Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#18), Dec. 31, 1929: “… God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.”

LATIN: “… divini magisterii Ecclesiam fecit Deus ipse participem eamdemque divino eius beneficio falli nesciam.”

Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#16), Dec. 31, 1929: “To this magisterium Christ the Lord imparted immunity from error...”

LATIN: “Huic magisterio Christus Dominus erroris immunitatem impertivit...”

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus (# 4), May 17, 1835: “... the Church has, by its divine institution, the power of the magisterium to teach and define matters of faith and morals and to interpret the Holy Scriptures without danger of error.”

Pope Leo XIII, Caritatis Studium (#6) July 25, 1898: The Magisterium “could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.”

Pope Pius X, Editae Saepe (#8), May 26, 1910: “... only a miracle of that divine power could preserve the Church... from blemish in the holiness of Her doctrine...”

Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas (#22), Dec. 11, 1925: “... the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment [i.e. consensus] of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic magisterium.”

LATIN: "Idem semper Ecclesiae mos, idque sanctorum patrum consentiente iudicio: qui scilicet communionis catholicae expertem et ab Ecclesia extorrem habere consueverunt, quicuмque a doctrina authentico magisterio proposita vel minimum discessisset.”

Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (# 10), Aug. 15, 1832: “Therefore, it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain ‘restoration and regeneration’ for her (the Church) as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to any failing health or dimming of mind or other misfortune.”

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (# 10), Jan. 6, 1928: “During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: ‘The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”

Pope Hadrian I, Second Council of Nicaea, 787: “… Christ our God, when He took for His Bride His Holy Catholic Church, having no blemish or wrinkle, promised he would guard her and assured his holy disciples saying, I am with you every day until the consummation of the world.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 9, March 23, 1440: “…the Spouse of Christ is uncontaminated and modest, knowing only one home, and she guards the sanctity of their marriage bed with chaste modesty.”

Pope St. Siricius, epistle (1) Directa ad decessorem, Feb. 10, 385: “And so He has wished the beauty of the Church, whose spouse He is, to radiate with the splendor of chastity, so that on the day of judgment, when He will have come again, He may be able to find her without spot or wrinkle [Eph. 5:27] as He instituted her through His apostle.”

I think I'll do as every other RR poster of any talent or merit has done here, and just say goodbye.

You are one of the last remaining supporters of the Resistance here. I hope you don't leave, but I understand if you do. We (who support the Resistance) are pariahs here - not worth a plug nickel. It would be nice if someone started up another forum where Resistance views would be tolerated. 

Doesn't Matthew still support +Williamson, et al?  Or do you refer to the "other resistance" at the KY compound?

I support the +Williamson et al resistance.

I wasn't aware that you support the Resistance. You're a sedevacanist, right?

I wasn't referring to the KY compound. I meant Bishop Williamson and the SAJM. 

So when you refer to other traditional Catholics here as heretics and schismatics, it's just your opinion?

Yes and no.  Last time I checked, I had no authority in the Church.  I cannot bind consciences with my opinion.  Yet this is not merely my opinion.  It's a restatement of the perennial teaching of the Church.

I like the way that you simply assume that "traditional Catholics" as a group are somehow protected by an inerrancy which R&R don't grant even to the Magisterium of an Ecuмenical Council.

Unfortunately, due to the Crisis in the Church, some have basically adopted the principles of Old Catholicism and have rejected Catholic teaching regarding the authority of the Magisterium and the indefectibility of the Church.

In point of fact, the conservative Novus Ordites who uphold these truths about the Catholic Church and the Magisterium are far more orthodox than these so-called "traditional Catholics" who do not.  They err (IMO) in interpreting V2 and the NOM to be compatible with Catholicism, but error is far less grave, since the matter has never been defined by the Church.

This is 5 year old tier reverse psychology and Matthew is not retarded

It's also a blatant lie that Resistance views are "not tolerated".  Matthew is Resistance and states that CI supports the Resistance.

Yes and no.  Last time I checked, I had no authority in the Church.  I cannot bind consciences with my opinion.  Yet this is not merely my opinion.  It's a restatement of the perennial teaching of the Church.

I like the way that you simply assume that "traditional Catholics" as a group are somehow protected by an inerrancy which R&R don't grant even to the Magisterium of an Ecuмenical Council.

Unfortunately, due to the Crisis in the Church, some have basically adopted the principles of Old Catholicism and have rejected Catholic teaching regarding the authority of the Magisterium and the indefectibility of the Church.

In point of fact, the conservative Novus Ordites who uphold these truths about the Catholic Church and the Magisterium are far more orthodox than these so-called "traditional Catholics" who do not.  They err (IMO) in interpreting V2 and the NOM to be compatible with Catholicism, but error is far less grave, since the matter has never been defined by the Church.

You continually refer to other traditional Catholics (mostly non-sedes) as being heretics and schismatics. You obviously mean why you say. 

Why are you so special? It's an honest question. Surely you must have some idea of why you get preferential treatment here. Do you donate a lot? That would be a fair reason. But I think we ought to know. 

It's also a blatant lie that Resistance views are "not tolerated".  Matthew is Resistance and states that CI supports the Resistance.

It's compoundingly stupid because almost all sedes here agree with +Williamson on multiple dimensions of The Crisis. The ones who don't, like Jupiter or "The Mask", are banned pretty fast.

This is not to say Matthew always bans dogmatic sedes but he generally does because they step over the line by calling +Williamson "Mr." or some garbage.