In a recent conversation with Ladislaus, I pondered an issue that was brought up that he used to support his thesis. Specifically he pointed to a roughly 700 year period where all Catholics without any docuмented exception believed that unbaptized infants who died in their state suffered positively the fires of hell. This later changed in the Middle Ages to a common teaching that has persisted until today that they do not suffer positively the fires of hell and may in fact be naturally happy!

Now if a 700 year period of common teaching is fallible and malleable then how can we ever determine the OUM? It seems like that basically anything that is not defined Ex Cathedra in explicit and unambiguous terms is up for debate. Is there a solution to this?

I’ve read a number of works on the matter ranging from theological manuals to other works that discussed general principles but all suffer from deficiencies that don’t take the above concerns into sufficient consideration. The solutions seem far fetched and unlikely. Catechisms, encyclicals, and other such factors seem to be meaningless in determining whether OUM has taken place.

For example, the Early Church including two Popes taught that intercourse during menstruation was an abomination regardless of intention. This remained unchanged until Pius XII. The same goes for the idea of deliberate Natural Family Planning.

If something that was held definitively for 2000 years can be changed by a private and ambiguous message to midwives then we have a problem determining OUM. I also add the issue of laity reading scripture, translations to the vernacular, Heliocentrism, and committing acts of disobedience that lead to excommunication for the purpose of “greater good” for the faith all of which were condemned for hundreds of years via various teaching methods and definitively via the Papal Bull Unigenitus (excepting Heliocentrism).

Indeed, discerning what has been taught by the OUM is a bit sticky.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.

But before being bound to give such an 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.

For reference, here are the three organs listed in the article:

1) the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See;
2) ecuмenical councils under the headship of the pope; and
3) the pope himself separately.

It's #1 that the article describes as "practically ineffective."  Why?  Because until you get confirmation of this from organ #2 or organ #3, it's a matter of private judgment in attempting to discern what is and what is not covered under that.

This also speaks to the passing mention of bod (as the promoters of bod assert) in the Council of Trent.  Trent clearly did not intend to define it.  There's no mention of it in the canons (which in fact clarify what the Council intends to teach definitively).  So this notion that Trent defined bod de fide is inaccurate.  Also, Trent clearly mentioned this notion of votum in connection with justification, and not salvation ... and the post-Tridentine theologians CLEARLY distinguish between the two, with some saying, for instance, that implicit faith is adequate for justification, but not salvation.

I agree, Ladislaus.

It seems that Organ #1 is useless (in determining OUM) because declaring when it has occurred outside of Organs 2 & 3 is ultimately subjective and rests on argumentation, not authority. Looks like Organs #2 & #3 are the only sure ways to know with any binding authority.

For the first 1500 years of the Church's history, every Catholic taught and believed that explicit faith in Jesus Christ was necessary for salvation.  If that does not constitute a definitive infallible teaching of the OUM, then there's no such thing.  So the same theorists (like Father Cekada) who hold that one must accept unanimous consensus, suddenly think that it was OK for a Franciscan and a couple of Jesuits to begin dabbling with their innovation of Rewarder God theory.  Why don't they excoriate THESE people are rejecting the 1500-year unanimous consensus on the question?  In fact, the Holy Office rejected Rewarder God theory, and then so did Vatican I.  But they don't go after the Rewarder God theorists ... ever.  This demonstrates a lack of honesty in a selective application of their principles.

Also, what about how pretty much every theologian in the world approved of Vatican II?  We did have a bishop or two dissent and a handful of priests, but none of them were theologians ... well, except Fr.-then-bishop Guerard des Lauriers.