CathInfo.com

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.

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. 

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.