Yes, you keep quoting that part, but you'd do better to concentrate on the the sentence that follows, which you conveniently keep neglecting: ....and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."
You are not a legitimate authority - just fyi.
Really? You bolded the wrong portion. Right before it proves that Catholics can separate themselves from the Body. You are a deceiver.
You deceive yourself because you let your agenda blind you to what that means. Again, read what it says as it is written or you will never understand what he is saying.
I have Church teaching on my side, but you reject the teaching because you have to - in order to maintain your sedevacantism.
PLEASE, please, please, cite your Church teaching then that claims that the Magisterium can err and Once a Catholic always a Catholic. I keep asking for the quotes and you keep avoiding it.
I think it's best if you read the OP as the OP explains it beautifully.
The pope is not "The Church". You still cannot admit that you do not know the difference so you replace "the pope" with "the Church".
As Drew already correctly stated, this is what happens when you make the pope the rule of faith.
What does this mean. I want you to explain it to me. The rule of Faith is Dogma. The Papacy is the symbol of unity and unity doesn't cease to exist when there is not a Pope in office.
The dogma decrees that we must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, not to the papacy. There is a pope in office, he is a terrible, heretical pope like all the conciliar popes have been, so if you take the blinders off, you will see there actually is a pope in office, which you must be subject to or you will never make it to heaven - THAT is the dogma.
Perhaps if you or I made the dogma, we would have left in the proviso that we must be subject to him unless we don't believe he is pope, but we don't make the Divine Laws, we're the peons who are bound to follow them.
So the best way to discern the difference between "being subject to" and "must submit to", is to use the dogma itself, which itself alone, is infallible.
We must, are bound to, have got to and absolutely have no choice in the matter if we want to get to heaven - we must wholly and meticulously submit to what the infallible dogma says, because if we don't, we lose all hope for our own salvation. This means that whoever does not submit to the dogma, they will end up spending their eternity suffering in hell.
The dogma says we must be subject to the pope. We must submit ourselves unconditionally to this dogma, this Revealed Truth for our hope of salvation is what we must submit to unconditionally, not the pope.
....We wish that these Our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by Our predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation.
It was the people's responsibility to deny the wishes of pope Paul VI, not submit to his wish as they did - but they wrongly thought as you think, that they were bound to submit to the pope, regardless of what he wants. We must and can deny his wishes when he wants us to do anything that displeases God as the new "mass" certainly does. Our denying his wishes in no way affects his status as pope.
Unlike Quo Primum, there were no censures or penalties attached to his wish - what were people thinking? Why did they submit? Yes the pope erred in this wish, and he has been judged for the scandal - woe to him, but had the people denied his scandalous wish as is expected of good subjects, the devil would have had to come up with another plan. But because they all thought as you think, that his authority equals blind submission to him as if he is Christ or the Church himself, they were fooled into taking the wide road they were offered and like him, will be judged for it.
The Church's present magisterium is full of error thanks mainly (but not entirely) to "the fifth column" as Fr. Wathen calls it. There is nothing complicated about this at all.
This is straight up heresy. The Magisterium cannot err. Again, cite a Church teaching that says it can. And while you are looking and coming up empty handed, start to really look at the issue and be honest.
See the OP, it explains it way better than I can.
The hierarchy is erring all over the place for the last 50 years at least, the teachings of conciliarists are either tainted with or are fully modernist. Either way, because of the errors and outright heresies taught, there is no denying the hierarchy is preaching error because the things taught contradict the OUM.
Ok, so you are apparently making me guess again at the reason for posting this so I'll take a stab at it.
I'm not the one *not* enduring sound doctrine, nor has the judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See object been for the general good of the Church, rather they have been for Her destruction. Even you don't deny this.
The Church cannot attempt to destroy Herself. I believe that the VII sect definitely promulgates things that are destructive for souls. This is why it cannot be the Catholic Church.
The conciliar church is not the Catholic Church, I know you do not agree with the fifth column described by Fr. Wathen, which agrees with Pope Pius X's Pascendi, but it's right there, big as day.
And yes, it goes against the error of withholding obedience against the Church's legitimate rulers, but does so because our obedience to God always comes first. Two wrongs do not make a right. We cannot obey the legitimate rulers as long as they want us to displease God, which is to say as long as they want us to sin - because our obedience to God always comes first. There is nothing complicated about this.
If they are the Church's legitimate rulers, one cannot withhold obedience to them in matters pertaining to the faith. I have listed the Church's teaching about this on this thread.
We owe no obedience to even saintly rulers if they want us to do something that displeases God. It is because they have been promoting the heretical new faith that we avoid them and their teachings entirely. Even a saintly hierarchy cannot bind us to heresy - and they have not tried to bind us to anything Catholic anyway - that's just not what they, as conciliarists, do.
Sedevacantists get stuck here. They apparently believe that saintly rulers are in some way prevented and protected from spreading error, as if the ones in positions of authority are granted personal infallibility by virtue of their office. But if that were true, then they are either hypocrites for claiming the loss of office due to heresy, or they have no faith whatsoever in their own idea of infallibility.
No, good priests, bishops etc. can become heretical priests, bishops etc. while in and retaining their office. The people are expected to remain faithful to God, not submit to the heretical wishes of their superiors - even if "we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel....."