Not sure I can answer that. In any event, I need you to elaborate.

I saw you quote the St. Pius X Catechism and Trent Catechism so it made me curious what BoD you are defending here... As I've generally seen you quoting the Trent Catechism in BoD debates.

I have zero problems with the position articulated by Archbishop Lefebvre, and much less with that of Father Chazal.  Unfortunately, however, the Archbishop failed to provide the necessary clarity to prevent certain people from morphing his position into what we see articulated by Sean and others.  They [falsely] hide behind Archbishop Lefebvre, and I've noticed that the thing that sets Johnson off the most (what in this thread inspired him to call me a sodomite) ... is when you pull that rug out of under him.

Yes, where +ABL failed, we have your profound insight. From where do you get your insight? Directly from God? Or maybe from an apparition or private revelation?

Fortunately, +ABL did not think himself to know the mind of God, as you apparently do. He said many times that the Crisis is a mystery. And, moreover, he did not continually call other traditional Catholic heretics and schismatics, as you do here. I'll take +ABL any day, thank you.

  Riiiiight. You apologize, my foot. I didn't misinterpret a thing.

This seems to be your go-to meme to insult other forum members [this time gladius]:

https://www.cathinfo.com/members-only/ss-news/msg834610/#msg834610

But you keep wagging your self-righteous finger [oh, and posting Holy Scripture] at others to be good examples!

 You are now on ignore.

Bringing the topic back from a broader debate on BoD.

1) I have never denounced classic BoD (as understood and articulated by Sts. Thomas, Bellarine, Alphonsus) as gravely erroneous or harmful to souls.  I have in fact defended it against those charges.  That quote you brought as evidence was taken out of context, where I'm denouncing the extended Pelagians notion of BoD, a notion which has NEVER been taught by the Magisterium in any way, shape, or form ... not even by these Doctors.

If this is addressed to me, this is totally irrelevant to my argument. You do say BOD is error, yes, and that a person could not be saved by a BOD, right? The argument has nothing to do with whether you think BOD is heresy or harmful or not. It is enough that you believe that the Magisterium has taught error about justification and the grace of God in its universal ordinary Magisterium. The ramifications of that to your "indefectibility" argument and claim that the R & R are heretics because of their ascribing to the Magisterium error that violates a theory of indefectibility that your own beliefs stand on its head - it shows your position up to be inconsistent, self-defeating, and therefore necessarily wrong on at least one of its fronts (your position on indefectibility, or on BOD) . . . this is the argument. 

For a man that draws distinctions, you're utterly incapable of recognizing a distinction in your opponent's argument. Is that willful? A defense mechanism activated by the subconscious to blind you to a distinction you can't handle, so that you see an argument that isn't there, which you can handle, and engage that?

2) I have never held the position that every proposition contained in any text produced by the Magisterium is infallible and guaranteed inerrant.  I have if fact repeatedly disagreed on this point with the dogmatic SVs who exaggerate the scope of infallibility (in their battle with R&R).  They too fail to distinguish between infallibility in the strict sense and the overall substantial inerrancy of the Magisterium.

That you "never held" that position is immaterial to the argument. Again, an utter failure to draw distinctions. Read the above again. And again. And again . . . 

With these two distinctions, which I have explained several times already, and have been very firm about for years, the alleged "contradiction" (what Johnson called "hypocrisy") goes away.  In your assertion of "contradiction" there's an implicit double straw-manning of my views:  1) attributing to me the denunciation of BoD as heretical or gravely erroneous that the Dimond Brothers make (and with which I have always disagreed) and 2) attributing to me the position of some dogmatic SVs that the Magisterium is absolutely inerrant.

As stated, your distinctions are irrelevant, evade the argument, and the contradiction remains. 

What I have called heretical is the attribution of grave error to the Magisterium and also to the Church's Universal Discipline (particularly the Mass), and the litmus test for determining whether you've crossed this line is when you claim that the error is so grave that you can no longer remain in submission to and communion with the hierarchy without endangering your faith.  If you claim that "in order to remain Catholic, I must separate from the hierarchy" ... THAT is what's heretical.

Yes, that is your position. It has no warrant in Church teaching regarding indefectibility, etc. It is a novelty that exposes you to inconsistency (since you claim you maintain the traditional teaching of the Magisterium on indefectibility while rejecting its teaching on BOD - which you should, if consistent, recognize as true and inerrant regarding grace and the justification of sinners by GOD), and gravely damages your credibility severely. 

Had Vatican II and the NOM never happened, no Catholic would feel the need to start their own parallel church to disagree on the subject of BoD . . .

True. A Sede who does not reject the OUM prior to Vatican II could make your argument, and others have, very capably. Had you not gone off on R & R, accusing them of being heretics, etc., with all of your own ridiculous baggage about the Magisterium and BOD, and not been such a hypocritical Pharisee, I'd not have felt the need to confront you, either.

But, alas . . . here we are. 

I saw you quote the St. Pius X Catechism and Trent Catechism so it made me curious what BoD you are defending here... As I've generally seen you quoting the Trent Catechism in BoD debates.

The statement that the Church (not merely the “soul” or the “body” of the Church) is necessary for salvation with the necessity of means in such a way that no man can be saved unless he is within the Church either in re or by either an explicit or an implicit votum must be considered as an accurate statement of the revealed teaching on the Church’s necessity for eternal salvation and as the standard terminology of most modern theologians on this subject.


http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecuмenism/members.htm