[Meg]

Actions speak louder than words.


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

Fidelity

You said that people here (who believe that Francis is Pope) want to have their pope and hate him too. I asked you who here has said that they hate the Pope, and instead of giving an answer, you obfuscate the question, which is typical for sedes.

Why don't you just answer the question, Myrna? Is it because you're a liar, and you'll say anything at all to prove your nefarious sede agenda?

[MyrnaM]

Do you understand indefectibility?

Yes, it means even Vatican II the concilIARS, Modernists, Freemasons and people like you will be soon gone, and can not change the Roman Catholic Church.  Nor have they even for a second. 

[MyrnaM]

You just don't like the answer Meg.  And if not answering questions make one a liar in your vocabulary you take the cake, go back and see all your excuses for a nonanswer.  

[Meg]

You just don't like the answer Meg.  And if not answering questions make one a liar in your vocabulary you take the cake, go back and see all your excuses for a nonanswer.  

You are a liar, Myrna. No one here, to my knowledge, has said that they hate the Pope. 

Sedevacantism is what will bring down the traditional movement. Satan has his ways to divide people, and sedevacantism is his method. 

[Cantarella]

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

Yet, most insist that the necessity of sacramental baptism for salvation is not quite de fide.

Oh, the irony!

[Pax Vobis]

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.

So what's your conclusion?  My conclusion is that it's not from the Holy Ghost because it's not infallible.  You say it's still protected from error (infallibility-lite), so you have to agree that this is from the Holy Ghost.  Right?  This is how you're arguing anyways.
The only other conclusion is that there was no pope, as the sedes say.  So that makes you a sede (which is not a bad thing) it just means it contradicts your agreement with Fr Chazal.  If I'm wrong, please tell me how.  This is the 3rd time i've asked this question.

[Ladislaus]

Yet, most insist that the necessity of sacramental baptism for salvation is not quite de fide.

Oh, the irony!

Indeed.

[Pax Vobis]

Ladislaus, for the 4th time - if V2 must be accepted, because it was a valid, ecuмenical council (regardless of the meaning of its words, or lack thereof), then how are you not a sedevacantist?  You must then agree with Cantarella and AES and all the others that Paul VI was not a true pope.  What other conclusion is there?

[Pax Vobis]

Theologians and 'Fathers of the council' on V2, which was an act of the 'ordinary magisterium', which can be 'mistaken' and thus only requires 'religious assent':


P.J. Toner, “Infallibility” in the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia:
“…the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ.” (of infallibility)
 

Gallairdetz, American theology professor:
There are no clearly developed criteria for determining when a valid ecuмenical council is in fact teaching with the charism of infallibility. This ambiguity has often resulted in an unjustified attribution of infallibility to all conciliar teaching…. Lumen gentium specifies that this charism of infallibility is involved only when the bishops in council act as “teachers and judges of faith and morals for the whole Church” (LG 25). [Gallairdetz here cites the 1964 declaration of the Council’s Theological Commission we have already quoted.] In the future one might hope that any council wishing to exercise its extraordinary magisterium by means of a solemn judgment would use a formula that would make that intention manifestly evident. This would seem to be demanded by canon 749.3 of the new Code of Canon Law: “No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such.”[15]


Dr. Germain Grisez, Professor at Mount St. Mary’s in Emmetsburg, Maryland admits that the ordinary magisterium "can be mistaken" in his article in 1984 with Homiletic and Pastoral Review:
Obviously, teachings which are proposed infallibly leave no room for dissent on the part of faithful Catholics. However, other teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium can be mistaken, even though they may require and demand religious submission of mind and will. Such teachings can deserve acceptance inasmuch as they are the Magisterium’s current best judgment of what God’s word requires of Christians. However, that judgment, on the leading edge of developing doctrine and in truly prudential matters, can be mistaken, and faithful Christians can be led by superior claims of faith itself to withhold their submission to it.[18] 


Archbishop Thomas Morris, Archbishop of Cashel, Ireland and a Council Father, gave the following personal testimony to an Irish Catholic journalist named Kieron Wood:
I was relieved when we were told that this Council was not aiming at defining or giving final statements on doctrine, because a statement on doctrine has to be very carefully formulated and I would have regarded the Council docuмents as tentative and liable to be reformed.[17]


Dr. William H. Marshner, Professor of Theology at Christendom College and Theological Editor of Faith and Reason, considers Vatican II’s authority in the Fall, 1983 issue of that journal.
 At the same time, however, I join with all other theologians in saying that the new ground is non-infallible teaching. So when I say that the possibility exists that Vatican II is wrong on one or more crucial points of Dignitatis humanae, I do not simply mean that the Council’s policy may prove unfruitful. I mean to signal a possibility that the Council’s teaching is false.
But may a Catholic theologian admit that such a possibility exists? Of course he may. The decree (sic) Dignitatis humanae is a non-infallible docuмent, and the teaching which it presents is admitted to be a “new development,” hence not something which is already acknowledged dogma ex magisterio ordinario. Therefore the kind of religious assent which Catholics owe to that teaching is the kind of assent which does not exclude the logical possibility that the teaching is wrong; rather our assent excludes any probability that the teaching is wrong.[20]


Cardinal Avery Dulles, Jesuit, theologian:
The third category has long been familiar to Catholics, especially since the popes began to teach regularly through encyclical letters some two centuries ago. The teaching of Vatican II, which abstained from new doctrinal definitions, falls predominantly into this category. In view of the mission given by Christ to the hierarchical magisterium, it is evident that when the magisterium formally teaches something as Catholic doctrine, it is not uttering a mere opinion that Catholics are free to disregard. The teaching has a real, though not unconditional, claim on the assent of the faithful.[24]

A few pages later, when discussing "dissent" in relation to the 'third category' of authority, of which the ordinary magisterium falls into, he says: 
Since no claim of infallibility is here made, such statements could, in principle, be erroneous

He goes on to explain how we are to view "obsequium" which means the "religious assent" we owe to the 3rd category (i.e. ordinary magisterium):
Some theologians hold that such obsequium[26] necessarily involves actual assent, whereas others interpret obsequium as meaning a reverent inclination of the will that normally, but not inevitably, leads to intellectual assent. Theologians of both groups agree that a person who reveres the authority of the magisterium may, in a given case, be unable to proffer a sincere interior assent. The CDF instruction, apparently describing what it understands by obsequium religiosum, states that “the willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule” (24; cf. 29). The implication seems to be that obsequium, while inclining a person to assent, need not in every case result in actual assent.[27]

Dulles, continues and points to the ecclesial chaos of the late 60s and 70s,
“when Vatican II seemed to modify, and even perhaps to reverse, previous papal teaching on several subjects such as biblical inerrancy, the ecuмenical movement, religious freedom, and criteria for membership in the Church.”[28]:

He cites J. Robert Dionne and says:
Dionne maintains that reversals occurred in Catholic doctrine regarding non-Christian religions, religious freedom, the ideal of church-state relations, the identity (or non-identity) between the Mystical Body of Christ and the Catholic Church, and the theology of church membership. On these and other issues, he contends, historical scholarship does not support the “maximalist” position that the ordinary magisterium of the pope is equipped with the charism of infallibility. To deny on principle that ordinary papal teaching can be corrected would be, in effect, to assert that all of it is definitive, and that none of it can pertain to the third and fourth categories in the CDF instruction.[29]



To Summarize:
1.  The ordinary magisterium is indefinite in its pronouncements and therefore is not an organ of infallibility.
2.  Canon Law: “No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless it is clearly established as such
3.  The Ordinary Magisterium can be mistaken, even if it requires 'religious submission' of the mind and will.  Christians can "withhold their submission" if there are "superior claims of faith" which exist (i.e. infallible statements)
4.  Council docuмents are "tentative and liable to be reformed".
5.  V2 admits its non-infallible teachings are a 'new development' and so the 'religious assent' owed to such teachings "does not exclude the possibility that the teaching is wrong".
6.  V2 is a teaching of the 'ordinary' magisterium which has a "real but not unconditional claim" on the assent of the faithful.
7.  Since V2 does not claim infallibility, such statements could, in principle, be erroneous.
8.  "Religous Assent" need not in every case result in actual assent.
9.  To deny that the 'ordinary' magisterium of the pope could be corrected (i.e. wrong) is to assert that all of it is definitive and not of the 3rd or 4th category (which is already said to require only 'religious assent')

http://catholicism.org/vatican-ii-and-the-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html

[Ladislaus]

Leave the murky ordinary teaching out of it; you're misunderstanding that one.  That's often murky because you have to infer this from Catholic teaching around the world.  With Vatican II, it's inherently ordinary UNIVERSAL Magisterium.

[Ladislaus]

Ladislaus, for the 4th time - if V2 must be accepted, because it was a valid, ecuмenical council (regardless of the meaning of its words, or lack thereof), then how are you not a sedevacantist?  You must then agree with Cantarella and AES and all the others that Paul VI was not a true pope.  What other conclusion is there?

Evidently you haven't understood a thing I've posted, have you?

I've explained myself a dozen times.  I am with Father Chazal that these are materially legitimate popes until the Church recognizes otherwise.  But even with regard to Vatican II, the judgment we make regarding its lack of conformity with Tradition comes from our private judgment and therefore does not rise to the level of giving us certainty about it.  So I'm in a state of doubt ... awaiting authoritative resolution by the Church.

I thought you were active on the Father Chazal thread so you'd understand this.

[Pax Vobis]

With Vatican II, it's inherently ordinary UNIVERSAL Magisterium.

Yes and no.  If you want to replace 'ecuмenical' with universal, ok, but there's an additional meaning of universal which has nothing to do with a council.  The 'universal magisterium' refers to consistent teachings THROUGHOUT HISTORY, which is why it's called 'universal' or 'perpetual'.  One cannot say that V2 is universal/perpetual because it chose not to use infallibility (which would have guaranteed this).  Therefore, though V2 was ecuмenical/universal in its relation to the 'current' hierarchy, but it cannot be said to be universal/perpetual related to apostolic teaching.  Therefore it only requires conditional, religious assent.
Indefectibility does not enter into the equation.  You'll have to show some quotes from theologians to prove this connection. 

[Pax Vobis]

 I am with Father Chazal that these are materially legitimate popes until the Church recognizes otherwise.

We never discussed V2 in that thread, so it was not addressed.  In theory, one could agree with Fr Chazal regardless of their view of V2, since even if V2 only requires a conditional assent and could be in error (as I hold), one can still point to heresies IN ADDITION TO and AFTER V2, which the post-conciliar popes have been part of. 

[Ladislaus]

Yes and no.  If you want to replace 'ecuмenical' with universal, ok, but there's an additional meaning of universal which has nothing to do with a council.  The 'universal magisterium' refers to consistent teachings THROUGHOUT HISTORY, which is why it's called 'universal' or 'perpetual'.  One cannot say that V2 is universal/perpetual because it chose not to use infallibility (which would have guaranteed this).  Therefore, though V2 was ecuмenical/universal in its relation to the 'current' hierarchy, but it cannot be said to be universal/perpetual related to apostolic teaching.  Therefore it only requires conditional, religious assent.
Indefectibility does not enter into the equation.  You'll have to show some quotes from theologians to prove this connection.

Certainly a time element can be considered when something is held by the hierarchy as scattered throughout the world.  Once they gather together in Council with the approval of a pope, however, the teaching is INHERENTLY UNIVERSAL.  And, by the way, an Ecuмenical Council, is considered a SOLEMN form of Magisterium and not Ordinary.  Your misapplication of the time constraint, furthermore, implies that the Magisterium can defect at any given point in time.

Let's say, hypothetically, that the Pope and bishops all throughout the world, started teaching that birth control is acceptable.  Would this be possible if these were legitimate prelates?

[Ladislaus]

We never discussed V2 in that thread, so it was not addressed.  In theory, one could agree with Fr Chazal regardless of their view of V2, since even if V2 only requires a conditional assent and could be in error (as I hold), one can still point to heresies IN ADDITION TO and AFTER V2, which the post-conciliar popes have been part of.

But the implications are obvious.  Father Chazal claims that all their formal/Magisterial acts are null and void even though they remain materially in office (he didn't use the word materially but described the same thing).