does he deny the MAJOR (which is what's being debated here).  He says, we don't know, there may be some other unknown factor here, and he doesn't 100% rule out the possibility of these other theories, though he thinks they're "off the wall" and doesn't buy them.  And yet he can't rule them out with 100% certainty, and therefore cannot with 100% certainty adhere to the conclusion that Montini was not the pope.

This is actually the correct logical form here ... against dogmatic SVism.  That's because, in logic, the Conclusion can only be as strong as it's weakest premise periorem partem sequitur conclusio.  Consequently, the SV conclusion can only be as certain as the certainty of the MINOR.  It's possible that Montini didn't do it, that it was his entourage, or a double, or that he was being blackmailed (and therefore didn't do it freely), etc.  We cannot know what went on with dogmatic certainty, so we can't embrace the conclusion with dogmatic certainty.  This is why +Vigano rightly characterizes the non-papacy of Bergoglio as "morally certain" (vs. dogmatically or absolutely certain).

BUT with all that said, +Lefebvre agrees with the MAJOR ... which is the point of contention on this thread.

In what way are you in submission to the living magisterium? Do you accept Amoris laetitia? Do you accept Fiducia supplicans? Do accept the Abu Dhabi docuмent that was placed in the Acta?

Stubborn reduces the authority of the Magisterium to a tautology.  If it's Traditional, it has authority and is Magisterium.  If it's not Traditional, then it has no authority and is not Magisterium.  If it's true, it's true but if it's false, it's false.  Tautology.  With this criterion, the Magisterium has no more intrinsic authority than you or I have when posting something on CathInfo, since the same holds of us, that if we say something Traditional, it's Traditional, but if we say something not Traditional, then it's not.

He doesn't realize that this makes himself the ultimate authority or rule regarding what's Traditional and what isn't.  "If I, Stubborn, decide that it's Traditional, then I accept it."  St. Thomas wrote that if someone rejects the authority of the Church, then he's effectively making himself the ultimate authority.

Whining is when a R&R poster continually emotes that the sedevacantists are "taking over the forum!" (and yet remains here) and when you complain that this feeeeels like enemy territory (essentially confirming that ongoing whining). 

You are right. It isn't proper for me to complain, and then keep posting here. You are one of the honest SV's here, 2Vermont. You strive to tell the truth always, which I appreciate, even when I disagree with you. Unfortunately, your fellow SV's don't do the same. 

However, the main reason that I will try to not post here anymore is another reason. I believe that this thread was started in order to bring more traffic to the forum. I think it's a sin against charity to do that - to pit one group against another for monetary gain. Contention is good for business, when it comes to online forums. 

Apparently, you believe that the living magisterium is not to be followed when it declares or rules on something you don't agree with. If I am wrong, then please address the recent Pope Saint canonizations issue and your stance on it since you claim to have already submitted to the "living magisterium." If John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II are not forever saints to be venerated, then that means canonizations are not infallible acts of the Church and every single saint in history is now up for revision. If they are forever saints to be venerated, then you should have no issue with saying "Pope St. Paul VI Pray For Us" 

I posted FROM POPES what the Magisterium is. All you need to do, is believe them.