"This new idea of an "Authentic Magisterium" opposed to the ordinary and universal magisterium has already been adequately refuted by Mr. John Lane.

See http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=308#308

IMO, this issue clearly needs study to make sense of the Ordinary Magisterium. What happened here?

I disagree. We can read the theologians and understand them, even if they never deal with the heliocentrism question.

BTW, the SSPX has a clearer presentation on their position of the Ordinary Magisterium, which I'm sure most have read, but, if not, here's the link: http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm

That's much better, but still erroneous. Here's a quote from it. Note the switch in terminology (accidental, clearly) from the pontifical ordinary magisterium to the ordinary magisterium, period. That is, from the papal teaching office to that of all the bishops in general.

The lack of clear ideas on the pope’s Ordinary Magisterium appeared in full with Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, Humanae Vitae, and more recently with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in which Pope John Paul II repeated the Church’s refusal to ordain women.

When Humanae Vitae came out, various theologians indicated that the notion of ordinary papal Magisterium was obscured. Generally speaking, those who supported the infallibility of Humanae Vitae deduced "the proof [of this infallibility —Ed.] on the basis of the Church’s constant and universal Authentic Magisterium, which has never been abandoned and therefore was already definitive in earlier centuries." In other words, on the basis of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium (E. Lio, Humanae Vitae ed infallibilità, Libreria Ed. Vaticana, p.38 ). They should have noticed that even the notion of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and its particularity [its constancy and universality —Ed.] had been effaced from the minds not only of the ordinary faithful but also of the theologians.

Such sloppiness in terminology is completely disastrous. What, we may wonder, is under discussion here? And if it seems that we are only discussing the pontifical magisterium, which seems sufficiently clear when examining the text to this point, then why is it that we are suddenly faced with terms such as "the Church’s constant and universal Authentic Magisterium" - which could only refer to the ordinary magisterium of the bishops, not the pontifical ordinary magisterium?

Proceeding, we witness further examples of this lack of clear thought.

Thus, we will devote ourselves, not to the Extraordinary Magisterium (whose infallibility is generally acknowledged), but to the Ordinary Magisterium. Once we have illustrated the conditions under which it is infallible, it will be clear that outside these conditions we are in the presence of the "authentic" Magisterium to which, in normal times, we should accord due consideration. In abnormal times, however, it would be a fatal error to equate this "authentic" Magisterium with the infallible Magisterium (whether "extraordinary" or "ordinary").

Fascinating. See how the word "pontifical" or "papal" absent. This is ambiguous at best. Further, note the complete novelty of the suggestion that the authentic (i.e. "authoritative") magisterium is to be given "due consideration." !!! Due consideration! One would think one were reading the words of an avowed Modernist. Let us be entirely clear about this - the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff binds under pain of mortal sin. The particular mortal sin in a given case may or may not be the sin of heresy, but it is mortal all the same. So that if one were to refuse submission to the Roman Pontiff's teaching authority even in a case in which he did not speak infallibly, then one would be on the path to eternal perdition. "Due consideration" may now take on its proper aspect.

This is also why this quote is thoroughly misleading in the context: "Thus, the assent due to the Ordinary Magisterium 'can range from simple respect right up to a true act of faith.'" Not for laymen, it can't. For laymen it ranges from compulsory under pain of mortal sin to compulsory under pain of remaining a member of the Church.

I cannot resist also commenting on the last sentence of that paragraph. Apparently it is only in "abnormal times" that we must avoid mistaking infallible for fallible teaching. Er, maybe not.

Continuing, we see how the pre-V2 theologians are sound and the post-V2 ones are at best confused.

In fact, in contrast to the Extraordinary Magisterium or the Solemn Judgment, the Ordinary Magisterium does not consist in an isolated proposition, pronouncing irrevocably on the Faith and containing its own guarantees of truth, but in a collection of acts which can concur in communicating a teaching.

"This is the normal procedure by which Tradition, in the fullest sense of that term, is handed down;..." (Pope or Church?, op. cit. p.10)

Note how a statement which is true in itself, but which doesn't really relate what is being argued, is inserted as though it belongs. It is quite true that Tradition is handed down in this manner. It is quite false to suggest that anything taught by a series of fallible acts must therefore be a matter of Tradition if it is to constitute infallible teaching. Quite false.

This is precisely why the DTC speaks of "infallible papal teaching which flows from the pope’s Ordinary Magisterium" (loc. cit.). So, while a simple doctrinal presentation [by the pope] can never claim the infallibility of a definition, [this infallibility] nonetheless is rigorously implied when there is a convergence on the same subject in a series of docuмents whose continuity, in itself, excludes all possibility of doubt on the authentic content of the Roman teaching (Dom Nau, Une source doctrinale: Les encycliques, p.75).

If we fail to take account of this difference, we are obliterating all distinction between the Extraordinary Magisterium and the Ordinary Magisterium:

"No act of the Ordinary Magisterium as such, taken in isolation, could claim the prerogative which belongs to the supreme judgment. If it did so, it would cease to be the Ordinary Magisterium. An isolated act is infallible only if the supreme Judge engages his whole authority in it so that he cannot go back on it. Such an act cannot be ‘reversible’ without being plainly subject to error. But it is precisely this kind of act, against which there can be no appeal, which constitutes the Solemn [or Extraordinary] Judgment, and which thus differs from the Ordinary Magisterium." (ibid., note 1)

Which is quite right and entirely sound, and does not support the SSPX position in the slightest. However, immediately the author of the article adds his own interpretation, and changes the meaning:

It follows that the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, whether of the Universal Church or that of the See of Rome, is not that of a judgment, not that of an act to be considered in isolation, as if it could itself provide all the light necessary for it to be clearly seen. It is that of the guarantee bestowed on a doctrine by the simultaneous or continuous convergence of a plurality of affirmations or explanations, none of which could bring positive certitude if it were taken by itself alone. Certitude can be expected only from the whole complex, but all the parts concur in making up that whole (Pope or Church?, op. cit., p.18 ).

Suddenly the word "certitude" appears! This is truly frightening. Now apparently we cannot possess certitude unless the pope speaks infallibly! What a strange intellectual world this fellow inhabits. And apparently he is innocent of the writings of the theologians, who constantly describe doctrines as "certain" which have not been taught infallibly. The word "certitude" has no place here at all. We are not questioning the certitude of papal doctrines in encyclicals - we are questioning their infallibility. There is a world of difference. Therefore it does not "follow" at all that "none of which could bring positive certitude if it were taken by itself alone."

Strangely, after all this mess, the conclusion is not offensive, even if slightly exaggerated. Here it is:

This means, in effect, that an "isolated act" of the pope is infallible only in the context of a "dogmatic definition"; outside dogmatic definitions, i.e., in the Ordinary Magisterium, infallibility is guaranteed by the complex of "countless other similar acts of the Holy See," or of a "long succession" of the successors of Peter.

How "long" the succession needs to be to ensure infallibility is doubtful, but there can be no doubt about one thing - the summary here presented does not involve any suggestion of Tradition. Only "tradition."

The "Practical Application" is quite odd. It certainly doesn't follow from what has been demonstrated.

Practical Application

Because it declared itself to be non-dogmatic, the charism of infallibility cannot be claimed for the last Council, except insofar as it was re-iterating traditional teaching. Moreover, what is offered as the Ordinary Pontifical Magisterium of the recent popes -apart from certain acts -cannot claim the qualification of the "Ordinary Infallible Magisterium." The pontifical docuмents on the novelties which have troubled and confused the consciences of the faithful manifest no concern whatsoever to adhere to the teaching of "venerable predecessors."

The V2 Council was said to be "non-dogmatic" but it is far from clear that it "declared itself" to be so. Particularly since several of its docuмents are entitled, "Dogmatic Constitution." But this is a question of the extraordinary magisterium , and it won't detain us now.

On the question of the "Ordinary Pontifical Magisterium" the facts are in dispute - that is, the Nopes of V2 have indeed shown themselves to be "concerned" to "adhere to the teaching of venerable predecessors." The problem is that the predecessors were not venerable, and the doctrine was not Tradition. Only "tradition." Would the pre-V2 theologians have considered the continuous and repeated acts of three "popes" to be sufficient guarantee of infallibility? Yes. Especially when the cooperation in the teaching of, for example, religious liberty, has been morally universal by the "bishops" around the world. Because the situation either constitutes a doctrine presented by the infallible pontifical magisterium or the universal ordinary magisterium.

This, however, we can agree with entirely: "It is clear that when today’s popes contradict the traditional Magisterium of yesterday’s popes, our obedience is due to yesterday’s popes: this is a manifest sign of a period of grave ecclesial crisis, of abnormal times in the life of the Church."

In attempting to explicate this novel and perplexing problem, however, the author delivers more error.

The Magisterium, however, even in its non-infallible form, should always be the teaching of the divine Word, even if uttered with a lesser degree of certitude.

The magisterium does not confine itself to "the divine Word" and never has. It has been infallibly taught by Holy Mother Church that the Council of Trent was a legitimate general council of the Catholic Church. This is not a question of "the divine Word." It is a question of fact.

The most pernicious section of this article, however, is towards the end, where the suggestion is inculcated that we are not truly bound by the "merely authentic" magisterium. We are - and we are bound under pain of sin. Cardinal Billot is quoted:

"The command to believe firmly and without examination of the matter in hand... can be truly binding only if the authority concerned is infallible" (Billot, De Ecclesia, thesis XVII).

Cardinal Billot's doctrine has here been so truncated as to make him say the opposite of his true position. He is merely expressing the truth that an expert (i.e. a theologian) cannot be finally and absolutely bound by the magisterium to a particular definition unless it really is a definition, and not something less clear. The general faithful,, however, who could not possibly possess good cause for imagining some slight correction to the formulation of a doctrinal expression, have no such excuse or opportunity. For us, the word of the pope is final, whatever we imagine our intelligence or erudition to be. Cardinal Billot has, in that place, explained all of this, but it has all been omitted from the quote. The lack of scholarship of the writer concerned is frightening.

This nonsense is capped off with:

The Catholic world is all the more in danger of being drawn into error, since it nourishes the naive and erroneous conviction that God has never permitted the popes to be mistaken, even in the Ordinary Magisterium (and here no distinctions are drawn), and so imagines that the same assent should always be given to the papal Magisterium -which in no way corresponds to the Church’s teaching.

Which is just awful. I may be "naive," but l am naive with the theologians, none of whom admit that in fact a pope has ever erred in an encyclical, for example. But in any case this argument is against a straw man - nobody is arguing that "the same assent should always be given to the papal Magisterium."

The final section of this article, on the "grace of state" of the Roman Pontiff, omits to mention the crucial truth which Cardinal Franzelin lays down, which is that the doctrinal instructions of the Roman Pontiff may not always be infallibly true, but they are protected by a special doctrinal providence, so that they are always infallibly safe. That is, if a pope errs, he errs safely. An example would be an error of fact such as a date or a name, or perhaps some doctrinal point which does not impinge on the Faith itself. Cardinal Franzelin, in case anybody is unaware, was one of the greatest theologians of the nineteenth century, and wrote a book especially to explain and defend infallibility and related points following the Vatican Council. The cases given of Popes John XXII and Sixtus V, only go to prove the point. John XXII erred only as a private doctor and only on a point still controverted by the theologians, and Sixtus erred in no way publicly, not even as a private doctor, because St. Robert Bellarmine succeeded in preventing him from going ahead with his intention to publish his own version of the Vulgate.

Bossuet’s opinion that it “happens once or twice in a thousand years” is the kind of opinion Catholics can do without, for it is the opinion of a Gallican, whose aim was to minimise, if possible, the prerogatives and charisms of the Roman Pontiff. The fact that such an “authority” should be quoted only illustrates the desperation of our opponents. Bossuet was a great man, but even great men wink occasionally – and in matters connected with the rights and privileges of the See of Rome Bossuet is universally admitted to have winked, to say the least.

Finally, a passage we can agree with wholeheartedly:

In normal times the faithful can rely on the "authentic" Pontifical Magisterium with the same confidence with which they rely on the Infallible Magisterium. In normal times, it would be a very grave error to fail to take due account of even the simply "authentic" Magisterium of the Roman pope. This is because if everyone were permitted, in the presence of an act of the teaching authority, to suspend his assent or even to doubt or positively reject it on the grounds that it did not imply an infallible definition, it would result in the ecclesiastical Magisterium becoming practically illusory in concrete terms, because the ecclesiastical Magisterium is only relatively rarely expressed in definitions of this kind (DTC, vol. III, col.1110).

In normal times. Yes, in those times when there is a Catholic Pope. Or, to say the same thing in other words, when there is a Pope.

Tele, I guess I should say "how" is the SSPX trying to have it both ways when what they're doing as far as following Tradition closely mimicks the SSPV and CMRI.

They are not just acting like the SSPV and CMRI though.  They attack sedevacantism and they negotiate with the Vatican.  They attack sedevacantism to such an extent that many SSPX parishioners see sedes as being schismatics.

They blame the sedes for judging the putative Popes and Bishops when they themselves refuse to be bound by the people they call Popes and Bishops.

"This new idea of an "Authentic Magisterium" opposed to the ordinary and universal magisterium has already been adequately refuted by Mr. John Lane.

Catholic Encyclopedia article from 1912

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

Manifestly there is no question here of a meaning which is not in Scripture and which the magisterium reads into it by imposing it as the Biblical meaning. This individual writers may do and have sometimes done, for they are not infallible as individuals, but not the authentic magisterium. There is question only of the advantage which the living magisterium draws from Scripture whether to attain a clearer consciousness of its own thought, to formulate it in hieratic terms, or to triumphantly reject an opinion favourable to error or heresy.

Quote

"This new idea of an "Authentic Magisterium" opposed to the ordinary and universal magisterium has already been adequately refuted by Mr. John Lane.

Both John Lane and John Daly have erred on this point.  They think that the ordinary and universal magisterium pertains to extension merely in place, but not in time, i.e. tradition.  Therefore they misunderstand the nature of said magisterium, implicitly reducing all its acts to an infallible exercise of authority, either ordinarily (based upon their misunderstanding) or extraordinarily.  But the ordinary and universal magisterium pertains to a dual extension of space, i.e. the moral body of bishops and time, an ascertainable doctrinal tradition.

But I have argued all along that the post-conciliar Popes have tacitly renounced their authority only to engage in dialogue and invitations, thus also abandoning any substantial help from the Holy Ghost.  And if you'll note, the rare moments when it actually has been exercised, there was nothing intrinsically objectionable.  The bishops also must desire to be traditional in order for them to partake of their special teaching function.  The lust for novelty has always been looked upon with abhorrence precisely because ecclesiastical tradition is a sure guide and manifestation of Divine Wisdom.  But what happens when those who hold the office are themselves disobedient to tradition and unfaithful to their most basic duties?  A crisis of faith results!  The exercise of the magisterium is not a mechanical action, these men possess the free will to either fulfill their duties or not.  They can hold the office but refuse to cooperate with the grace and duty of the office itself.

When discussing the essence of a doctrine, it is assumed that all else is equal and objectively proper.  It is quite otherwise in a concrete situation where an evil arises.  An example would be the teaching on the Sacrament of Baptism.  When the magisterium taught this doctrine, it was presumed to be within the context of the Catholic Church.  Now you can't say precisely the same thing when the context of its administration has changed, i.e. when administered in an heretical sect.  The circuмstances have changed and therefore different principles come into play.  But Vatican II takes the opposite method.  When they discuss Baptism, they speak of it precisely in the same sense whether it has been administered within or without the fold.  This is a grevious error for the circuмstance introduces an impediment.  By glossing over this fact, it makes it appear that Baptism can be indiscriminately administered by anyone at anytime with the same efficacy and moral rectitude that accompanies its administration within the Catholic Church.    

And this same method some traditional Catholics take vis-a-vis the teaching on the magisterium.  They cannot distinquish between a principle and a concrete fact which is not always commensurate with the exigencies of the doctrine.  Thus, due to a misunderstanding of the magisterium, people are tempted to renounce the entire hierarchy or enter the novus ordo.        

Or you are just wrong, Caminus.  

THE TRUE SENSE OF THE VINCENTIAN CANON
By Cardinal Johann Baptist Franzelin S.J. (1816-1886)

Thesis concerning the true sense of the Vincentian Canon.

1. The Canon [or theological rule] of Saint Vincent of Lerins (Commonitorium Chapters 2, 4, 27 and 29) which assigns universality, antiquity and consensus of faith as characteristics of Catholic doctrine is perfectly true in the affirmative sense. In other words, a doctrine bearing these marks is certainly a dogma of the Catholic faith. It is not however true in the exclusive sense, i.e. if it be understood to mean that nothing can belong to the Catholic faith which has not been explicitly believed always, everywhere and by all.

2. In the context of the Commonitorium itself, the purport of the rule is simply to state two marks, either of which is sufficient to prove the absolute antiquity, or apostolicity, of a doctrine, viz : (a) the present consensus of the Church, and (b) the consensus of relative antiquity, i.e. as it stood before the controversy arose.

I

The Canon in question is stated by Saint Vincent of Lerins in the following terms: “Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic... This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity and consensus.” (Chapter 2) Note first that the reference is not to any points whatsoever that are held and observed in the Church irrespective of the way in which they held. It is to those which are believed, i.e. held by faith. Now a thing can be believed in either of two ways: explicitly, or only implicitly. Whatever is contained in the deposit of objective revelation has certainly been believed at least implicitly everywhere, always and by all Catholics and nothing can be contained in the deposit of revelation which is not so believed. One would at once cease to be a Catholic if one were not ready to believe everything which has been sufficiently proposed to one as divinely revealed—or if one’s habit of faith did not extend to the assent to be accorded to everything included in revelation. But in this sense “to have been believed always and everywhere” cannot be given as a criterion and theological touchstone for recognising what is contained in revelation, for the objects of implicit faith are not in themselves known as revealed. And on the other hand, to investigate whether something has been at least implicitly believed everywhere, always, by all, is the same thing as investigating whether it is contained in objective revelation and Tradition; and it must therefore be established in the light of some other criterion—it cannot be itself a means of establishing it. So although it is true, both in the affirmative sense and in the exclusive sense, that everything belongs to the deposit of faith which has been at least implicitly believed everywhere, always, and by all, and that nothing belongs to this deposit which has not been so believed, nevertheless this cannot be the meaning of the Vincentian Canon.

It follows that the proposed criterion can only be understood of explicit faith. Now it has been established in the preceding theses that a universal consensus in recognising some dogma as a doctrine of faith, at whatever period this consensus may exist, is a definite criterion of divinely transmitted doctrine.93 There is therefore no doubt that such an agreement or consensus in antiquity proves divine Tradition, and that the consensus of all ages does so most splendidly.94 So whatever has been believed always, everywhere and by all, cannot but have been revealed and divinely transmitted.

However it has been no less established in the foregoing that certain points of doctrine can be contained in the deposit of objective revelation which were not always contained in the manifest and explicit preaching of the Church, and that for as long as they were not sufficiently proposed it was possible for them to be the object of controversy within the limits of the Church without loss of faith and communion.95 So a given point of doctrine can be contained in objective revelation and can also, with the passage of time—when it has been sufficiently explained and proposed—come to belong to those truths which must necessarily be believed with Catholic faith, while yet this truth, though always contained in the deposit of revelation, has not been explicitly believed always, everywhere and by all; nor was there any necessity that it should be so believed. So although the marks listed in the Canon, if present, constitute manifest proof that the doctrine they relate to is a dogma of the Catholic faith, their absence by no means necessarily proves that a given doctrine was not contained in the deposit of faith; neither does it prove that a doctrine, which, for want of sufficient proposition at a given time, did not need to be explicitly believed, may not at some other time be the object of obligatory belief. So the Canon is true in the affirmative sense, but cannot be admitted in the negative and exclusive sense.

II

If the Canon is considered in context, and together with the explanations set forth by Saint Vincent, it appears that its meaning is as follows:

a) The absolute antiquity or apostolicity of a doctrine is not proposed as a mark whereby to establish anything else; it is itself the very point being investigated.

b) As marks by which the apostolicity of a doctrine can be known, two characteristics are proposed:
   i) universality, i.e. the present consensus of the Church, and,
   ii) the consensus of antiquity,96 to be understood in a relative sense, i.e. a consensus shown to have existed before the controversy arose.

By either of these two marks absolute antiquity can be known and inferred. For when, by virtue either of a solemn judgment of the authentic magisterium (whether of an ecuмenical council or of the pope) or by the unanimous preaching of the Church, a universal present consensus is clear and manifest, this alone suffices of itself; but if, through the arising of a controversy, this consensus were to become less apparent, or were not acknowledged by the adversaries to be confuted, then—says Vincent—appeal must be made to the manifest consensus of antiquity, or to solemn judgements, or to the consentient convictions of the Fathers.

Finally, if, in some polemical altercation, the heretics were to go so far as not even to venerate the authority of the preceding Fathers, he admits that we have no remaining common principle between them and us save the authority of Scripture. That the foregoing interpretation is the true one is clear from the entire context of Saint Vincent’s Commonitorium.

a) He says that one must hold “what has been believed everywhere, always and by all,” without distinguishing whether it was so believed implicitly or explicitly (Chapter 2). But then he indicates marks by which we can come to know whether something was thus believed everywhere, always and by all, and these marks are: universality, antiquity and consensus. “This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consensus.” Hence, “what has been believed everywhere, always and by all” is not itself a criterion [of the duty to believe] but is rather something to be established by means of distinct criteria, namely universality, antiquity and consensus.
b) What Vincent means by universality he explains straight away: “We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses.” Hence universality is the agreement of the entire Church, and, insofar as it is distinct from the mark of antiquity, it is the consent of the Church at this present time when the controversy has arisen. This is manifest from Chapter 3 in which Vincent contrasts universality, as the present consensus, which can be troubled by newly invented errors, with antiquity, i.e. the agreement of the previous age “which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty”. Moreover in the Chapter 29 he says that universal consent is to be followed “lest we...be torn from the integrity of unity and carried away to schism,” which he illustrates in Chapter 4 by the example of the Catholics in Africa, who “detesting the profane schism [of Donatus], continued in communion with all the churches of the world [which were at that time in agreement].”
c) The mark of antiquity is understood by Vincent in the sense of relative antiquity, whereby absolute antiquity or apostolicity is to be inferred: this is clear from his entire manner of reasoning. For he invariably situates antiquity in the judgement of preceding Fathers or Councils—a judgement existing before the appearance of the heresy to be refuted or the controversy to be decided. “In antiquity itself..., to the temerity of one or of a very few, they must prefer, first of all, the general decrees, if such there be, of a Universal Council, or if there be no such, then, what is next best, they must follow the consentient belief of many and great masters.” (Chapter 27)97 And in Chapter 28 he says that to ancient heresies one should oppose councils which took place before those heresies arose, while, if even these councils are condemned by the heretics, there remains only the common source of Scripture to use in argument against them.
d) Finally, Saint Vincent of Lerins everywhere clearly teaches that either one of these two marks—i.e. universal consent and the agreement of antiquity—suffices to demonstrate the apostolicity of a doctrine. Thus in Chapter 3 he writes : i) “What then will a Catholic Christian do if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member?” Here universal consent is opposed to local error. ii) “What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity.” Here antiquity is appealed to in the event that contemporary controversies should have muddied the waters and made it hard to establish for the time being the belief of the universal Church. There can therefore be no doubt that the true sense of the Vincentian Canon is the sense explained in our thesis. Any doctrine which is supported by neither of these two marks must be considered as being, at best, not yet sufficiently proposed to Catholic faith; and a doctrine which is repugnant to either mark must be considered to be a profane novelty.

Publishers’ Note. The foregoing text appears as Thesis XXIV in Franzelin’s masterpiece De Divina Traditione et Scriptura (Rome, 1875).

Footnotes:
93 See Theses V, n. iii ; VIII, nn. I, ii ; Corollary I to Thesis IX; Thesis XI, n. ii.
94 See Theses XIV, XV.
95 See Corollary ii to Thesis IX and Thesis XXIII.
96 Vincent’s apparently tripartite division in certain chapters : universitas, antiquitas, consensio, in fact contains not three but only two truly distinct parts, as is apparent from the author’s own explanation., and in Chapter 29 (i.e. the Recapitulation which is all that survives of the second Commonitorium), he himself reduces the three to two: “Regard must be had to the consentient voice of universality equally with that of antiquity.”
97 There are no grounds for seeing in this or other passages from Saint Vincent of Lerins an error against the infallible authority of the definitions of the Roman Pontiff. Saint Vincent’s intention is to set out criteria of doctrinal apostolicity not only for the benefit of Catholics, but also for polemical use against the novelties of heretics—criteria which no one shall be able to refuse.
a) He offers these criteria against “only...those heresies which are new and recent, and that on their first arising.” (Chapter 28) So, given his supposition that no direct judgement has yet been made against them, he could not fittingly appeal to a papal definition either.
b) The criteria which he adduces are entirely true. His choice of them does not imply that he denies and excludes other criteria that may be applicable according to circuмstances.
c) In the criteria which he sets forth, the authentic judgement of the Apostolic See is at least implicitly included. For when such a judgement exists, either it authentically declares the antiquity of the consensus, or else it most certainly brings about universality. Hence if there is an extant pontifical definition promulgated in antiquity...it will always be possible to appeal to “the consentient belief of many and great masters” (Chapter 27).
d) For Vincent of Lerins, as for Irenæus before him, it is enough to appeal to the authority of the Apostolic See in order to establish the apostolicity of a doctrine. He makes this quite clear in Chapter 6: “It has always been the case in the Church, that the more a man is under the influence of religion, so much the more prompt is he to oppose innovations. Examples there are without number : but to be brief, we will take one, and that, in preference to others, from the Apostolic See, so that it may be clearer than day to everyone with how great energy, with how great zeal, with how great earnestness, the blessed successors of the blessed Apostles [i.e. the Roman Pontiffs] have constantly defended the integrity of the religion which they have once received.” He then recounts the innovation of the re-baptisers from Agrippinus of Carthage, before pursuing in the following terms : “When then all men protested against the novelty, and the priesthood everywhere, each as his zeal prompted him, opposed it, Pope Stephen of blessed memory, Prelate of the Apostolic See, in conjunction indeed with his colleagues but yet himself the foremost, withstood it, thinking it right, I doubt not, that as he exceeded all others in the authority of his position [“loci auctoritate superabat”], so he should also in the devotion of his faith. In fine, in an epistle sent at the time to Africa, he laid down this rule: Let there be no innovation—nothing but what has been handed down... What then was the issue of the whole matter? What but the usual and customary one? Antiquity was retained, novelty was rejected.”

They think that the ordinary and universal magisterium pertains to extension merely in place, but not in time, i.e. tradition.

Now let us read Cardinal Franzelin, theologian of great weight and papal theologian at Vatican I:

If the Canon is considered in context, and together with the explanations set forth by Saint Vincent, it appears that its meaning is as follows:

a) The absolute antiquity or apostolicity of a doctrine is not proposed as a mark whereby to establish anything else; it is itself the very point being investigated.

b) As marks by which the apostolicity of a doctrine can be known, two characteristics are proposed:
    i) universality, i.e. the present consensus of the Church, and,
    ii) the consensus of antiquity,96 to be understood in a relative sense, i.e. a consensus shown to have existed before the controversy arose.

By either of these two marks absolute antiquity can be known and inferred. For when, by virtue either of a solemn judgment of the authentic magisterium (whether of an ecuмenical council or of the pope) or by the unanimous preaching of the Church, a universal present consensus is clear and manifest, this alone suffices of itself; but if, through the arising of a controversy, this consensus were to become less apparent, or were not acknowledged by the adversaries to be confuted, then—says Vincent—appeal must be made to the manifest consensus of antiquity, or to solemn judgements, or to the consentient convictions of the Fathers.

Quote from: Caminus

And here is a further elucidation on the subject.

Of course we would expect an SSPX publication to support the SSPX position.  But the SSPX position is a novelty on this point.  Is it credible that Jesus Christ intended the Church's teaching authority to be one that the people, at any given time, must research her current teachings to see if they conform to all previous teachings of the Church?

This is like telling children in the first grade not to listen to the teacher unless they can confirm that her lessons in phonics agree with all previous teachings on the matter of pronunciation.  I readily admit that this is not a perfect analogy since pronunciation changes over time, but the point is that the faithful cannot receive teaching by the magisterium if the faithful are obliged to research all current teaching prior to accepting it and such ability is, quite frankly, beyond the ability of the vast majority of the faithful.

It is an implicit denial of the proximate rule of faith.

The rule of faith. It seems timely to add here a few remarks on the rule of faith. This term signifies the standard or norm according to which each individual Christian must determine what is the material object of his faith.

Protestants claim that the written Word of God, Holy Scripture, and that alone, is the one rule of faith. Catholics, on the other hand, even though they, too, admit that our faith must be regulated in the final analysis by the Word of God — including tradition as well as Scripture — hold that the proximate and immediate rule of faith — that rule to which each of the faithful and each generation of the faithful must look directly — is the preaching of the Church. And so, according to Catholics, there exists a twofold rule of faith: one remote and one proximate. The remote rule of faith is the Word of God (handed down in writing or orally), which was directly entrusted to the Church's rulers that from it they might teach and guide the faithful. The proximate rule of faith, from which the faithful, one and all, are bound to accept their faith and in accordance with which they are to regulate it, is the preaching of the ecclesiastical magisterium.(27) The following assertions concern the proximate rule of faith.

1. The Church's preaching was established by Christ Himself as the rule of faith. This can be proved from Matthew 28:19—20 and Mark 16:15—16; the command to teach all nations certainly implies a corresponding duty on the part of the nations to believe whatever the apostles and their successors teach, On the other hand, there is no notice anywhere of Christ's having commanded the apostles to give the people the doctrine of salvation in writing, and never did He command the faithful as a whole to seek their faith in the Bible.(28)

2. The Church's preaching is a rule of faith which is nicely accommodated to people's needs. For (a) it is an easy rule, one that can be observed by all alike, even the uneducated and unlettered. What could be easier than to give ear to a magisterium that is always at hand and always preaching? (b) It is a safe rule, for the Church's teaching office is infallible in safeguarding and presenting Christ's doctrine. (c) It is a living rule, in accordance with which it is possible in any age to explain the meaning of doctrines and to put an end to controversies.

Quote from: Caminus

And here is a further elucidation on the subject.

Of course we would expect an SSPX publication to support the SSPX position.  But the SSPX position is a novelty on this point.  Is it credible that Jesus Christ intended the Church's teaching authority to be one that the people, at any given time, must research her current teachings to see if they conform to all previous teachings of the Church?

This is like telling children in the first grade not to listen to the teacher unless they can confirm that her lessons in phonics agree with all previous teachings on the matter of pronunciation.  I readily admit that this is not a perfect analogy since pronunciation changes over time, but the point is that the faithful cannot receive teaching by the magisterium if the faithful are obliged to research all current teaching prior to accepting it and such ability is, quite frankly, beyond the ability of the vast majority of the faithful.

A momentary historical circuмstance doesn't amount to a principle.  We live is a very special time as I'm sure you realize.  Those disobedient men who were once condemned now occupy the highest offices of the Church.  Now it is precisely because our Catholic faith and doctrine is coherent that we can know when something is amiss.  We all agree with the Novus Ordo on the articles of faith.  The things that are destroying the faith are questions of doctrine and practice that support its integrity.  The disintegration of the Church is clearly a purification, but this fact doesn't mitigate against the essential notes of the Church as I'm sure you'll concede.      

Stevus, you don't accept the authority of the Bishop.  All your protests to the contrary don't change the reality.  Sophistical evasions that you don't have to obey morally bad commands are just that - it's not up to you to decide whether or not the masses the bishop approves are good or bad.

You and the SSPXers systematically refuse to accept the Bishop's authority, but then you have the temerity to accuse sedes of going too far.

Having a Bishop you don't obey is trying to have it both ways.

And you know it.

I love how you can read souls. You should become a priest!

Unfortunately, you feign the inability to grasp a simple point which I'm certain you really do understand (I can read souls too!).  :wink:

Disobeying a particular command of someone in authority is not denying their legitimately holding their office.  It is our responsibility to use our free will and intellect to make choices regarding the morality of our actions based on Catholic principles. The bishop is not infallible, last I checked, and can give bad commands. However, as I said, this principle is really moot because the bishops don't give any commands these days.

The bishop sits in his office, makes sure the money comes in, doesn't make waves, visits with politiciands, and attends fundraisers and dinner parties until he retires. When is the last time your bishop asked squat of you or commanded you to do anything? Most bishops with Society chapels in their dioceses simply act as if they did not exist and go on about their business. They don't even provide alternate TLM's under the MP. They could care less.

Meanwhile ROME has said it is not sinful to assist at their Masses. So HOW in the world are Catholics who assist at Society Masses deying their bishops are bishops and have ANY authority as Catholic bishops? That position is absurd.

Are you honestly telling me, if your bishop ordered you to stop saying your rosary your only choices would be:

1.) Decide that he is not really a Catholic bishop, though the Church says he is, and disregard any and all commands he gives from that moment onward (even if he later says we should say the stations of the cross or some such Traditional act).

or

2.) Forgo saying one's rosary like a mind-numbed automaton (Neo-Cath) and submit out of blind obedience.

This is the ridiculous false dichotomy the sedes set up which drives them to an extreme position that turns them into de facto Protestants living in their own false reality. I know you are too bright to fall for this, though your current anger at the Society may have you flirting with it. Stay away.