I've pointed out this insanely idiotic "begging the question" logic about 100 times to you already. What we're saying is that V2 was NOT an legitimate Ecuмenical Council and therefore not infallible. That's the very POINT of sedevacantism/sedeplenism.
You've never offered a definition of the indefectible and errorlessly teaching "Magisterium." You avoid my posts bringing up the apparent contradiction of how a Magisterium which is, to quote the popes you quoted, "unable to be mistaken, "without danger of error," and which "could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching," could in fact actually teach the erroneous doctrine of BoD in a universal catechism approved by the pope and drafted at the request of the Ecuмenical Council of Trent.
Is your indefectible Magisterium limited to ecuмenical councils and infallible, solemn papal utterances like the bull of Pius IX,
Ineffabilis Deus? If not, where else does it reach?
We do need to know this when confronted with a teaching of the Magisterium, don't we? It would help us immensely in dealing with an issue like, e.g. "BoD" . . . wouldn't you say? The popes and bishops are teaching all the time, writing encyclicals, issuing catechisms, etc. And apparently Our Lord's design - according to you - includes a usurpation by men masquerading as the Magisterium, issuing these teachings in abundance.
And I say, "what do we believe, Ladislaus? Where is the indefectible Magisterium?"
And you say, "these guys aren't it, they're masqueraders." And I say, "on what basis do you say this?" And you say . . . ?
You refer to what in proving your point? Past Magisterial statements? How do you judge the "masqueraders" without stepping away from your "rule of faith" to some other rule and becoming the "heretic" that you say Drew, Stubborn etc. are or may be?
I could tell you to go ask John Henry and he'll tell you what you need to know without any chance of being wrong, but if you don't know who John Henry is and couldn't identify him if you saw him . . . what the hell good is it?
Are you the CI Court Jester? This is very amusing.
And as to your blathering about Drew and Stubborn going against "all the Catholic theologians," I'm still waiting for the Catholic theologian that agrees with you that "the Catechism of Trent didn't teach BoD" - the only weak response I got from your "BoD is error" and "my rule of faith is the errorless Magisterium" contradiction.
It's a wonder anyone around here takes you seriously.