I'm fairly certain that you would not pay any attention to anything that I would say; except to refute it outright. Sedes haven't the ability to see beyond sedeism. Sedeism gets ahold of a person and imbeds itself so that no other view can even be remotely considered. Sedeism is insidious. No use trying to reason with a sede.

Intelligent input, as always. Thanks Meg!

It would have been less pernicious if Vatican II had simply said, "yes, we're teaching this new thing" ... instead of claiming that the novelties and Modernist interpretations in there were just the same old stuff properly explained.

This attack undermines all of Catholic faith.  Hmm, I used to believe this with the certainty of faith, but now I guess I had it all wrong and misunderstood it, so evidently my certainty of faith was misplaced.  This leads directly to doubts about the faith and the Church's teaching authority, from which the formal motive of supernatural faith derives.  So it isn't an attack on one dogma only, but on the very foundation of all dogma.  It's, as St. Pius X taught, the synthesis of all heresy because it attacks the very foundation of all faith.

Well aware. My point was that R&R types accusing sedevacantists of muddling infallibility with indefectibility is NOT a valid counter-argument for R&R's problem with indefectibility.

I think you have your “muddling” wrong:

R&R doesn’t accuse sedes of muddling indefectibility with infallibility, but of muddling papal infallibility with papal authority (and of making the distinction between the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium pointless, since they say everything is irrelevant infallible).

Sedes also muddle the ordinary and authentic magisterium, by assigning acts of the latter to the former, in order to declare the particular teaching impossible by a true pope, and vacate the Holy See).

That’s a lot of muddling!

R&R doesn’t accuse sedes of muddling indefectibility with infallibility, but of muddling papal infallibility with papal authority (and of making the distinction between the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium pointless, ...

Take a step back and have a look at what you're saying.  Based on your emphasis on strict infallibility, it's theoretically possible for 99% of the Magisterium (the fallible part) to be a total cesspool of error and harmful and leading souls to hell.

If you think that's compatible with Our Lord's promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church, then I'm not sure what religion you actually belong to, but it's not the Catholic one.

If 99% of the Magisterium can't be complete nonsense, then how much if it can be:  50%, 10%?

YOU render the NON-INFALLIBLE Magisterium absolutely pointless.  It's nothing more than the private opining of the man who happens to have the Papacy as his day job.  Pope by day, private doctor by night.  In fact, private theologian for 99.9999999% of his papacy and teacher of the Church for the rest of the time, when he happens (if he happens) to make a solemn definition.

I think you have your “muddling” wrong:

R&R doesn’t accuse sedes of muddling indefectibility with infallibility, but of muddling papal infallibility with papal authority (and of making the distinction between the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium pointless, since they say everything is irrelevant infallible).

Sedes also muddle the ordinary and authentic magisterium, by assigning acts of the latter to the former, in order to declare the particular teaching impossible by a true pope, and vacate the Holy See).

That’s a lot of muddling!

You don't just owe submission to dogma, believe it or not. You still owe lesser degrees of religious submission to the fallible teachings of the Church, and you owe submission to the laws and disciplines of the Church. We've been through this before. SeanJohnson can't just veto a change to fasting law and declare that anyone who follows the new law is a sinner.

Take a step back and have a look at what you're saying.  Based on your emphasis on strict infallibility, it's theoretically possible for 99% of the Magisterium (the fallible part) to be a total cesspool of error and harmful and leading souls to hell.

If you think that's compatible with Our Lord's promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church, then I'm not sure what religion you actually belong to, but it's not the Catholic one.

If 99% of the Magisterium can't be complete nonsense, then how much if it can be:  50%, 10%?

YOU render the NON-INFALLIBLE Magisterium absolutely pointless.  It's nothing more than the private opining of the man who happens to have the Papacy as his day job.  Pope by day, private doctor by night.  In fact, private theologian for 99.9999999% of his papacy and teacher of the Church for the rest of the time, when he happens (if he happens) to make a solemn definition.

In other words, according to this logic, in the days of the Arian crisis, you would have become Arian (ie., since it is allegedly it incompatible with indefectibility for 99% of the hierarchy to defect).

In other words, according to this logic, in the days of the Arian crisis, you would have become Arian (ie., since it is allegedly it incompatible with indefectibility for 99% of the hierarchy to defect).

Huh?  When exactly has Arianism been taught by the Magisterium, merely authentic or otherwise?