CathInfo.com

Here's what the sedes need to refute: http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm

The article discusses alleged errors which allegedly lead to either sedevacantism or servile obedience.

No need for any sedevacantist to refute it, since it doesn't even try to refute sedevacantist positions.

The (or at least a) sedevacantist position is that manifest heretics (whether material or formal) are not members of the Church and hold no office in the Church. To refute sedevacantism you need to either show that the Robber Council and the Church of that new Pentecost did not propose heresies, or that the Church of God may include heretical members (holding offices).

Ok. So, as I understand it, you're an "opinionist" sedevacantist. A sede-doubtist in other words, who believes neither position is dogmatically certain with the certainty of faith; as you explained, you believe defection is impossible and take the position that R&R contradicts Church indefectibility. You say Pope Paul VI could have been blackmailed, in theory, and this would save indefectibility. You mentioned that distinction between NO Catholics and Indult traditionalists etc that I discussed above. Did I leave anything out?

You and I agree to an extent, I think, on the non-infallible Magisterium. I'm surprised you would then in such a case disagree with Bp. Vigano and even Bp. Schneider. Bp. Schneider arguably is now saying what the Remnant, CFN, One Peter Five, Life Site News etc have argued for some time. I believe we agree Vatican II is non-infallible and defined no new dogma. But perhaps, as you quoted, we may disagree on how radically things have gone "off the rails" as you put it. I believe you once said that if it was only a question of Vatican II you would raise questions through the normal channels and go on with Catholic life as normally as possible. Well, I believe in something close to that. Regarding the Mass, I explained my thoughts earlier; not just a subjective preference but an objective superiority of the TLM. Your thoughts on that?

Yes, I don't believe that anything in Vatican II strictly had the notes of infallibility.  Nevertheless, I do agree with +Vigano against +Schneider that it's not just a question of one or two expressions in Vatican II that needs to be amended or corrected.  I believe, as +Vigano has articulated, that the entire thing is permeated with false principles that renders the thing defective at a whole.  And it set the entire Church on an orientation to depart from Tradition.  But unlike +Vigano, I do not believe that the Holy Spirit would ever allow something this radically defective.

So I agree with +Vigano that Vatican II is not salvageable with a handful of corrections.

Then I agree with Sandro Magister's recent critique of +Vigano that it is not acceptable to simply jettison an entire Ecuмenical Council.
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/archbishop-vigano-to-sandro-magister-'we-should-forget-vatican-ii'

So I combine my agreement with these two points ... to lead me to my sede-doubtist position.

So, Xavier, do you agree with +Schneider that we're simply talking about a few points that need to be amended, or with +Vigano that it's radically defective as a whole and not salvageable?

Fr. Le Floch, superior of the French Seminary in Rome, announced in 1926:

Quote

Don't you know that if the R&R downplays infallibility, then they will then perceive the truth to be an exaggeration of infallibility?

Yeah, sure, that "heresy" is the root of all the Church's problems.  Spoken like a true Old Catholic (or Gallican).  This French Gallicanism is in fact behind R&R theory.