There's an additional component, Nishant, which adds a little more weight to V2 than a Papal Encyclical.  It's that V2 was taught by all the bishops of the world in union with the pope, therefore making it part of the OUM.

While you claim that the Church could not defect by having all the bishops of the world recognize as legitimate an illegitimate pope, what's the difference between that and if all the bishops of the world accept and teach DOCTRINAL ERRORS?  Both these are based on the SAME principle, but in one case you accept it while in the other you do not ... selectively, based on your R&R brainwashing.

Let me reiterate, Nishant.  If I were to come around to your position on universal acceptance, I would cease to be a Traditional Catholic, abjure my schism, and submit to the teaching of Vatican II with religious submission, trying with my last dying breath to apply the hermeneutic of continuity to its teaching.

Do you admit it to be a teaching of the Church that you are bound to believe the teachings of her theologians?

Quote from: Gregory I

Quote from: Ladislaus

Let me reiterate, Nishant.  If I were to come around to your position on universal acceptance, I would cease to be a Traditional Catholic, abjure my schism, and submit to the teaching of Vatican II with religious submission, trying with my last dying breath to apply the hermeneutic of continuity to its teaching.

Do you admit it to be a teaching of the Church that you are bound to believe the teachings of her theologians?

No.  Theologians do not exercise any kind of Magisterium.  Father Cekada made that one up.  Typically theologians can be seen as passively reflecting the faith of the Church but not as an active part of the Magisterium.

You may disagree with him, but he certainly didn'take it up. It is in Dezinger 1683 and 1684:

"1683 While, in truth, We laud these men with due praise because they professed the truth which necessarily arises from their obligation to the Catholic faith, We wish to persuade Ourselves that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are set forth by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all [see n. 1722]. And We persuade Ourselves, also, that they did not wish to declare that that perfect adhesion to revealed truths, which they recognized as absolutely necessary to attain true progress in the sciences and to refute errors, could be obtained if faith and obedience were given only to the dogmas expressly defined by the Church. For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act o f divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.

1684 But, since it is a matter of that subjection by which in conscience all those Catholics are bound who work in the speculative sciences, in order that they may bring new advantages to the Church by their writings, on that account, then, the men of that same convention should recognize that it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure."

Quote from: Gregory I

What does this mean and why is it in Denzigers sources of Dogma then:

"For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act o f divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith."

The act of subjecting the will to a doctrine is not limited to ONLY those things defined by the Popes and councils, but also to the ordinary magisterium, and consequently the theologians whose common consensus teaches what BELONGS to the Ordinary magisterium. And these are to be believed with Divine Faith, which things it is a mortal sin to deny.

Probably best to start a new thread on the Magisterium...

Do you accept the above as authentic Catholic teaching?

Yes and we owe an act of divine faith to what theologians teach is the ordinary magisterium.

Yes and we owe an act of divine faith to what theologians teach is the ordinary magisterium.

Well, I guess, then, that you owe an act of divine faith to the doctrine of Religious Liberty.

We have already explained that it is impossible to claim that V2 includes heresies properly speaking, since the bishops of the whole world, when gathered (even without the Pope), cannot teach any heresy with moral unanimity. There are errors in V2, but not heresies.

There is ample evidence (cf. The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, etc) that not only was there no moral unanimity but there was even underhanded tactics on the part of modernists to manipulate the results of the Council.  ++Lefebvre himself testified that he only signed the docuмents because he felt morally compelled to be united with the Pope and the other bishops.  But it was my impression that he regretted it and he even claimed to have not signed some of the docuмents, although that was later proved to be incorrect.  For someone who knows the history of the Council well to say that there was moral unanimity on the Council is dishonest.  There have been false councils in the past.  So claiming that V2 is a false council is not a novel approach.  But to say that all the bishops of the world along with the Pope could exercise the extraordinary magisterium in a way that produced errors is certainly a novel idea.  That has never happened.  Ever.

I always tell them that they must make a distinction between the legal form of the act and its content: the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium are infallible, but not in their whole content. For instance, the arguments of the Pope when he defined the Immaculate Conception are not considered to be infallible: only his conclusion is. In V2, there was no definition properly speaking: Paul VI did not define any doctrine definitely and irrevocably, as would be the case if the teachings were infallible. Pope Paul VI has declared himself that it was the "authentic magisterium", and theologians use this phrase to refer to the non-infaillible teachings (non-infallible content) of the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium. If the Pope himself has declared that Vatican II was not infallible, it is not infallible. Period!

Do you accept novelties then?  Can you give another historic example (not V2) where the extraordinary magisterium either declined to teach infallibly or taught infallibly but also included errors which lead the faithful into sin and destruction?

Quote from: Nishant

I know some sedevacantists won't agree, but Vatican II isn't infallible, otherwise it would require the irrevocable assent of divine and Catholic Faith, but Pope Paul VI clearly said it required only the same religious obedience normally given to a Papal Encyclical, ...

And yet you continue to ignore what Msgr. Fenton has to say about the authority of Papal Encyclicals.

Quote from: Msgr. Fenton

It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.

That's the typical R&R sleight of hand.  You argue that nothing in V2 has the notes of infallibility strictly speaking.

Yet you posit a complete defection of the Magisterium, where the Magsiterium has gone SO BADLY OFF THE RAILS that it REQUIRES of Catholics the REFUSAL of submission to the Magisterium.  That would entail the defection of the Magisterium and therefore of the Church herself.

You keep talking about how the Church would defect in the case of an extended sedevacante, but that's not necessarily the case (cf. the material-formal sedeprivationist thesis).  What's the point of the material continuity, Nishant, if the Magisterium itself can defect?  Well, for that matter, hierarchy would be BETTER OFF DEFECTING entirely if in fact their Magisterium does nothing more than lead people away from the faith.

Yes, and in fact literally every single time he's confronted with the fact that by his own (as well as Msgr. Fenton's) criteria that the docuмents of Vatican II MUST be at least infallibly safe if Paul VI was the Vicar of Christ, it's always crickets.