No, you are wrong.  Read it.  The word "we" does not mean someone else.

Also, an angel from heaven is an authority.  So someone claiming to have authority who doesn't preach the same gospel is a liar and has no authority in the Church whatsoever.  Obviously, one has to avoid rash or ill-informed judgments so it is a specious argument to frame such a judgment in terms of "Aunt Helen" deciding on a whim that the pope is a heretic.  Does Bishop Sanborn have the authority to judge that Bergoglio has merely the material designation and not the papacy formaliter?  Do you?  If Aunt Helen studied theology informally under seminary professors for 8 years, does she get to make judgments?  If not, then what good is the traditional movement as a whole?  Maybe we should all be in the local novus ordo parish singing "Eagles Wings" and "cuмbaya"?  No, we have the authority to make reasonable judgments.  Just because someone puts up a "Catholic Church" sign in front of their building in our neighborhood doesn't mean we are required to believe them.  St Hypatius rejected Nestorius immediately without any input from authorities.  He was later commended by the pope.

Look at it from the perspective of an adult potential convert.  He isn't being compelled to convert by ecclesiastical authority.  He has to hear the truth about salvation and be convinced.  Once he has accepted the truth of the Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ, true God and true man, our Lord and Savior  and the Catholic Church being the one true Church of Christ, he must then be baptized before he comes under the ecclesiastical authority of the pope and the bishops.  Even when you move to a new city, the bishop doesn't suddenly show up at your home to tell you where the local Catholic Church is.  Even if he did, you still have to be able to identify that he is in fact the bishop.  So even at the lowest levels, you have to make some judgments on your own.  Most people never bother to study theology enough to understand all the details of our Faith.  They just do whatever their priest tells them to do.  That used to be enough to stay out of trouble.

At some point the individual needs to yield their own opinion to the authority of the Holy See and submit with complete docility and humility.

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. 

Why the Neo-SSPX position on the Crisis is untenable - page 5 - Anσnymσus Posts Allowed - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com)

As you say, these are "monumentally difficult questions," and we need to think through them and parse the claims out so to speak. 


We are talking specifically about a teaching regarding indefectibility which posits that a pope and the bishops in union with him cannot teach error Magisterially. Period. That teaching is belied by the Conciliar Church.

The CE article speaks in your terms, but doesn't address the issue of any Magisterial teaching being incapable of error, which, again, is the focus from my end.

So, I do not think you have dealt with this objection:



Quote

Quote

Of course, I understand the "totally off the rails" - I think that's one of Lad's phrases - distinction that is trying to be made. In effect, that is simply saying a "pope" and the "magisterium" have become extremely erroneous, very, very badly erroneous. Either way, it's a claim of error by what constitutes the magisterium of the Church. However, my I think critical point remains: the error(s) come from a body that, under the traditional thinking, could not commit it. A body that we are told cannot commit error and we are bound to listen to. To simply say, when this body goes "totally off the rails," it's not THE BODY, is an evasion of the issues and the crux of the problem. 

Before the "errors," was John XXIII, Paul VI etc. pope of an indefectible Church or not? 

And, where is the "governing body" of this indefectible Church which cannot lose its governing body?

Is the Catholic Magisterium Infallible? - page 3 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com)

Of course, I understand the "totally off the rails" - I think that's one of Lad's phrases - distinction that is trying to be made. In effect, that is simply saying a "pope" and the "magisterium" have become extremely erroneous, very, very badly erroneous. Either way, it's a claim of error by what constitutes the magisterium of the Church. However, my I think critical point remains: the error(s) come from a body that, under the traditional thinking, could not commit it. A body that we are told cannot commit error and we are bound to listen to. To simply say, when this body goes "totally off the rails," it's not THE BODY, is an evasion of the issues and the crux of the problem. 

Paul VI was elected pope in June of 1963. When did the "motives of credibility" apply in accepting his papacy? July of 1963? January of 1964? Why the delay? Are the "motives of credibility" to be suspended for 6 months, a year, two years? Is he a pope whose official Magisterial acts are to be accepted upon his election and acceptance? If not, when are they to be? 


I know you see my point: the prerogatives of indefectible teaching and the necessity of submission fell upon Paul VI at some point before the "errors." The subsequent errors make false the claim the pope's universal magisterium is free from error. Those "errors" occurred at some point after the "motives of credibility" would have said he was pope, and thus from that point the errors would impossible per the traditional - or let's say in vogue - teaching prior to V2. 

Thank you for the dialogue. 

Is the Catholic Magisterium Infallible? - page 3 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com)

Purely theoretical, since a priori those who reject BoD would preclude ever considering any pope who taught it as legitimate.

Hi again, DecemRationes.

I’m afraid that I do not have an answer at this time. It’s a complex epistemological inquiry which is perplexing and difficult to adequately answer in light of the Vatican II era.

The answer would be that a supposed magisterial act was judged not to be magisterial, which differs with rejecting a magisterial act.

Someone could even judge future supposed magisterial acts as fake based on prior evidence he witnessed. For example, a cardinal at the 1958 conclave or one of the agents involved in interfering with the election would know that the election was invalid and could dismiss all acts of the antipope.