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.

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.

I respect all traditional catholics who are trying to do the will of God in these really strange times.

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.”

Your "no extensive corruption" theory is an utter novelty. It is not the pre-Vatican II teaching of the popes and theologians, like you try to posture yourself as adopting and applying to the R & R. According to that teaching, the Church is free from error, indefectible in her OUM when teaching about the faith and the Gospel, such as in its teaching on BOD. It has the voice of Christ there: could Christ teach erroneously about justification, the sacraments, grace?

Your distinction between I guess what you would call one wheel off the rails and totally off the rails is not very convincing, since, again, the teaching on indefectibilty is no error in official Magisterial teaching, not no "harmful" error in official Magisterial teaching, on matters of theology, and this one, again (BOD), involves the "telos" of the Church. The predominant teaching, the overwhelming view on indefectibility which you cite and espouse, says no error in the teaching of the Gospel of Christ, not "can teach theological error regarding the Gospel, but it won't hurt you in the long run."


Nice try, though.

Utter nonsense and novelty.

So sad, my Lad. You had them in a corner, but they have the Feeneyism trump card. Can't you see this damned heresy is incompatible with the Church's indefectibility? Why was BoD and BoB never explicitly condemned by the Church and all of the other errors ever were?

Surely one can't be expected to have to arrive at true doctrine by his own interpretation. That is why the Lord gives us such clear guidance as you provide above, so we don't have to reason what is the Church's doctrine, just accept it.

What is so sad, is that if the quotes are true, and they are, then either 1) Lad's idea of what the Church's Magisterium is is wrong, or 2) being bound to those truths, all trads everywhere are wrong and must abjure our traditional faith to embrace the NO and all things V2.

There is no other alternative.

Ridiculous, characterizing the notion that the Church's Magisterium cannot become corrupt as novelty.  We have consistent teaching of the Popes and the Church Fathers, Doctors, theologians, that the Magisterium cannot be stained with error.  Yet no theologian holds that the Magisterium is ABSOULTELY free from error.  So what does it mean for the Magisterium to be free from error and not stained by error?  It means that it's substantially or essentially free from error, even if there can be some error there per accidens.  That's the distinction, and Msgr. Fenton, in the passages cited, articulately expressed the threshold between fallibility and infallibility, which you continue to ignore.

Proposition I:  Magisterium is free from error and all stain of error [taught above by the Popes ... which you reject]
Proposition II:  Magisterium is not absolutely guaranteed to be free from error [taught by all theologians]

So then this apparent contradiction requires a distinction for both of these to be true.  That distinction is substantial vs. accidental, or as Msgr. Fenton characterized it extensive and harmful.

You reject Proposition I above by attributing the doctrinal corruption and the corruption of the Mass to the legitimate authority of the Catholic Church, and that's heresy.  You keep throwing the word novelty out there, but I defy you to find any Catholic theologian ever who agrees with you that the Magisterium can go off the rails so badly that it justifies severing submission to and communion with the Holy See.

THAT is novelty, not my (and Msgr. Fenton's) distinction to reconcile the notion that the Magisterium is inerrant and unstained by error, and yet not absolutely free from error.  This distinction is absolutely common sense.