CathInfo.com

I agree that many (not all) sedes think an authentic/ordinary/non-infallible magisterium destroys their position.  But it doesn't.  Admitting that there is a fallible magisterium only highlights a minor logical error of sedeism (i.e. the pope can't become a heretic, which is a debatable point).  The fact that the magisterium can be fallible and infallible (depending on language used) actually STRENGTHENS the sede position overall.  Because it proves that the V2 anti-popes are heretics because of their PERSONAL heresy and not because the Church has erred or defected.

So this whole V2 crisis does NOT tarnish the purity of Christ's Bride, nor Her holiness of doctrine, nor Her clarity of Truth.  No, because The Church has not taught/required evil or error.  The anti-popes (through devilish trickery and legal mind games) promoted, condoned, and allowed error but never required, commanded or officially taught such.

A very important distinction which answers the apparent contradictions of our day.  Fr Chazal would agree with this.  +Williamson would agree with this.  Fr Wathen would agree with this.  +ABL would agree with this.  All current sedes should agree with this.

It occurs to me that what we are all arguing about for the last 50 years is the *best explanation* of the crisis.  And since such a crisis has a spiritual mystery component to it (because it concerns the mystery of salvation and also of the doctrines of indefectibility/infallibility), no one besides the Church can ultimately adequately and completely explain it.  So we wait for the perfect explanation.  But in the meantime, we should all agree on the distinction (but we won't, haha).

Well put.  I believe you hit on the nail what many people should focus on.

I as a private sede agree that (from what my poor brain can comprehend) Vatican II did not invoke the infallible teaching authority of the Church.  I think everyone should be able to agree on that.

The part most people here seem to really disagree on is the definition and explanation of "ordinary teaching authority" of the Church and it's effect and authority in respect to us.

It is the difference between dogma and doctrine.  A dogma is a solemnly proclaimed statement about a matter of Faith or Morals.  A doctrine is a religious belief held by the Church which has never been officially proclaimed excathedra but which we a Catholics hold through the traditions and customs of the Church and the authority of Her hierarchy and ministers.

The issue which people really should be discussing then is whether a person is obliged to accept all doctrines of the Church that have not been declared ex cathedra as doctrine.

In my opinion it seems that until something has not been declared a dogma it is not "de fide" meaning that you would be considered outside the Church for not believing it because it is essential to the Faith.  And we know that a pope cannot see in such matters.  Saint Robert Bellarmine argued that even anti-popes never did.

Yet, doctrinal matters given through the normal ordinary teaching authority of the Church are something that all faithful Catholics should give assent to.  For example, if one's bishop approved or disapproved of a book and gave it a "prohibitation" or "imprimatur" people should follow that.  Could a bishop fail and ever be wrong, yes.  And normally one would appeal to the Pope in such matters.  The issue is that when the person standing in as Pope says and asks for such things we have only God to appeal to.

God save us!

Sean,

Here is the problem: almost all of the authority post-Vatican I would disagree with you. This is the crux of the problem, and why you have Sedevacantists - because of a teaching contrary to the above which was dominant among all the theologians and the wise ones preceding Vatican II.

Here's a quote from a post quoting a John Daly article (which exemplifies this contrary teaching):


You're an "escapist" with your "temporal" universality requirement . . . actually, that would be an improvement if you were only that, since your "temporal" requirement is in fact "heretical." 

This (the Daly view) is the "spirit of Vatican I" I referred to in a prior post. He says it's in the "conciliar discussions." I don't see it in what the Holy Ghost inspired in Vatican I, and this is the issue that needs to be revisited: does the Magisterium serve Tradition and what is handed down, protect and strengthen it, or does it, ipse dixit, simply say, "what we say is Tradition, shut up and obey."

The Daly view was a trap door to Vatican II. Or, you could say Vatican II was a monster the Sede theologians created . . . before they were "Sede."

John Daly is an heretical idiot, if in order to protect and compel sedevacantism he finds it necessary to condemn the Vincentian Canon (ie., his tactic to eliminate a level of non-infallible ordinary magisterium, called the authentic magisterium).

John Daly is also an escapist to turn Vatican I against St. Vincent (the Council itself did no such thing), as proven by Labourdette and Nau writing about it, and receiving preconciliar, post-Vatican I imprimaturs.