You keep claiming that it is the infallible judgement of the Church that all General Councils are infallible. This leaves us all only two options Cantarella:

1) V2 is infallible
2) The Church does not teach that all General Councils are infallible.

There is no third option.

This stupidity is utterly mind-boggling.  No, the very point of sedevacantism/sedeprivationism is that Vatican II was NOT a legitimate Ecuмenical Council, since it lacked papal approbation, since Paul VI was not a legitimate pope.

You assume that the V2 Popes are legitimate in order to prove that the V2 Popes are legitimate.

Cantarella, your contradictions are getting worse.  You are not following the facts towards the truth, but are twisting the facts to support your agenda.

(1) First, you said that all ecuмenical councils are infallible.  (You repeated this 20x on another thread)

(2) Then you changed and said that councils are not all infallible, but they require "absolute obedience".  So a non-infallible teaching (i.e. a fallible teaching) can require absolute obedience?  PROVE IT!
The Traditional teaching of the Church is that Ecunemical Councils require absolute obedience.

(3) Now, you say that even though they require ABSOLUTE OBEDIENCE, parts of councils can be reversible.  What?!
Not every single word emanating from a Council is "infallible" simply because there are some teachings that are disciplinary and temporary in nature, and therefore, reversible.

(4) Now, you also repeat the illogical fallacy that the word "fallible" does not mean "capable of error".  You are supporting the non-infallible infallibility error.  You grant to the pope the power of infallibility even when he does not use this power as outlined in Vatican 1 (and he admits he didn't use it!)
Non infallible does not mean erroneous.

(5) You also postulate that V2 should be treated like every other ecuмenical council in history, even though its authors, its intention and its docuмents say otherwise.  You simplisticlly and illogically grant to V2 the same teaching weight as previous ecuмenical councils for the simple reason that it was called 'ecuмenical' and you ignore what the docuмents actually say, you ignore their contradictions and you ignore its lack of authority and requirements.
General Councils approved by a Pope cannot teach heretical ERROR even if they do not promulgate new dogmatic definitions.


Anyone who is open to the truth and who is logical can see your contradictions and your agenda.  

Cantarella, your contradictions are getting worse.  You are not following the facts towards the truth, but are twisting the facts to support your agenda.


Anyone who is open to the truth and who is logical can see your contradictions and your agenda.  

There are no contradictions except for those with no understanding whatsoever about the differences between dogma, doctrine, and discipline and how these have either perpetual or temporary nature.

If you see contradictions is because your default position is that non-infallible teachings means error and right to disobedience. By the way, your quote by "Sylvester Berry" has no mention of the required assent for those teachings postulated in the setting of an Ecunemical Council. What was asked was a source referring to this point, the Catholic obedience to General Councils, as opposed to clarifications on the cases where teachings are infallible.

For those of us who have rejected this mindset, the Denzinger teaching is very clear: Concilia oecuмenica simui cuм Papa ea confirmante quae Universam Ecclesiam repraesentant, docentur Spiritu Sancto... Therefore, teachings from Councils are free from heretical error, regardless if they are dealing with dogmatic issues or disciplinary issues. They cannot teach against the Faith.

For those of us who have rejected this mindset, the Denzinger teaching is very clear: Concilia oecuмenica simui cuм Papa ea confirmante quae Universam Ecclesiam repraesentant, docentur Spiritu Sancto... Therefore, teachings from Councils are free from heretical error, regardless if they are dealing with dogmatic issues or disciplinary issues. They cannot teach against the Faith.

Well, then, it sounds like blasphemy against the Holy Spirit to say that an Ecuмenical Council can teach heresy to the Church.  Objectively it is for sure.

MAJOR:   The UNIVERSAL/CONSTANT Magisterium and Universal Discipline cannot become corrupted.

Ah, yes, but 99.5% of the Magisterium can be thoroughly corrupted and polluted with error and heresy ... and can lead souls to hell.

Check.

MINOR:   V2 Popes' Magisterium is ordinary/fallible and contrary to the Universal Discipline (i.e. Quo Primum) and both are corrupt.

This is nonsense just from a purely grammatical standpoint.  Please stop playing with syllogism lest you hurt yourself.

This stupidity is utterly mind-boggling.  No, the very point of sedevacantism/sedeprivationism is that Vatican II was NOT a legitimate Ecuмenical Council, since it lacked papal approbation, since Paul VI was not a legitimate pope.

You assume that the V2 Popes are legitimate in order to prove that the V2 Popes are legitimate.

This is not about stupidity. These folks fully understand the point.    

Your view is heresy, and it's blasphemy.  It's not remotely Catholic.

I would like to point out that Ladislaus has fully entered the ranks of a "dogmatic" sede, wherein he clasifies all "R&R" people (i.e. anyone who isn't a sede) as a heretic.

He has no room for discussion; it's his view or the highway.  He is essentially calling Matthew and this forum heretical.  Just want to point out his dogmatism and lack of reasonableness.