What about it? It is entirely supported by cuм Ex Apostolatus and St Robert Bellarmine knew it.

I agree with Bellarmine that a Pope cannot be a heretic.

Well, I agree with Bellarmine that a Pope cannot BECOME a heretic (fall into heresy after election).  But that's just pious belief.

I believe that what happened here renders all this argumentation between Bellarmine and Cajetan / John of St. Thomas moot.

These guys were not legitimately elected.  Cardinal Siri was elected Pope Gregory XVII (accepted and even chose a name) ... and then was illegitimately forced out of office under grave duress.

R&R's who don't care what the Pope teaches are Old Catholics, change my mind.  :P

There's no doubt.  They differ only on their acceptance of Vatican I and therefore do believe that there are in some (according to them) very limited circuмstances, truths which are guaranteed a priori to be consistent with Tradition.

But the tenets of R&R are nearly verbatim the Old Catholic talking points.  Had they been around at the time of VI, they could just as easily have rejected the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility.

Papal infallibility is in fact a very curious dogma.  It's truth depends on whether it's true.  In other words, if the Pope teaches infallibly, then infallibility must be true.  But if it's not true, then it's possible that the definition of infallibility was mistaken.  It's a bit of a conundrum.

So what guarantees it to be true?  It's actually the BROADER infallibility of the Church.  God would never allows His One True Church to corrupt the faith this way.  And yet R&R reject that principle, and do hold that it's possible for the faith to be corrupted.  Consequently, for them, the dogmatic definition of infallibility is build on a foundation of straw.

The True Story of the Vatican Council, by H. Manning is on the archives.  It is very good reading.  When Vatican I took place it was to define Papal Infallibility.  It is dogma but was not defined, really defined til Vatican I, and the definition is a 1 hour and 50 minute read.  I would like to read it.

Too bad you have so much self-love and care for human respect that you're hiding behind an anonymous post on a forum that already provides anonymity through pseudonyms.

Yes. I won't be responding to twenty anonymous posts, just to the guy who invoked private judgment, but, of course, never looked up the definition.

Here is the error of our Protestant friends. They recognize no distinction between reason and private judgement. Reason is common to all men; private judgement is the special act of an individual …. In all matters of this sort there is a criterion of certainty beyond the individual, and evidence is adducible which ought to convince the reason of every man, and which, when adduced, does convince every man of ordinary understanding, unless through his own fault. Private judgement is not so called … because it is a judgement of an individual, but because it is a judgement rendered by virtue of a private rule or principle of judgement …. The distinction here is sufficiently obvious, and from it we may conclude that nothing is to be termed ‘private judgement’ which is demonstrable from reason or provable from testimony.

(Brownson’s Quarterly Review, October 1852, p. 482-3. Emphasis added.)

I'll even add a bonus quote to prayerfully reflect upon.

For any man to be able to prove his Catholic faith and affirm that he is truly a Catholic, he must be able to convince the Apostolic See of this. For this See is predominant and with it the faithful of the whole Church should agree. And the man who abandons the See of Peter can only be falsely confident that he is in the Church. As a result, that man is already a schismatic and a sinner who establishes a see in opposition to the unique See of the blessed Peter from which the rights of sacred communion derive for all men.

(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quartus Supra, n. 8)

There is in fact a role for private judgment where it comes to faith, and it was clearly taught by Vatican I.

It's in determining in the first place the credibility of the authority behind the Magisterium.  We use our reason to assess what are called the "motives of credibility" and to make the determination based on these that the Catholic Church is the True Church founded by Christ that exercises His teaching authority.  We then submit to the authority of the Church's Magisterium.

Where it comes to the Conciliar Church, we see an institution masquerading as the Catholic Church but lacking the notes of the One True Church that is in possession of the teaching authority given to the Church by Our Lord and constantly guided by the Holy Spirit.

We do not recognize the Voice of the Shepherd in Bergoglio, but have discerned the voice of a wolf in sheep's clothing.  Those words of Our Lord couldn't more aptly describe the V2 papal claimants.  These are wolves that have put sheepskins on themselves (the external trappings of the office).

Once we recognize, however, that "yes, this institution here teaches with the teaching authority of Christ," at that point  we submit to it ... not that there can't be some mistakes or imprudences here or there, but it simply cannot go substantially corrupt where submission to its teaching harms our faith.

If this were a matter of simply one or two questionable statements in Vatican II, there would be no Traditional movement.  Instead, people would simply have respectfully disagreed with those statements and pursued a correction within the Church (that's precisely +Schneider's attitude).  Were it not for a radical transformation of the Church at every level, in the Church's publish worship, in the corruption of the catalogue of saints, in 60+ years now of Papal Magisterium that's thoroughly imbued with Modernism, nobody would have severed communion with the Catholic Church.  In fact, the pretty much all of the even-conservative bishops at Vatican II signed most of the V2 docuмents.  It wasn't until the aftermath, in particular, with the imposition of the NOM, that the Traditional movement began to grow.

I doubt that anyone here became a Traditional Catholic by reading/studying the docuмents of Vatican II.  Vast majority of Catholics never read Vatican II.

I do not know how many times this needs to be re-explained to you.  What part of the concept that the V2 Magisterium is not the Catholic Magisterium cannot penetrate the dark recesses of your skull?  At no point has the Magisterium  gone off the rails.

There is no V2 magisterium - such a thing does not even exist. This is the same non-existent magisterium you insist went off the rails, pretty absurd imo.

 The only magisterium is the Catholic Church's magisterium - which, as your papal quotes teach, is unable to be mistaken and always immune from error. It's not complicated.

There is no V2 magisterium - such a thing does not even exist. This is the same non-existent magisterium you insist went off the rails, pretty absurd imo.

 The only magisterium is the Catholic Church's magisterium - which, as your papal quotes teach, is unable to be mistaken and always immune from error. It's not complicated.

Now you're just arguing semantics.  Obviously there's no true Magisterium coming out of the Conciliar Church, and when we speak of the V2 "magsiterium" it should be in quotes, meaning PUTATIVE Magisterium ... and we shouldn't have to explicitly state that each time.

More empty rhetoric that becomes absurd in application to real events.

When John XXXIII was elected, was he "the Magisterium"? That was 1959. What did the "motives of credibility" say, or would they say? Nothing at the time said he wasn't of "the Magisterium." Submission to his authority was required.

When Paul VI was elected, was he "the Magisterium"? That was 1963. What did the "motives of credibility" say, or would they say? Nothing at the time said he wasn't of "the Magisterium." Submission to his authority was required.

At some point a magisterial act was weighed, or you weigh it in hindsight in rejecting either John XXXIII or Paul VI. Maybe a certain act of the Vatican II Council, maybe the promulgation or establishment of the New Mass. Point being, at some point a Magisterium that had all the marks of "credibility" - demanding submission - made a decision or act that you and other Catholics judged: a specific Magisterial act that was weighed and questioned.

Perhaps it was several magisterial acts. In any event, you and we all weighed certain magisterial acts and effectively pronounced "anti-gospel." For some that meant also therefore "not pope"; for others, simply a magisterial act not to be believed or followed.

The point being, again, for you, as well as Stubborn, I, for everyone here, some papal, magisterial act or acts - which under your standard should be accepted, believed, and obeyed - was rejected. Then, for some, the magisterium itself was rejected. But not until acts from a magisterium that had all the "motives of credibillity" violated the teachings of Scripture or Tradition.

Again, you live in a fog of "I always obey the Magisterium; it is the sole guide of truth" that is nothing more than a self-deception that, I don't know, makes you feel more Catholic, more orthodox, more traditional . . . I don't know, but your psyche needs it. But it's delusional.

We all do the same thing, as commanded by God:


That right there are the "motives of credibility." Is the teaching, the preaching anti-gospel? You weigh the teaching against the Word of God in Scripture and Tradition.

After that, you want to reject the teacher, ok. I get it. Fine. But don't tell us the teachers sitting in the chair, elected by the Cardinals per proper procedure, in control of and governing the Church, its "governing body" for the last 60 or whatever years, is not really the governing body.

Don't foist your schizophrenic theology on the rest of us: again, stop fooling yourself, and anathematizing so many of us in the process of your foolery. 

That was me.