Ladislaus,

Your "three possible responses" offer speculations that presuppose that God is not faithful to His word.
 
It has been nearly sixty years since the election of Pope John XXIII who is held to have not been a pope by "reliable sources" waving the S&S manifesto.  Since that time, Neo-modernists have held complete control of the Vatican bureaucracy and there is not a single example of a modernist pope making a "solemn definition with all the notes of infallibility." Why? Why not?  And since it has not happened in the last sixty years, why do you suppose it will happen in the next sixty or the next six hundred years?  As a matter of fact, it has not happened in the last two thousand years.
 
There exists a possibility, as Fr. Kramer said, that Pope Benedict never resigned because he has no more authority than Sedeprivationists do to divide the papal office.  Since the office cannot be divided, if Pope Benedict did not abdicate entirely, he did not abdicate at all.  What would be certain sign of this, would be Pope Francis/Bergoglio actually making a  "solemn definition with all the notes of infallibility" without the substance to bind doctrinal and/or moral error on the faithful.  But that is a bridge to which we have not arrived and may never arrive.  
 
But this speculation is nothing more than speculation.  Jesus Christ promised to protect and preserve His Church from the pope ever using the papal office to bind an error of faith and morals on the Church. This is a Dogma of faith.  A formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  Catholics who hold Dogma as their rule of faith begin with this truth which forms a boundary limiting all speculation.  The fact that it has not happened in sixty years is evidence that the concilar popes have been and are valid popes.  If they were not, there would be nothing preventing them from doing so.
 
S&S through their speculations, have arrived at conclusions that overturn Dogma. They have no pope, no magisterum, no rule of faith and no way to ever get them.  They have speculated themselves outside the Catholic Church because they will not hold Dogma as their rule of faith.
 
Drew

That should tell you, that contrary to the Pastor Aternus R&R distortion of Papal infallibility, Catholics are bound to accept all Papal teachings; not only those few considered  "ex-cathedra".
Vatican I was simply defining when the teachings of the Roman Pontiff in themselves cannot be ever reformed, not even by the Church. That is all.

Not for your benefit Ladislaus, for he is immune to correction, but for others that they may not be corrupted by his errors which lead to sedeprivationism and sedevacantism.
 
Ladislaus said repeatedly that "the Magisterium is not part of divine Revelation."  He said that the Magisterium is "extrinsic" to divine revelation and formally not part of it.
 
When confronted with this error with the evidence of dogma, he claimed that he was referring to the "act of revelation" and not the "content of revelation."  He said that the Magisterium was indeed a part of the content of revelation but not part of the act of revelation.
 
So is the Magisterium part of the "act of revelation"? This has already been addressed in an earlier post but it is worth repeating because the consequence are the difference between heaven and hell.  Yes, the Magisterium is just as much a part of the "act of revelation" as it is a part of the "content of revelation." Now the "content of revelation" ended with the death of the last Apostle but the "act of revelation" continues.  
 
Revelation as an act continues always, and will continue always until the last person receives this revelation.  For the act of revelation itself refers to the action verb, the infinitive, to reveal, and its verb forms, revealing, revealed, (have) revealed.  The verb is transitive meaning that it always requires a receiver of the action.  There can be no "act of revelation" without a receiver of the revelation.  
 
"When the Pope defines a dogma," he is engaging the Magisterium. The Magisterium is the "teaching authority" of the Church, that through the pope, engages the Attributes of Infallibility and Authority that Jesus Christ endowed His Church to teach in His name without the possibility of error.  The Magisterium is a "part of the content of divine Revelation" in that it was revealed directly  and explicitly by Jesus Christ. The Magisterium is "part of the "act of revelation" whenever it makes the "content of revelation" known to anyone.  "He that heareth you, heareth me" and whenever anyone "heareth," the "act of revelation" is taking place.
 
So Ladislaus is pretending to be making an esoteric distinction that they less intelligent readers could not appreciate.  The reason for this is that he is trying to cover up his error and in so doing, he is making a bigger error.  When the Magisterium, engaged by the pope, defines a doctrine of divine revelation it is a "part (of the act) of divine revelation" without adding to the "content of revelation."
 
The Magisterium is the necessary but insufficient material cause and instrumental cause of dogma.  God is the formal cause and the final cause of dogma.  Dogma is divine revelation defined by the Church directly by the work of the Holy Ghost.  It is as St. Pius X said, "a truth fallen from heaven." It is immutable in both its form (the truth defined) and its matter (the words by which it is defined).  Revealed doctrine is the formal object of divine faith found in Scripture and Tradition and constitutes the remote rule of faith.  Revealed doctrine that is defined by the Magisterium is called Dogma and is called the formal object of divine and Catholic faith and constitutes the proximate rule of faith.  The "rule of faith," both remote and proximate, is always divine revelation.
 
Proof that Ladislaus is lying is really easy to see.  He claimed that "the Magisterium is NOT part of divine revelation" because it is "extrincic" to and "formally distinct from divine revelation" so that it can judge the content of revelation.  The context of this claim requires that the Magisterium be "not part (of the content) of divine revelation" because it is the "content of revelation" that it is judging when it defines revealed doctrine. The appeal to the "act of revelation" was only done to cover up his blunder, and it is a huge blunder. But to claim that the Magisterium is "extrinsic" to the "act of revelation" is just as big a blunder.
 
It is the Protestants who claim that the Magisterium is "not part of the content of divine revelation."  It is in fact the one unifying doctrine of all Protestant sects.  It is the schismatics who claim that the Magisterium is "not part of the act of revelation" when they deny the jurisdiction of the pope, and thus deny his teaching authority which is derived from his jurisdiction, to make God's revelation known.
 
This is where Ladislaus' sedeprivationism leads, that is, to both heresy and schism.  It destroys the papal office by dividing its form and its matter.  Sedeprivationists claim that the jurisdiction conferred by God on the Pope directly in his office, that we know as a dogma of faith, has been removed.  By whom we may ask?  What God confers on anyone, only God can remove.  But Ladislaus wants to be "lord of the harvest" so he has no problem telling God what to do.  Unfortunately for Ladislaus, this leads only to heresy and schism.  Those who follow him in this error will find themselves in a church of their own making that is not the Catholic Church for it does have the necessary attributes which make the Church founded by Jesus Christ the Church that it is.  Their church has no pope, no magisterium, no rule of faith, and no material or instrumental means to ever correct these permanent deficiencies.  It is a church that is hopeless and can only lead to despair which is why it is not uncommon to find them returning to the Novus Ordo religion.  
 
Drew    

This is both tragic and laughable.  You hold your own private judgment as your proximate rule of faith and then have the nerve to call me faithless.  You don't believe that the Magisterium and Church's Universal Discipline cannot become thoroughly corrupted and harmful to faith, and you call me a faithless fool?

Ladism: "Again, this is nothing more than the Disciplinary Infallibility of the Church ... which is held to be theologically certain by all theologians."

I asked you to post some quotes from any of the above "all theologians" pre-V1, but you will not. The reason you will not is because you you are well aware that there are no theologians at all who ever held to such a ridiculous proposition - ergo, you are lying and by now, you surely *know* you are lying. Yet, you keep the lie alive in an effort to recruit other unknowing souls into error.

Ladislaus,

"For crying out loud" about what?
 
Your post has nothing to do with "axioms."  This is a matter of Dogma.  It is a Dogma that the (the content of) revelation ended with the death of the last apostle.  It is a Dogma that the subject matter of any infallible teaching is divine revelation, therefore, Dogma itself is divine revelation.  It is a Dogma "if a pope teaches something new," that is, some new doctrine that is not part of divine revelation, it cannot be accepted with divine faith and if it in any contradicts Dogma, it must be rejected.  For example, Pope John Paul II's opening encyclical, Redemptor hominis, addressed to the "church of the New Advent" in which he directly says

Yes, it's almost physically painful to just read the tortured logic and contradiction in Drew's posts.  And yet he dismisses a theologian of +Guerard des Lauriers' qualifications and learning with the waive of his hand as a simpleton who doesn't know the basics regarding matter and form (Philosophy 101).  I'm not sure how much more I can take of this guy.  I'm done responding directly to him.