Great talk by Fr. Cekada (RIP) on the Magisterium. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjZrdqE8vTxAhU1GVkFHUwqA1oQtwIwAHoECA0QAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DC62geX2fb-c&usg=AOvVaw2EawoYHZAAx3-Pcw7Go0qf

Shows that infallibility goes well beyond Ex Cathedra statements

From about 7:20 to around the 8:00 mark is not true, rather he is preaching the exact same error as Pope Paul VI's Lumen Gentium - 25, which teaching was instrumental in the perpetration of the NO.

So far, no one has been able to produce this actual teaching from any source prior to the last few centuries.

 

So what? You don’t get to dismiss the last few centuries of Tradition

So what? You don’t get to dismiss the last few centuries of Tradition

What I am telling you is that he is preaching a NO doctrine, it is not a Catholic doctrine he is preaching, it's a NO doctrine - but if you can find the teaching from a source prior to the last few centuries, then please post it.

What he is actually preaching is the NO perversion of what happened at Pentecost. Pentecost is where, by virtue of the Holy Ghost descending upon the Apostles, all the Apostles were individually infallible.

As such, when the Apostles were together or dispersed throughout the world, whatever the Apostles taught regarding the faith and Church was infallible because of what happened to them at Pentecost.

The NO had their Pentecost at V2, which is where the NO doctrine teaches that whatever all the bishops in unison with the pope whether in a council or dispersed throughout the world teach, is infallible. See Lumen Gentium #25

If it is not a NO doctrine, then we can do like the NO and dismiss all of tradition just like the NO, because whatever the unanimous opinion of the pope and bishops are is all that matters.

I did not watch much beyond the 8 minute mark but plan to tomorrow.

Something being taught in the last few centuries doesn’t make it an NO doctrine

No, but after having briefly explained it to you, I would think it should strike you as being obvious.

Another point for you to ponder....There is or was nothing added, nor can there ever be anything added to the Deposit of Faith since the death of the last Apostle - so what need is there to have all the bishops infallible? The whole idea is actually preposterous when you stop to think about it.

Yet if it were in fact a Catholic doctrine, then trads have no choice but to abandon tradition and embrace the NO - because all the bishops in unison with the pope teach the NO religion.

Enter V2, the "New Pentecost". LG 25, like all things NO, changed the true doctrine of the Church into a false doctrine of the new church by taking the birth of the Church at Pentecost, and from that, spinning a new doctrine to fit the new birth of the new church. In this new, NO Pentecost, is where we find the false doctrine of infallibility, because it is not based on the teaching revealed truth, rather, it is based on the collegiality, i.e. the unison of the hierarchy all teaching the same (wrong) thing, re: LG 25. It's truly diabolical, albeit an integral ingredient for the NO to get the people to go NO - this is what he was preaching from the pulpit.

You lost me.  So you are saying the Church only teaches infallibly when its a doctrine defined ex cathedra by a Pope?  
In regards to your idea we have to abandon the faith and go back to the no, whenever those bishops signed off on the vatican 2 docuмents they all formally became heretics in my opinion.  As a bishop their job is to know and teach the faith and when they signed those docuмents they separated themselves from the Church, thus anything they tried to teach at that point is null and void in regards including v2 and beyond. Again that's just my opinion.

I am saying that, if "all the bishops in unison..."  is in fact an infallible doctrine of the Church, which it isn't, but if it is, then we are bound to believe it - period. End of discussion on that. Being that we are bound to believe it, we are bound to believe and embrace what they all teach - the thing they all teach is the new religion of the NO.

Because it is an infallible doctrine, which it isn't but if it were, what Catholics cannot do, is Catholics cannot reject it as if it's wrong, or as if the pope and bishops are all outside of the Church, we cannot do that - because it's infallible that whatever they all teach is infallible - and because it's an infallible doctrine of the Church, which it isn't but if it were, then we must leave traddiedom just as the pope and all the bishops in unison with the pope have done and teach, and embrace the NO religion, because THAT'S what all the bishops teach in unison with the pope.  

Instead of realizing that "doctrine" is obviously false, sedes, as Fr. Cekada demonstrates, accept that false NO "doctrine" as being 1) true, 2) wholly reject what they consider to be an infallible doctrine, and instead 3) decide the pope (and depending on sede) and bishops are false.  

I believe the same as Fr. Hesse puts it, that Vatican I's Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor Aeternus, is the Church's full and complete dogmatic teaching on papal infallibility, that it lacks nothing in this regard - "everything is in there."

The pope is not impeccable, but he and only he alone is promised infallibility - and only when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra. Simple, no?  As it says in The Great Sacrilege, "The doctrine of papal infallibility, by stating in what respect the pope cannot err, admits, in effect, that in all other areas of his vast prerogatives the pope is completely fallible".  

And from the first part I saw of the video, per Pope Pius IX, his idea of the Church's Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is at least confused, if not altogether wrong....which to some extent explains his belief in the NO doctrine above.

Father did not say "all the bishops in unison".  He said all the bishops in union with the pope. This video is not speaking merely to papal infallibility, but to the infallibility of the Church as a whole (bishops in union with the pope).  

Father did not say "all the bishops in unison".  He said all the bishops in union with the pope.

Means the same thing.  The point is, the pope's authority and infallibility are all that matters.  He can invite the Bishops for their opinion or go alone.  The false notion of "all the bishops" having some unique power is a pre-V2 novelty that crept in and led to V2's heresy of "collegiality" (i.e. democracy in the Church).
.
I'm not saying Fr Cekada believed in collegiality but just pointing out that this error crept in way earlier than the 60s.
.

This video is not speaking merely to papal infallibility, but to the infallibility of the Church as a whole (bishops in union with the pope).

There's no such thing as "Church infallibility".  A council is only infallible because the pope gives it infallibility. 

The issue is the Vatican Council did not clearly outlie what "Ordinary Universal Magisterium" means. I am unsure about the Pope question at the moment.

Everything was explained in great detail, but it was explained during the official relatio delivered during the Council and in the questions and answer that followed; not in Dei Filius itself.  There are three things to consider:

1) The teacher
2) The doctrine taught.
3) The mode of teaching.

1) The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is the teachers, and as Bishop Martin explained during the Council, it consists of all the bishops dispersed throughout the  world. Not the bishops gathered together in a council (and there is an important reason for that), but the bishops dispersed in their diocese.

2) According to the teaching of De Filius, the doctrine taught is a revealed truth.   That doesn't mean the infallibility of the OUM can't apply to a non-revealed truth, but it does mean that the teaching of Vatican I pertains only to revealed truths.

3) The part that hardly anyone understands is how the doctrine must be taught to be infallibly by virtue of the OUM.  It must be proposed in a definitive and absolutely binding manner, in such a way that all the bishops believe it to be a dogma, even though it has not been solemnly defined by a single act of the Church.   The doctrine in question must be one that is owed the unqualified assent of divine and Catholic faith. That is the level of assent that is only owed to dogmas.  This greatly limits the subject matter that is infallible by the force of the ordinary and universal magisterium.  

An example of truths that are infallible by the OUM are 1) that Christ was transfigured on Mt. Tabor, 2) that he sweat blood in the Garden of Gethsemane, 3) that He said "Father into thy hands I commend my sprit" before dying on the cross.  None of these revealed truths have been solemnly defined, yet they are truths that the Magisterium has always taught as literal truths, as written, and which all Catholics must believe with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.

The reason the Council taught this doctrine concerning the OUM was to counter an error known as dogmatic minimalism, which emerged during the previous century. According to this error, only what the Church had solemnly defined required to assent of faith, and nothing else.  If that were the case, only the teachings of Scripture that had been solemnly defined would be part of the Catholic rule of faith - that is, they alone would constitute the body of doctrines that all Catholics must believe by faith.   That is clearly not the case.

What nearly everyone mistakenly believes, including Fr. Cekada and, from what I have been able to gather, ALL sedevacantist priests, is if any doctrine is generally accepted by all the bishops, or if a doctrine is addressed by the pope to the universal Church, it meets the conditions for infallibility by virtue of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.  This is entirely false and it is one of the principle errors that leads people to embrace the sedevacantist error.  

Only the undefined doctrines that the entire Magisterium agrees must be believed with divine and Catholic faith meet the conditions for the infallibility of the OUM.