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).

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.

NB: I got timed-out while posting the above, but wanted to clarify that Dom MAU’s essay was preconciliar, but Canon Bert God’s was 1980.

Sean,

Thanks. I might purchase that book.

However, let me note, and Lad has brought this up repeatedly, that the issue of whether the "authentic Magisterium" could err remains - we are dealing with indefectibility more so than infallibility. Lad often brings this up in response to some comments that I make on the subject, as if I don't get it - I absolutely do.

My point in referencing "infallibility" is because that is what Vatican I, the infallible Magisterium, talks about. To my knowledge, the "infallible" Magisterium has never opined about "indefectibility." So to argue that the Church is indefectible by referring to "defectible" teachings is circular in my view: you have to accept an a priori the concept of indefectibility to rely on Magisterial statements below the infallible as indefectible or free from error.

Also, when we are talking about an ecuмenical council such as Vatican II, are we really only talking about "authentic" Magisterium? Perhaps Vatican II is discussed in the book, but the "authentic" Magisterium distinction still presents issues regarding indefectibility, and to me doesn't obviate the problem of an ecuмenical council approved by the Pope being erroneous. And we are not only talking about error here, but even perhaps contradiction with prior Magisterium statements, which present an logical or epistemological dilemma that is dangerously lurking behind all these discussions.

Obviously one way to resolve (as to the ecuмenical council problem) it is by holding that there is nothing seriously erroneous or harmful to the faith in Vatican II, and that Magisterial statements that are in such only come post-Vatican II in "authentic" Magisterial statements of popes, organs of the Vatican such as the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, etc. But then the problem of an "authentic" Magisterium contradicting prior "authentic" or even infallible Magisterial statements remains.

Which is why I say that the Conciliar Church experience requires a level of engagement with these issues that have been avoided, but I think won't go away: the prospect of an "authentic" Magisterium teaching not only falsely but even in contradiction to what the Magisterium has taught in the past.

To say the "authentic" Magisterium is not infallible evades that ultimate question and the consequences of it I think.
 

To put it another way, a dogma is simply a doctrine, defined ex cathedra.

Per Pope Pius IX quoted in my post above yours, we are obliged to accept all the doctrines of the Church whether or not they have been declared ex cathedra.