“...If the RCC was in error previous to Vatican II, then there goes infallibility for ‘ex cathedra’ right out the door. If in error since Vatican II, then good-bye all the same to infallibility, even when squeezed & very tightly limited...”
Ah, and therein lies your error. The Church cannot err.
She never has and never will. The Holy Ghost protects her continually from error. Those who apostatize and contradict the Church, such as the below-mentioned “popes”, in spite of relinquishing titles ill-bestowed, or which linger in the minds of many, are no longer Catholic so how can they be clerics?
Thus it is that those infamous people (”John XXIII”, “Paul VI”, and those following AND don’t forget all the bishops, cardinals and theologians who supported the protestantization of the Church) are, like the protestants, heretics, and outside of the Church. So infallibility stands, while those who designed and profess the “new church” are heretics, and no longer (or never were) Catholic.
Thus, Bishop Chekada is correct and what contradiction then exists? For the Church was NOT in error prior to Vatican II.
Thus you must understand that for 50 years we haven’t had a valid pope and only those faithful to the unchanging doctrines as established by Christ and passed down through apostolic succession are part of the Church.
If you can't see the logical contradictions inherent within the above statement, when that is contrasted with what else you've been saying, I doubt more effort on my own part would convince.
Up until Vatican II, that is. As you also remarked;
If the RCC can be usurped from within during the mid-1960's, then where is the same supernatural protection from error which had allegedly protected against that very sort of thing previously?
If illegitimate individuals can gain positions of power and influence within the RCC, and effect change which is enough to make what Christ (allegedly) established be something other than what He is alleged to have established --- why has this type of thing occurred only recently?
What now? Will it be invocation of, and likely misapplication (misapplication for needing to stretch application too far, and too completely) of that word "Modernism"?
If it does stretch to fit (and how it could envelope Ratzinger too, I don't know) ---- do not indiscriminately blame those who you likely think of as "Protestants" without allowing some of that special pleading secret sauce (Christians in name only) be applied to whatever "Modernisits" there may have been within "Protestant" fold, most particularly if those (of the 19th century most in particular) were theologians and divines who simultaneously held conservative positions within their own ecclesiastical organization rather than be "modernist intellectual" sorts who could honestly enough be guilty of the sort of charges leveled at #2, #7, #8, #9 here while at #6 I'd like to travel back in time and give the guy a swift kick in the seat of the pants for the citations from Vatican I which as he presented them polarize teaching conducted by ordinary means against necessary revelation from God (one simply must be born from above/born again John 3:5), for without illumination & confirmation from above as Peter himself received as in Matthew 16:18 --- then the church (1 Peter 2:5-9 Revelation 2:17 has no living stones among it, leaving things of God to be taught by rote and dictat; resulting in a soulless church.
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
I don't have time and energy to go over all the rest of the sedacavantist's hero's major work, but he's no prophet in comparison to one particular 17th century Anglican poet (not himself a prelate of the Church of England, I take it) which I'll introduce you to in ending portion of this note...
What is it that sedevacantists (usually worked up over Vatican II) really want? Do they even know? Has sense been made out of it yet?
Is it;
Return to ~Latin only~ Liturgy, as if the Latin language itself was holy in and of itself?
A return to times when anyone not submitting to priests of Rome was branded heretic or worse? What about themselves, like right about now? Since Vatican II was official, and if the RCC cannot err, then who was it that erred? Those of the church who were not of the church. Yeah, sure. Blame it on Luther while you're at it?
Not the "real" church, the sedecavantists say, but then where would that church be now?
A more logical set of questions could be; was an inerrant church ever "there" in Rome (alone) in the first place?
And if so, and it could "depart" from infallibility, or else that be usurped, then why only near time of Vatican II, and not at some other time before when there have been changes, additions, errors & mistakes arise?
Is it only now found within those who fancy themselves Remnant, and nowhere else?
Do sedevacantists desire return to past era when shield (of approval) for their own inwards attitudes of extreme bigotry towards others, such as; Lutherans, Anglicans, all those loosely affiliated 'Congregationalists' who don't even refer to themselves that way anymore, could once again be part of church sanctioned belief?
Along with going back to denying any sort of idea that the Orthodox are the "other lung" of the Church, too?
The poet I threatened to introduce you to (if you've not already met)
Thus Sinne triumphs in Western Babylon;
Yet not as Sinne, but as Religion.
Of his two thrones he made the latter best,
And to defray his journey from the east.
Old and new. Babylon are to hell and night,
When th’ one did set, the other did take place,
Confronting equally the Law and Grace.
They are hells land-marks, Satans double crest;
They are Sinnes nipples, feeding th’ east and west.
But as in vice the copie still exceeds
The pattern, but not so in vertuous deeds;
So though Sinne made his latter seat the better,
The latter Church is to the first a debter.
The second Temple could not reach the first:
And the late reformation never durst
Compare with ancient times and purer yeares;
But in the Jews and us deserveth tears.
Nay, it shall ev’ry yeare decrease and fade;
Till such a darknesse do the world invade
At Christs last coming, as his first did finde:
Yet must there such proportion be assign’d
To these diminishings, as is between
The spacious world and Jurie* to be seen.
Religion stands on tip-toe in our land,
Readie to passe to the American strand.
When height of malice, and prodigious lusts,
Impudent sinning, witchcrafts, and distrusts
(The marks of future bane) shall fill our cup
Unto the brimme, and make our measure up;
When Sein shall swallow Tiber, and the Thames
By letting in them both pollutes her streams:
When Italie of us shall have her will,
And all her calender of sinnes fulfill;
Whereby one may foretell, what sinnes next yeare
Shall both in France and England domineer:
Then shall Religion to America flee:
They have their times of Gospel, ev’n as we.
My God, thou dost prepare for them a way
By carrying first their gold from them away:
For gold and grace did never yet agree:
Religion alwaies sides with povertie.
We think we rob them, but we think amisse:
We are more poore, and they more rich by this.
Thou wilt revenge their quarrell, making grace
To pay our debts, and leave her ancient place
To go to them, while that which now their nation
But lends to us, shall be our desolation.
Yet as the Church shall thither westward flie,
So Sinne shall trace and dog her instantly:
They have their period also and set times
Both for their vertuous actions and their crimes.
And where of old the Empire and the Arts
Usher’d the Gospel ever in mens hearts,
Spain hath done one; when Arts perform the other,
The Church shall come, & Sinne the Church shall smother:
That when they have accomplished their round,
And met in th’ east their first and ancient sound,
Judgement may meet them both & search them round.
Thus do both lights, as well in Church as Sunne,
Light one another, and together runne.
Thus also Sinne and Darknesse follow still
The Church and Sunne with all their power and skill.
But as the Sunne still goes both west and east;
So also did the Church by going west
Still eastward go; because it drew more neare
To time and place, where judgement shall appeare.
How deare to me, 0 God, thy counsels are!
.................Who may with thee compare?