You say that the requirements for V1 were met, yet the council obviously preached errors. All this is proof of is that the council was not infallible. The reality is, this is all the proof anyone needs to know that council was not infallible. It is proof positive. I am not making this up because it is an indisputable fact.
Yes, but it was pronounced in solemn magisterial fashion. So either they are real popes who taught heresy, or they are false popes (heretics before supposed election) and it doesn't matter anyway because it's not the Church.
Let's look at your quote from NA:
“Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or cursed by God, as if such views followed from the holy scriptures.”1) This statement is not pronounced in solemn magisterial fashion. If it were an infallible pronouncement, it would need to be worded something along the lines of; "Whoever says that according to the Scriptures, the Jews are cursed by God, let him be anathema." - and this aside from the fact that it really is not even error because......
2) God never did curse the Jews, the Jews did what they could to curse themselves - when they said: "...his blood be upon us and upon our children", so if you want to get technical and dissect the issue, all you can say is that NA, like the whole of V2, is worded in such a fashion or uses a new language so that while what it says may be true, the propensity is for it to be interpreted the wrong way - further proof of non-infallibility. It is worded like this in the effort, as said in the OP, "to make a totally different approach to the non-Catholics, the non-believers."
I could go on, but as your quote from NA demonstrates, it's suffice to say that your quote was not an infallible affirmation of any kind, any more than V2 was meant to be an infallible council.
But, in order for you to keep your sedevacantism whole, you must add theory into the mix. Sedevacantists must theorize that the reason it was not infallible is because the pope is not the pope and the bishops of the council all lost their offices - something impossible to prove even if such a thing were true.
I guess you can never say that someone is outside the church who has been baptized unless a formal declaration has been passed. Like pro-abortion "catholics" or any protestant who has been baptized and openly mocks Catholic teaching for example. Heresy is manifested in multiple ways, and we have to condemn it.
Whether the pope loses his office because of his public heresy, and obviously I agree that there is no doubt that the pope has committed the sin of public heresy, we are not allowed, as the pope’s subjects, to do anything about his status.
We are not his judges. We can judge for our own sake that a heresy has been publicly pronounced, that is not questionable. That’s just a matter of observing what has been said, and we can judge that matter as easily as we can judge the pronouncements of a protestant minister. I mean, if a protestant minster says something that is contrary to the faith, it’s not crime or anything for us to say, “That’s heresy”. It does not matter who says it, if it’s contrary to the faith, its heresy.
And we have to say it in the case of anyone who says it for our own sake, and as a matter of charity for our fellow Catholics we can point it out, and to the extent that those in ecclesiastic office fail, we have to be the more vociferous.
But the sedevacantists go a few steps further. They not only depose the pope in their judgement, they also try to bind us to their judgement. They say that they have declared that the pope has lost his office or never had it, and therefore, we are bound to accept as the only argument and the only valid Catholic position that their position must be ours.
We say that it is not our right as subjects of the pope to pronounce him deposed. Our position is that sedevacantism is intrinsically anarchistic. Anarchism means that you argue yourself into a mentality of total lawlessness.
Sedevacantism, in deposing the pope, says that the Church has no head and we have a right to say that the Church has no head and therefore the Church has no one to preside over it, the people have no one to look toward in any respect.
The only consequence is that the total legal structure of the Church is either threatened, or it is violated or destroyed, that is the result of anarchism. We have to be convinced that when establishing the Church and in giving it the attribute of indefectibility, we have to be certain that not even the pope himself can destroy the Church by either his sins or his heresies, his scandals, or his deficiencies, or his defects. Not even the pope hell bent on destroying the Church can render the Church altogether impotent.
However, you believe that such a thing is an impossibility because that's what you were taught. The truth of the matter is that you learned so much wrong and you believe those lies so strongly, that you not only do not believe your own eyes, you are fighting even common sense in the matter.
So common sense says you should stay in communion with a pope (whom you admit teaches error) and then refuse obedience to him in almost everything?
The dogma states it is altogether necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. Please cease from accusing the dogma of meaning we are bound to be in communion with him when he wants us to do something sinful. It quite specifically says "subject" for a reason. See my earlier reply to Disputaciones about this.
It also doesn't say that anyone can still get to heaven if they mistakenly believe the Chair is empty.
But it says you can still get to heaven following a man, claiming to occupy that chair, who denies the papacy?
See my reply immediately above. It says it is altogether necessary to be *subject* to the Roman Pontiff. If you need further clarification on what it means for one to be subject to their superior, I will attempt to explain it, but one thing it does not mean is blindly following anyone, not even the pope.
Topic: The Second Vatican Council (Read 29394 times)