Cantarella has made it known that she believes the only infallible source of doctrine are things taught solemnly, ex-cathedra, by PAPAL infallibility.

This is false. Therefore your entire post makes no sense.

What is defined as infallible by the Church is not the Ordinary Magisterium of the Pope, but rather the Extraordinary or Solemn Magisterium of the Pope alone (in isolation), when he speaks ex cathedra, without forgetting that the Pope enjoys as head and foundation of the visible Church the same infallibility as the entire Church enjoys in the assembly of every one of her bishops together.  

The Infallible Magisterium of the Church is indeed one by itself, nevertheless there are two ways to realise it: One is the Universal Ordinary Magisterium and the other is the Extraordinary or Solemn Magisterium. In turn the Extraordinary Magisterium has a double version:  that of the Ecuмenical Councils and that of the Pope alone when he speaks ex cathedra.  

No theological conclusion is a dogma of faith however certain and evident the conclusion may be when the Church has not yet defined the question through her infallible magisterium.

Cantarella said,

What is defined as infallible by the Church is not the Ordinary Magisterium of the Pope, but rather the Extraordinary or Solemn Magisterium of the Pope alone (in isolation), when he speaks ex cathedra, without forgetting that the Pope enjoys as head and foundation of the visible Church the same infallibility as the entire Church enjoys in the assembly of every one of her bishops together.  

The Infallible Magisterium of the Church is indeed one by itself, nevertheless there are two ways to realise it: One is the Universal Ordinary Magisterium and the other is the Extraordinary or Solemn Magisterium. In turn the Extraordinary Magisterium has a double version:  that of the Ecuмenical Councils and that of the Pope alone when he speaks ex cathedra.  

No theological conclusion is a dogma of faith however certain and evident the conclusion may be when the Church has not yet defined the question through her infallible magisterium.

But what does this mean?  To put it simply -

The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.
The Pope is infallible when he speaks in union with an Ecuмenical Council.

Both the above constitute the Extraordinary, or Solemn, Magisterium of the Church.

But also - and this is the crucial point -

The Pope is infallible when he speaks in union with the Bishops of the world.  This constitutes the Ordinary Universal Magisterium of the Church.  

Is this what Cantarella meant to say?

As Nado points out Vatican I clearly states that the ordinary Universal Magisterium is infallible.

 

yet all the teaching during those times was protected by infallibility.

"all" teaching? So no error could be taught by any Church members?

In Catholicism, there are actually different levels of Magisterial Teachings which require different levels of Catholic assent (obedience). Namely:

1. Infallible Dogmas: Truths taught as divinely revealed"-> These are truths contained directly in the Word of God and which the magisterium has affirmed to be divinely revealed. They are infallible and, to them the faithful owe the “obedience of faith” or “divine and Catholic faith.”.

2. Definitive Doctrines: Secondary Truths -> This is when the Magisterium proposes ‘in a definitive way’ truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.

3. Ordinary teaching on faith and morals -> Faithful are to adhere to these with religious assent (which is different from the assent of Faith (assensus fidei) of #1 and #2)

4. Ordinary prudential teachings on disciplinary matters ->These include routine publications of the various organs of the Holy See or the dioceses. These may differ according to circuмstances of time and place. An external assent is due to the teachings of this category but the possibility of error entering into this level of teaching is stronger than with #3.

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Nado

The quote I gave you from the Vatican Council says you must believe all teachings that are NOT solemnly taught, yet are taught by the ordinary magisterium...and do so with the SAME divine and Catholic faith as you believe the solemn teachings. Papal ex-cathedra moments and General Councils are the SOLEMN and rare occasions of teaching. I am not talking about those.

No. That quote refers to the Word of God, this is, (and is very clear about it) the Divine Revelation which ended with the death of the last apostle, John.

I know Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last living apostle. You still don't realize what infallibility is. The Church (especially in the early centuries) has existed for many generations of Catholics and popes being born, living & dying, without any solemn teaching in their life-times...yet all the teaching during those times was protected by infallibility. You simply don't understand that AT ALL!

Nado,
Cantarella will never acknowledge, clearly and openly, that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is infallible.  It would blow apart a significant part of her case if she did. She will duck and dive for the entire length of this thread to avoid it.

Having said that, she is not alone in this.  The infallibility of the OUM has fallen out of the consciousness of a great many Catholics, Traditionalists included.  I have been told by many Trads that the Pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra or in union with an Ecuмenical Council, and that consequently the remainder of his teachings can be questioned even when the bishops of the world are also professing the same teachings.

The implication of this false position is that the entire hierarchy of the Church can teach error, and that teachings are only protected by infallibility when they are pronounced by the Extraordinary Magisterium.

This is a profound error.  Sadly, Cantarella is not alone in adhering to it.

Quote from: Nado

Quote from: Cantarella

Quote from: Nado

The quote I gave you from the Vatican Council says you must believe all teachings that are NOT solemnly taught, yet are taught by the ordinary magisterium...and do so with the SAME divine and Catholic faith as you believe the solemn teachings. Papal ex-cathedra moments and General Councils are the SOLEMN and rare occasions of teaching. I am not talking about those.

No. That quote refers to the Word of God, this is, (and is very clear about it) the Divine Revelation which ended with the death of the last apostle, John.

I know Divine Revelation ended with the death of the last living apostle. You still don't realize what infallibility is. The Church (especially in the early centuries) has existed for many generations of Catholics and popes being born, living & dying, without any solemn teaching in their life-times...yet all the teaching during those times was protected by infallibility. You simply don't understand that AT ALL!

Nado,
Cantarella will never acknowledge, clearly and openly, that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is infallible.  It would blow apart a significant part of her case if she did. She will duck and dive for the entire length of this thread to avoid it.

Having said that, she is not alone in this.  The infallibility of the OUM has fallen out of the consciousness of a great many Catholics, Traditionalists included.  I have been told by many Trads that the Pope is only infallible when he speaks ex cathedra or in union with an Ecuмenical Council, and that consequently the remainder of his teachings can be questioned even when the bishops of the world are also professing the same teachings.

The implication of this false position is that the entire hierarchy of the Church can teach error, and that teachings are only protected by infallibility when they are pronounced by the Extraordinary Magisterium.

This is a profound error.  Sadly, Cantarella is not alone in adhering to it.

Usually I hear it from Novus Ordites.  Then again, Cantarella is technically a Novus Ordite since SBC is part of the Novus Ordo Church.

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Nado

yet all the teaching during those times was protected by infallibility.

"all" teaching? So no error could be taught by any Church members?

No error can be taught by the Pope teaching in union with the Bishops of the world, in other words, by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium which is infallible.

Individual Church members can get things wrong from time to time.  But when the Pope teaches in union with the Bishops of the world, that teaching is guaranteed by Heaven to be free of error.

Then you believe the Novus Ordo is free from error. Why not admit already that you do not understand what you are saying?

To be nit picky, Infallibility means guaranteed to be without the possibility of error.
 

It is you who doesn't understand what you are saying.  But you have highlighted the issue there nevertheless.  

Popes cannot teach error through one of the organs of infallibility of the Church because such teachings are guaranteed by Heaven to be free of error.

The Ordinary Universal Magisterium, which consists of the Pope teaching in union with the Bishops of the world, is one of the organs of infallibility of the Church.  It cannot teach error.

But the Conciliar popes have been teaching the errors of Vatican II in union with the bishops of the world for nearly fifty years.

Therefore the Conciliar popes do not have the facility of infallibility. If the Conciliar popes were true popes, Vatican II would form part of the teaching of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium of the Church and would be guaranteed by heaven to be free of error.

Since this is impossible, the only conclusion is that the Conciliar popes are not Popes.

It is a known fact that not everything that emanates from the highest authority in the Church is infallible or have the same doctrinal certitude and expected level of assent. Because of the over-simplification of the average sedevacantist mind, this may be difficult to comprehend. Everything is reduced to either black or white but reality and history just do not attest to such romantic ideas, which are rooted in emotion, but not certainty.

The 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia, on Infallibility:

But before being bound to give such an [“absolute and irrevocable”] assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences – unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.[36]