https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_7V64ozJXM&feature=youtu.be

At about 7:25, Fr. Cekada says;
"Now, the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, what does that mean? [he answers]  That is the teaching of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, that is to say the pope and bishops together, whether in council or whether dispersed throughout the world concerning faith and morals.........now this teaching too is infallible, this teaching too, is free from error."
 

At about 10:10 he goes on;
"The Universal Extraordinary and the Universal Ordinary Magisterium both [are] infallible. The Extraordinary Magisterium, these rare solemn pronouncements, are somehow not more infallible than the ordinary magisterium, nor does it somehow trump the teaching of the UOM because the idea is that the truth is one.............both are part of the same magisterium, both teach the same thing, both must be believed."


A little further on he says; "it is the UOM that proves the falsehood of Vatican 2 and proves the loss of authority on the part of the post conciliar popes, so called. That the dealing of V2 on matters such as religious liberty, contradicts the previous teaching of the UOM, and therefore, cannot be accepted, must be rejected as something that is heretical because it contradicts what the Church has taught before.


20:47
Catholics are obliged then to give the ascent of faith, not only to doctrines that are expressly defined in the rare solemn pronouncements of popes and ecuмenical councils, but also to those teachings that are propose by the UOM.

The UOM once again is this -   the teaching of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, that is to say the pope and bishops together, throughout the world, whether in council or dispersed throughout the world concerning faith and morals. Now this teaching too as Catholics, we are obliged to believe, it is always free from error, and it is that very teaching that puts the lie to the notion that the post V2 church represents the true Church of Christ.  

I watched this video and can hardly believe how blatantly Fr. confuses and contradicts his own definition of the infallibility of the UOM. Anyone else see this?

Per Fr. Cekada:
The UOM is the teaching of the pope and bishops together in Council.
The UOM is infallible.
The UOM is always free from error.
The UOM must be believed.



Yet, the Novus Ordo, because it is the teaching of the pope and bishops together in the Second Vatican Council, is, by his own definition, a teaching of the UOM - this much is indisputable. As such, V2 is therefore infallible and must be believed. But per Fr. Cekada, the UOM must be believed, just not in this case?  :scratchchin:

Is Fr. Cekada an accurate representative of SV theology here? Because what he teaches in that video is not representative of Catholic theology and decidedly misrepresents Catholic teaching on infallibility.  

Could one of you people please identify the theologians who have taught, as you say, that Catholics are free to reject the Universal Ordinary Magisterium's teachings?

Could one of you people please identify the theologians who have taught, as you say, that Catholics are free to reject the Universal Ordinary Magisterium's teachings?

You're missing the point, as per usual.  Stubborn's point was that V2 would at least qualify as a teaching of the OUM.

Quote from: TKGS

Could one of you people please identify the theologians who have taught, as you say, that Catholics are free to reject the Universal Ordinary Magisterium's teachings?

You're missing the point, as per usual.  Stubborn's point was that V2 would at least qualify as a teaching of the OUM.

Tell me how it qualifies as UOM when it contradicts the UOM.

I can see only two possibilities if the teachings of Vatican 2 are part of the Universal Ordinary (or Extraordinary) Magisterium):

1.  The Church was wrong before Vatican 2.

2.  The Church is wrong now.

Or you're missing some distinction that would make them reconcilable.  And THIS is the problem I have with SVism.  You act as if it's certain with the certainty of faith that these two are in contradiction, but in point of fact you're using your private judgment to determine this.

Yes, it sure looks like it to me too, that these are in contradiction.  But I also realize that my private judgment cannot resolve this matter with the requisite certainty.  In fact, there's ZERO contradiction between these if you hold the same ecclesiology as most Traditional Catholics.

That's why I'm on the fence.  If someone could convince me that my own ecclesiology is wrong and that of the Cushingites is right, then I immediately drop all opposition to Vatican II.

Quote from: TKGS

I can see only two possibilities if the teachings of Vatican 2 are part of the Universal Ordinary (or Extraordinary) Magisterium):

1.  The Church was wrong before Vatican 2.

2.  The Church is wrong now.

Or you're missing some distinction that would make them reconcilable.  And THIS is the problem I have with SVism.  You act as if it's certain with the certainty of faith that these two are in contradiction, but in point of fact you're using your private judgment to determine this.

Yes, it sure looks like it to me too, that these are in contradiction.  But I also realize that my private judgment cannot resolve this matter with the requisite certainty.  In fact, there's ZERO contradiction between these if you hold the same ecclesiology as most Traditional Catholics.

That's why I'm on the fence.  If someone could convince me that my own ecclesiology is wrong and that of the Cushingites is right, then I immediately drop all opposition to Vatican II.

I agree with your point that the main errors of Vatican II are in regard to ecclesiology and soteriology and that many Traditionalists unfortunately hold them too, nevertheless I think that the "Cushingite" ecclesiology is not the only problem of Vatican II and even adopting it is not enough to "drop all opposition to Vatican II". There are still scandalous statements in Nostra Aetate regarding false religions - Traditionalists, and even many Novus Ordites who believe in salvation through invincible ignorance insist that the infidels are saved "in their religion", but not "through their religion" (as Archbishop Lefebvre unfortunately taught), while Vatican II teaches that false religions themselves have positive qualities and bring their adherents closer to God. This gave rise to heresies expressed by V2 Popes and members of the Conciliar Church that the Old Covenant is still valid and Jєωs can be saved by it, that Muslims can be saved through observing Islam, that God manifests himself to people through false religions (explicitly taught by John Paul II in Redemptoris Misso) etc. On the other hand, Traditionalists who unfortunately hold to salvation through invincible ignorance nevertheless believe that false religions are an abomination for God and people are not saved through them. So the error of Vatican II is much deeper than that of "Cushingite" Traditionalists.

In short:
1. Vatican II and Conciliar Church: people are saved in non-Catholic Churches/non-Christian religions and these Churches/religions are positive means of their salvation.
2. "Cushingite" Traditionalists: false religions are an abomination and the non-Catholic Churches are heretical, but people in them can be saved in spite of that.

Even though both positions are erroneous, the difference is crucial - Vatican II position taken to its logical conclusion leads to the endorsement of false religions (for which the V2 Popes are indeed notorious) and the ecuмenical apostasy we see right now, while "Cushingite" Traditionalists' position does not.



Then we have Vatican II's admiration of man expressed especially in Gaudium et Spes, which gave rise to humanism and anthropocentrism we are observing currently in the Conciliar Church.

Finally, the problem with Vatican II is not only its explicit teachings, but also employed modernist hermeneutics which became rampant after the Council and which notoriously mark the later Papal docuмents and actions of the Conciliar hierarchy.  

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: TKGS

Could one of you people please identify the theologians who have taught, as you say, that Catholics are free to reject the Universal Ordinary Magisterium's teachings?

You're missing the point, as per usual.  Stubborn's point was that V2 would at least qualify as a teaching of the OUM.

Tell me how it qualifies as UOM when it contradicts the UOM.

Tell me how the UOM was able to produce the Novus Ordo.

Where has anyone said that the UOM produced the NO?  The UOM didn't produce the NO.  

Since you are attributing the UOM to the NO, I would still like to see how you think that is possible since the NO contradicts the UOM.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: TKGS

Could one of you people please identify the theologians who have taught, as you say, that Catholics are free to reject the Universal Ordinary Magisterium's teachings?

You're missing the point, as per usual.  Stubborn's point was that V2 would at least qualify as a teaching of the OUM.

Tell me how it qualifies as UOM when it contradicts the UOM.

Tell me how the UOM was able to produce the Novus Ordo.

Where has anyone said that the UOM produced the NO?  The UOM didn't produce the NO.  

Since you are attributing the UOM to the NO, I would still like to see how you think that is possible since the NO contradicts the UOM.

What do you call 2000 bishops and a pope in a council if not the UOM?