"Magisterium" that contradicts the universal (all places, all times) magisterium is not magisterium at all.  Even if His Holiness tries to call it such.

Actually, if the bishops convene in union with the pope and teach universally, that is Magisterium precisely - in a nutshell.  To quote the Hokey Pokey song, 'that's what it's all about'.

"Universally."  Our minds immediately think 'all over the world', but the term also means 'all through history'.  Even if the bishops today teach heresy in all places, they have not in all times.

Quote from: NIFH 07/05/2023, 04:38:16
John XXIII, Paul VI and the council itself unequivocally denied the infallibility of Vatican II.

Many other statements from Antipopes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI prove that they consider Vatican II to be binding and magisterial.

Those who ignore or deny the force of these facts – and instead convince themselves that the Vatican II “popes” did not attempt to use the authority of the Catholic Magisterium to promulgate the teachings of Vatican II – are simply living in a fantasy world.

There’s no way around it: the Vatican II antipopes attempted to use the authority of the Catholic Church and the papal magisterium (which is infallible) to promulgate the false teachings of Vatican II.  That proves without any doubt that they did not possess the authority of the Catholic Church and the papal magisterium because they were antipopes.

We are thus entirely justified in our conclusion that the teachings of Vatican II on matters of faith and morals fulfil all the conditions necessary for the infallible exercise of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium if the promulgating authority was truly pope. And far from being contradicted by any text of Paul VI or Vatican II itself, this fact is unmistakably affirmed by both.

In fact this is so evident, and yet so patently unacceptable to many traditionalists, that frequent attempts have been made to escape from it. These attempts have been so numerous as to remind one of the sailor’s maxim: “If you can’t make good knots, make plenty of ’em.” But poor arguments remain unconvincing for serious minds however many of them there are

The facts show that the conditions for infallibility were apparently fulfilled, for the bishops of 7th December 1965 under Paul VI were morally unanimous in presenting their teaching on faith and morals to the Church as definitive and to be believed as a consequence of divine revelation itself. If they were not in fact infallible, this can only be because the lynchpin of their consensus, the authority of a true bishop of Rome, was lacking.

THIS ^^^

Arguing about the personal status of the V2 papal claimants is a distraction.  This is the primary issue.

Despite R&R hiding behind Archbishop Lefebvre, the Archbishop never denied the fact that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and that this degree of destruction is not possible on that basis.  Having agreed with that, the Archbishop then speculated about how this could have happened.  Could Montini have been blackmailed? drugged? replaced by an imposter?  He didn't think those theories were likely and concluded that SVism is possible.  Archbishop Lefebvre only prescinded from the SV conclusion because he felt that he lacked the requisite certainty regarding the "minor" of the SV conclusion.

Here's SVism as a syllogism:

MAJOR:  Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and could not destroy the faith and the Mass.
MINOR:  V2 Popes have destroyed the faith and the Mass.
CONCLUSION:  V2 Popes cannot be legitimate Catholic Popes.

Archbishop Lefebvre agreed with the MAJOR of the SV position, but he expressed doubt about what the situation was with regard to the MINOR.  Maybe they were legitimate popes but were being blackmailed?  Who knows?  So because he lacked certainty of faith about the MINOR (which one really can't have until the Church declares it authoritatively), he refrained from making the SV conclusion.  He was not incorrect from a logical standpoint, and this is actually where dogmatic SVism fails, because the strength of the conclusion can be only as strong as the weakest premise, meaning that since we don't have dogmatic certainty regarding what happened with the V2 "popes", we can't have dogmatic certainty about SVism.

In any case, Archbishop Lefebvre upheld the MAJOR.  Unfortunately, subsequent generations of R&R uphold the MINOR as if it were dogmatically certain, but then reject the MAJOR.  Rejecting the MAJOR here is effectively to undermine the Church and veer away from the Catholic faith.

I find Archbishop Lefebvre's articulation of "R&R" perfectly acceptable, and there's a lot to be said for it, prescinding in humility from turning the MINOR into a dogmatic certainty.  But, unfortunately, some modern R&R have inverted this, upholding the MINOR as dogmatically certain while rejecting the MAJOR.  That I simply will not accept.  It's precisely what the Eastern Orthodox, the Old Catholics, and the Protestants have said, that the Catholic Church had become corrupt.

Both the dimonds and novus ordo watch disagree with you. From their conclusions;

https://schismatic-home-aloner.com/vatican-ii-infallible/
https://novusordowatch.org/vatican-ii-infallible-john-daly/

THIS ^^^

Arguing about the personal status of the V2 papal claimants is a distraction.  This is the primary issue.

Despite R&R hiding behind Archbishop Lefebvre, the Archbishop never denied the fact that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and that this degree of destruction is not possible on that basis.  Having agreed with that, the Archbishop then speculated about how this could have happened.  Could Montini have been blackmailed? drugged? replaced by an imposter?  He didn't think those theories were likely and concluded that SVism is possible.  Archbishop Lefebvre only prescinded from the SV conclusion because he felt that he lacked the requisite certainty regarding the "minor" of the SV conclusion.

Here's SVism as a syllogism:

MAJOR:  Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and could not destroy the faith and the Mass.
MINOR:  V2 Popes have destroyed the faith and the Mass.
CONCLUSION:  V2 Popes cannot be legitimate Catholic Popes.

Archbishop Lefebvre agreed with the MAJOR of the SV position, but he expressed doubt about what the situation was with regard to the MINOR.  Maybe they were legitimate popes but were being blackmailed?  Who knows?  So because he lacked certainty of faith about the MINOR (which one really can't have until the Church declares it authoritatively), he refrained from making the SV conclusion.  He was not incorrect from a logical standpoint, and this is actually where dogmatic SVism fails, because the strength of the conclusion can be only as strong as the weakest premise, meaning that since we don't have dogmatic certainty regarding what happened with the V2 "popes", we can't have dogmatic certainty about SVism.

In any case, Archbishop Lefebvre upheld the MAJOR.  Unfortunately, subsequent generations of R&R uphold the MINOR as if it were dogmatically certain, but then reject the MAJOR.  Rejecting the MAJOR here is effectively to undermine the Church and veer away from the Catholic faith.

I find Archbishop Lefebvre's articulation of "R&R" perfectly acceptable, and there's a lot to be said for it, prescinding in humility from turning the MINOR into a dogmatic certainty.  But, unfortunately, some modern R&R have inverted this, upholding the MINOR as dogmatically certain while rejecting the MAJOR.  That I simply will not accept.  It's precisely what the Eastern Orthodox, the Old Catholics, and the Protestants have said, that the Catholic Church had become corrupt.