"Your conception and your interpretation of these states of necessity are not consistent with faith in the indefectibility of the Church"
How can it be possible that this indefectibility of the Church extends to the conduct of every priest and every Bishop?
Clearly, it does not.
Without getting into the specifics of what constitutes material heresy, there are priests NOW who teach that homosexual behavior is not sinful, who knowingly give communion to supporters of abortion and couples cohabiting in illicit relationships, who teach that the miracles performed by Our Lord did not occur, and on and on.
While the Church as the supernatural Body of Christ is indefectible, it is not the case that everyone who claims the mantle of Catholicism conforms in all regards to Catholic dogma.
You are relying on a statement that something "has been" in the past as a guarantee that it can never happen, when it is happening all around you.
Did you click on the Vatican link above and read Saint Pius X on modernists, thoroughly and carefully? A pope and a saint clearly says that you are mistaken in your central thesis. A pope and a saint clearly says that Hoyos was mistaken (although I personally think Hoyos was lying).
Men—priests, bishops, cardinals—are not indefectible. We have no guarantee that they will not attack—have not attacked—the Catholic faith, in an attempt to change it to something more to their (modernist, which is to say leftist) liking.
You take statements that a pope can never fall into heresy as a guarantee that he can't be mistaken; that he can't be politicked into things he doesn't really understand, that he can't be threatened, intimidated, flim-flammed...
There is no guarantee that such men will not attain to great power within the Church, and will not work great harm. There is no guarantee that such enemies of the Church will not teach thus and so, when true Catholic teaching is just the opposite of what they say. There is no guarantee whatsoever of any of those things.
The only guarantee we have is that in the end—which could be thousands or tens of thousands of years from now—Our Lord wins.
The first time this happened the parties to the disagreement were Saints Peter and Paul—and yet you insist that there is a guarantee it will never happen, so when Mahoney institutes buggering boys as a sacrament, we must obey. You use those arguments to insist on obedience to the very modernists that Saint Pius X called "enemies of the Church."
I understand your desire for reliability in Catholic authority. I share it. I hate being told by a priest, "We don't think that's a sin any more," when the Catholic Church held it to be a sin for 19+ centuries.
But I can see the difference between what modernists are teaching now and what the Catholic Church taught for 19+ centuries, and I see no indication of any new Divine Revelations that justify those changes. I can see changes in liturgy which, while not heretical, weaken the power of the liturgy to bind the faithful to the Church—and I can see that such was exactly the objective of those who instituted the changes.
You say Mahoney; I say Aquinas. You say Bernardin; I say Augustine. You say Vat II; I say 19+ centuries of coherent teaching and Tradition.
However, I also say that only time and experience will open your eyes, so this is most likely my last post on this thread.
How can it be possible that this indefectibility of the Church extends to the conduct of every priest and every Bishop?
You appear to have erected some sort of strawman, or you are speaking to someone other than me.
A pope and a saint clearly says that you are mistaken in your central thesis
Quote him, then. My words, followed by his words contradicting them. I've read all of Pascendi and I daresay that I agree with all of it. Whether the SSPX can say the same is another question; "The same policy is to be adopted towards those who favour Modernism ... by criticising scholasticism, the Holy Father, or by refusing obedience to ecclesiastical authority in any of its depositaries" (§48).
You take statements that a pope can never fall into heresy...
As meaning exactly what they mean in their literal and intentional sense.
You say Mahoney; I say Aquinas. You say Bernardin; I say Augustine.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but both Aquinas and Augustine were Catholics. Claiming them for the schism is as absurd as the Donatist appeal to St. Cyprian; "securus iudicat orbis terrarum bonos non esse, qui se dividunt ab orbe terrarum" (St. Augustine, Contra Epistolam Parmeniani, lib. 3, 4:24).