[Pax Vobis]

The Infallible definitions are to show us what has been Divinely Revealed. The rest is protected by the Dogma of the Supreme Power given by Our Lord to St. Peter and his successors to govern, rule, and teach the whole Church.

Ok, so let me get this straight:
1.  Infallible teachings tell us 100% that something is Divinely revealed.
2.  Other teachings are like "infallible lite" teachings because they are binding and error-free but since not infallible, we can't be sure that they are Divinely revealed.
So what you're saying is that the Church can teach things other that what Christ revealed?  She can add to, or subtract from Scripture/Tradition?  This has to be right, based on your definitions.

[Pax Vobis]

Everything that is not a definition would be for the general good of the Church and therefore may not be contradicted by the faithful.

You didn't answer my question.
So, a non-definition is for the 'general good' and may not be 'contradicted'.
What do you mean by being 'contradicted'?  Must we believe it with a 'certainty of faith'?  Can it ever be changed or added to in the future?
Are you saying it's just a 'church law' which a future pope could change, since its not divinely revealed?
Are you saying, even if it deals with faith and morals, that it's not a dogma or doctrine, but just a law, like canon law?

[Pax Vobis]

Ok, so you're saying that a non-infallible statement is treated as if it's infallible, if it comes from an ecuмenical council?  So, in essense, the requirements of V1 do not apply, and infallibility is pointless at an ecuмenical council?  Why waste time formulating and conforming to the rules of V1 (which require precision and thinking) when a general council is "protected" regardless, right?

Can you show how this "Dogma of the Authority given the Pope by Our Lord." works?  You said:
 

If an Ecuмenical Council says that Religious Liberty is part of Divine Revelation and you believe Paul VI is a real pope, it cannot be changed in the future.

Ok, but that means that Paul VI contradicted a previous pope's infallible statement.  So is Paul VI's non-infallible statement on the same level as the other pope's infallible one?  Seems like a contradiction.  What is more important - the power of authority, or the power of infallibility? 

[Ladislaus]

Well, V2 said Religious Liberty is "rooted in" Revelation and not part of Revelation ... so IMO it lands short of being something definable de fide.  Nevertheless, if a legitimate Ecuмenical Council teaches something like that to the entire Church, one must hold that to be at least theologically certain and no longer disputable by Catholics.

[Ladislaus]

Ok, so you're saying that a non-infallible statement is treated as if it's infallible, if it comes from an ecuмenical council?  So, in essense, the requirements of V1 do not apply, and infallibility is pointless at an ecuмenical council?  Why waste time formulating and conforming to the rules of V1 (which require precision and thinking) when a general council is "protected" regardless, right?

Can you show how this "Dogma of the Authority given the Pope by Our Lord." works?  You said:
 Ok, but that means that Paul VI contradicted a previous pope's infallible statement.  So is Paul VI's non-infallible statement on the same level as the other pope's infallible one?  Seems like a contradiction.  What is more important - the power of authority, or the power of infallibility?

I know you're not addressing it to me, but I do not hold that everything in an Ecuмenical Council is infallible.  But the one note of teaching ex cathedra to the Universal Church is inherently present ... and therefore it's an "organ" of infallibility.  With regard to any content therein, it would have to meet the other notes, such as defining a matter of faith and morals as something to be held by the faithful.

But I, on the other hand, am arguing from infallible safety.  Like Msgr. Fenton, I believe in the notion of infallible safety as he outlined it.  There cannot be in this teaching any substantial error that would harm faith (or morals).  With Religious Liberty and other things in Vatican II, we're not talking about some offhand comment or a descriptive text.  Vatican II had an entire docuмent teaching the notion of Religious Liberty.  For this to be substantially erroneous and harmful to the faith is to completely negate the notion that the Church's Universal Magisterium is protected from error at least at a high level.  It's essentially blasphemous to the Church and to her integrity to say that an Ecuмenical Council could produce such a pile of rubbish that's harmful to faith.

[Ladislaus]

V2 said it is rooted in and in accord with Divine Revelation/Revelation of God. This is the same as saying it is part of Divine Revelation. It's that same as any Dogma that gets defined that may not be explicit in Scripture or Tradition. Saying rooted in means it is formed or developed using Divine Revelation as it's basis. One could not reasonably say that something formed or rooted in Divine Revelation would not be infallible matter.
Overall though, it doesn't matter, because it was taught by a supposed Council and if legit may not be disputed.

I don't agree that "rooted in" is the same as "part of", but I completely agree with your last sentence (which I bolded above -- by "legit" you mean the Council).

[Pax Vobis]

Well, V2 said Religious Liberty is "rooted in" Revelation and not part of Revelation ... so IMO it lands short of being something definable de fide. 

Exactly.  Imprecise, ambiguous, absolutely-WAY SHORT-of-being-de-fide theologically "persuasive writing".  That's all it is.  An argument.  It's not de fide, so one can take it or leave it.

Nevertheless, if a legitimate Ecuмenical Council teaches something like that to the entire Church, one must hold that to be at least theologically certain and no longer disputable by Catholics.

If it's not "de fide" then it's not a FORMAL teaching.  If you're saying that it's a lessor teaching, then ok (whatever that means).  I will sign a docuмent that says I believe that "Religious Liberty is "rooted in" Revelation must be understood according to previous "de fide" definitions. 

I will define 'religious liberty' in the context of tradition and it's infallible statements, 2) I will interpret "rooted in Revelation" according to tradition.  In absense of a "de fide" pronouncement, we MUST revert to previous "de fide" pronouncements.  We cannot look at V2 in isolation, which is what they want.  A non-solemn, non-doctrinal V2 does not override or overrule a previous doctrinal statement/council.

[Pax Vobis]

1.  Divine Revelation is not the same as 'revelation of God'.  If it was, why create a new term and not use 'Divine Revelation'?  Answer: because catholics know the term 'Divine Revelation' and what it means; 'revelation of God' could mean the same, it could not.  Why didn't they say 'revelation FROM God'?  "of god" is imprecise and they used it on purpose, to confuse.

2.  Define "human dignity".  Again, another freemasonic, made up phrase.

3.  "Acknowledges" does not mean "teaches" or "authoritatively binds the faithful".  More passive wording.

[Pax Vobis]

Please use Revelation of God in a erroneous sense.

If one tries to think like a modernist, like a liar and a hater of Christ, then one might be able to grasp the cunning and sickness of V2.  I don't recommend it, but it's the only 'theme' that repeats itself throughout the V2 docuмents.

If you keep in mind that 'religious liberty' means that conscience is the moral guide, even for people of different faiths, then you would see that 'revelation of god' could mean that a muslim's consciences could be correct, because they are enlightened by a "revelation of (his) god".  This is not a direct teaching, but is implied passively, as usual.

'Divine Revelation' refers to a specific idea in catholic theology and also implies ONE Divinity (i.e. the one, true God).  V2 did not use this because modernists believe in a freemasonic-dual divinity and want all religions to be equal.

[Ladislaus]

Interesting that Pax was looking for the word "decree" and you have it right that at the end of DH:  "decreeing"

[Ladislaus]

If one tries to think like a modernist, like a liar and a hater of Christ, then one might be able to grasp the cunning and sickness of V2.  I don't recommend it, but it's the only 'theme' that repeats itself throughout the V2 docuмents.

If you keep in mind that 'religious liberty' means that conscience is the moral guide, even for people of different faiths, then you would see that 'revelation of god' could mean that a muslim's consciences could be correct, because they are enlightened by a "revelation of (his) god".  This is not a direct teaching, but is implied passively, as usual.

'Divine Revelation' refers to a specific idea in catholic theology and also implies ONE Divinity (i.e. the one, true God).  V2 did not use this because modernists believe in a freemasonic-dual divinity and want all religions to be equal.

Sorry, Pax, but I'm not willing to concede that the Holy Ghost would give to the Church even a bunch of ambiguous duplicitous double-meaning unintelligible insipid crap ... much less actual error.

[Ladislaus]

It's not de fide, so one can take it or leave it.

If it's not "de fide" then it's not a FORMAL teaching.

bzzzt ... completely false.

That's the R&R fallacy that anything short of de fide truths are optional or "take it or leave it".

Please do some research into the "theological notes".

[MyrnaM]

Sorry, Pax, but I'm not willing to concede that the Holy Ghost would give to the Church even a bunch of ambiguous duplicitous double-meaning unintelligible insipid crap ... much less actual error.

Yes, and those who do accept this are only trying to make excuses to have their pope and hate him too.

[Meg]

Yes, and those who do accept this are only trying to make excuses to have their pope and hate him too.

Who here has said that they hate the Pope?

[MyrnaM]

Who here has said that they hate the Pope?

Actions speak louder than words.


Are you Meg willing to take the oath of Fidelity to Francis?  Today clerics tomorrow YOU!

Fidelity