BlatherNaut:
Perhaps you should take part in Traditional Catholic forums that discuss some of your certainly valid questions (all of which many other trads are trying to make sense of). They can be answered, but I am not the best person to do it.
I do know that not every Trad believes that Vatican II was “only” pastoral. Considering how Vatican II is the bees knees these days I’m not sure how anyone can believe that it was “just pastoral”. Clearly the hierarchy considers it much more than “just pastoral”. They talk and act as if the Church didn’t exist before it.
In addition, it is inaccurate to say that infallibility only happens when the pope speaks ex cathedra. I see this repeated here so much and it is just not true.
With respect to the visible church, keep in mind that the Church does not lose its visibility when the pope dies and is in a normal period of sedevacante. Church visibility, therefore, does not solely hang its hat on having a “Pope”. Furthermore, I would argue that what is visible these days is not the Catholic Church. It certainly doesn’t look like the Catholic Church to me. Does it look that way to you? Be honest with yourself.
Again, I unfortunately am not the best person to argue these points. I suggest you at least investigate it. Sedevacantism can be reconciled with Catholic principles. It’s not the boogeyman that so many would like to make it out to be.
From Benedict XVI's own mouth:
"The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest." - Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
In addition, it is inaccurate to say that infallibility only happens when the pope speaks ex cathedra.
True. It is more accurate to say that since the Church is protected from error by the Holy Spirit, neither Francis nor the Magisterium can formally teach error. There is a clear distinction between bad example versus official pronouncements.
Furthermore, I would argue that what is visible these days is not the Catholic Church. It certainly doesn’t look like the Catholic Church to me. Does it look that way to you? Be honest with yourself.
Yes, quite honestly. Bruised, bloodied and beaten up by Modernists, but unquestionably the Bride of Christ.
IMO, the desire of many to blindly defend every questionable word and action of the Pope and the claim that because the Pope has engaged in questionable words and actions that he therefore cannot possibly be the real pope are opposite sides of the same coin. Both points of view are based on the false premise that the pope cannot err, which is obviously not the case, since only God is perfect.
I've read Coomaraswamy (among others) and though much of what he has written is accurate, I disagree with his conclusions.