Except that evil cannot come from the Magisterium and Universal Discipline of the Church.  Period.

Could the Pope stand up there and solemnly promulgated a bad/evil dogma?  That's why your statement above is entirely moot from a logical standpoint.

Lots of "Catholics" believed that the definition of infallibility was evil, and they condemned it.  Why were they wrong to do so?

This is clear.  That's why I believe that a large percentage of dogmatic sedeplenists/anti-sedevacantists are of bad will.

^^^^To all of his ladisms.

From Vatican I Pastor Aeternus:

I explained this to you already, can you remember what "True Obedience" is?

Ah, OK, Drew, so when the Pope defines a dogma, he's actually revealing that dogma, right?

No, the rule of faith (by definition) is "extrinsic" to the dogma itself.  That's what it means for something to be a rule of faith.  And "formally distinct from" is not the same thing as "extrinsic to".  You blurred those two things together.

This distinction between "content of revelation" and "act/process of revelation" is not "esoteric".  It's two different usages of the word "revelation" (look it up again on dictionary.com).  It's only esoteric if you have a poor grasp of the English language.

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    

The Popes have spoken ex-cathedra only a handful of times. 6 or 7 times in the entire history of the Church.

Does that mean that I am allowed to question and disregard the rest of the Papal teachings of 260 legitimate successors of St. Peter?

Did I or did I not already explain that we are bound to the truth whether it be from ex cathedra pronouncements or those teachings contained in the ordinary and universal magisterium as Pope Pius IX teaches? That truth is truth no matter where it comes from, that heresy is heresy no matter where it comes from?

If an angel from heaven were to come down and preach lies, we are to let him be anathema - are we not? If the pope preaches lies, we are to let him be anathema - are we not? Sede's say they believe but really don't, that popes cannot preach lies - that is a lie they were taught and believe is a dogma, which only serves to prove they do not know what dogma even is.

I asked you a very clear question: "Do you remember what True Obedience is?"

I asked lad to explain his ladism of "the Disciplinary Infallibility of the Church".

2Vermont has nothing but questions, then when answered, she can only post her ad hominems. Never challenging the actual answer with any rebuttal, all she cares about is calumniating the poster in her efforts to make herself somehow look better as apparently, that's all she has.

I'd assume the fact that he commanded the Catholic Church to teach it, and that he never created or mentioned any entity called the Conciliar Church. The Conciliar Church is just a term R&Rs invented for people who actually obey the Pope they see as valid. Unlike R&Rs who bafflingly believe that Pope Paul VI was valid but that his liturgy is false and impious.

What command? See how brainwashed you are? He never commanded anything, not in the whole of his papacy. How long have you been in the NO anyway?

The command that the clergy use the Novus Ordo rite. 

The command that the clergy use the Novus Ordo rite.

Wrong. Try again.
He never commanded that the clergy use the NO rite.