[MyrnaM]

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).

With all due respect, not wanting to argue but Ladislaus why is that definition of sedevacantist better than ...?  Yes, someone is there a physical person but he is not the standard of a true Pope as Jesus described a pope would be?   So wouldn't it be less confusing if you and Father Chazal would just admit for Church unity if nothing else, that there is not a TRUE pope sitting in the Chair of Peter, if not, why not?

[Pax Vobis]

And, by the way, an Ecuмenical Council, is considered a SOLEMN form of Magisterium and not Ordinary.

Absolutely not.  It's only SOLEMN if the pope engages his solemn magisterium and defines something infallibly.  It's not solemn just because it's ecuмenical.  If that were the case, then you would have to change your view and admit that EVERY SINGLE WORD of an ecuмenical council is infallible, which is ludicrous. 

If infallibility is not engaged, then it is an act of the ordinary magisterium and can further be either universal or non-universal.

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….


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.

Once they gather together in Council with the approval of a pope, however, the teaching is INHERENTLY UNIVERSAL

It's universal in the sense that it is a teaching of all the current bishops/pope.  It also has to be a PERPETUAL teaching of the church in order to be binding.  Why do you act as if the history of the Church does not matter?  You argue as if an ecuмenical council can change Scripture/Tradition?

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?

If they did not engage infallibility, then as part of their ordinary magisterium, which does not require unqualified assent, yes, it could be wrong, just like V2 could be (and most likely is) wrong (in some areas).  The reason this is possible is because you place too much emphasis on the pope's ordinary teaching authority, which is potentially fallible.  Even in the case of V2, with the manner in which the magisterium presented the "decrees" and issued many reservations/qualifications to its "teachings", even today, there is no one in rome who says that V2 MUST be accepted UNCONDITIONALLY.  So you are judging the current magisterium as wrong in their ability to interpret their own council!  You are presuming it to have more moral gravity than the 'council fathers' say it does!  Makes no sense.

What's more likely? 
1) There are limits to the ordinary magisterium and it is potentially fallible, even in an ecuмenical council, if they introduce novel and theologically unique ideas.
2) There are no limits to the ordinary magisterium and all must be accepted, therefore infallibility is meaningless, and if an error ever gets put forth by a non-infallible way, then we must presume the entire hierarchy has defected and is no more?.
#2 is infinitely more complex, illogical and improbable than #1.

[Pax Vobis]

For the last time, you ignore the word 'decree' and act like it just means 'council docuмents'.  It is NOT the same thing.  Look at EVERY ecuмenical council; those decrees are the ones which are short, sweet, and to the point - declaring that x has to be believed by papal authority, or that y should not believed.  All the 'anathema' statements are examples of 'decrees' or 'canons'.  A decree or canon is another word for a law, which is an order or a command.  This idea of 'you must believe this' is NECESSARY for infallibility.

V2 is the first and only ecuмenical council to not establish clear laws because it did not use decrees/canons.  THOSE WHO WERE AT THE COUNCIL ADMIT THIS.  This difference has to mean something.  You ignore it because you are not open to the truth.

[Pax Vobis]

“Each and every one of the things set forth in this Decree has won the consent of the Fathers. (that's fine and dandy but in each specific decree, there is language which is contraditory.  So which part has "won the consent of the fathers"?  The part which agrees with tradition or the part which is novel?)

We, too, by the Apostolic Authority conferred on us by Christ, join with the venerable fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, (what things are you establishing?  The traditional parts or the novel parts?  It's unclear.  A VALID LAW MUST BE CLEAR.  A JUST LAW MUST BE ABLE TO BE UNDERSTOOD AND NOT CONTRADICTORY.)

and we direct that what has thus been enacted in synod [council] be published to God’s glory… I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.” (Ok, so you have published and enacted a contradictory law which pleases both conservatives and liberals - or does it?  Can anyone really make sense of anything in V2?  Nice work, freemasons, you have achieved your victory of confusion.)

[Ladislaus]

Sedevacantism’s fundamental premise: On some arbitrary date or period of time, the Roman Catholic Church, Barque of Peter, Mystical Body of Christ, metamorphosed into the end-times, apostate Church of the Antichrist.

That's not my view.  I believe that Cardinal Siri was elected pope in 1958.  Then a number of Masonic/Communist agents illegitimately installed their man Roncalli on the See ... and proceeded to perpetrate all manner of mischief in the Church.

[Ladislaus]

Absolutely not.  It's only SOLEMN if the pope engages his solemn magisterium and defines something infallibly.

So you're saying that Ecuмenical Councils are ordinary teaching.  Ridiculous.

Just as Ecuмenical Councils are inherently organs of infallibility, they are inherently Solemn/Extraordinary Magisterium.  Now, not everything in them amounts to a definitiion.

[Ladislaus]

For the last time, you ignore the word 'decree' and act like it just means 'council docuмents'.  

You hang your hat on a technical term like "decree" and yet fail to address the fact that the term "decree" actually appears at the end of every V2 docuмent.

[Meg]

An infiltration/usurpation of the Roman Church would still entail a defection.

Hermenegild,

What is your view of the modernist infiltration of the Church?

Archbishop Lefebvre did not, as far as I know, say anything about the Church defecting, but he believed of course that the Church has been occupied by a Modernist sect.

[Pax Vobis]

So you're saying that Ecuмenical Councils are ordinary teaching.  Ridiculous.

Just as Ecuмenical Councils are inherently organs of infallibility, they are inherently Solemn/Extraordinary Magisterium.  Now, not everything in them amounts to a definitiion.

I'm saying that an ecuмenical council COULD be just simply the use of the pope's 'ordinary' magisterium, which the V2 magisterium has consistently said it is.

Saying that an ecuмenical council is an "organ of" infallibility means it has the inherent POTENTIAL to be infallible, which is true, since the pope HAS to be involved, since it's ecuмenical - and all infallibility HAS to involve the pope.  BUT...if the pope does not use his solemn/extraordinary infallibility powers, then it's not solemn/extraordinary.  Why is this so difficult?

You incorrectly argue that just because the pope approves of the docuмents, then they're infallible to the same degree and a 'de fide' definition.  You argue that even if it's there's no solemn statements, it's still solemn because it's a council.  There's no way that makes sense.  If it were true, then any encyclical, papal bull or other prepared docuмent would have the same infallible characteristics.  But they don't.

[Ladislaus]

An infiltration/usurpation of the Roman Church would still entail a defection.

It's obvious that the Church has been infiltrated, and yet it has not defected and never will.

[Pax Vobis]

You hang your hat on a technical term like "decree" and yet fail to address the fact that the term "decree" actually appears at the end of every V2 docuмent.

Still haven't answered the question - if there are conflicting ideas in each of the docuмents, and if both parts are equally decreed, then what are we supposed to believe?  You're saying that V2 was infallible and that the ordinary magisterium can't err nor lead one into error, so if the council teaches A and B, which contradict each other, then how is that not in error?  How is that not a defection of the ordinary magisterium, since it's infallible?

[Ladislaus]

Obvious to a handful of Catholics on the internet making conclusions about conspiracy theories.
The Roman Church can never be infiltrated. It is the one paricular Church that remains steadfast and faithful. A truth which is at the very least a Doctrine of ecclesiastical faith.

Obvious to everyone who has ears to hear and eyes to see.  Our Lord taught that His sheep know Him and know His voice.  These Conciliarists do not sound like Him at all.

Uhm, the entire Church at large must remain steadfast and faithful.  Any particular Church outside the Roman could defect.  But this modern condition has infected the entire Church, so your problem is moot.

So, are you even a Traditional Catholic?

[Ladislaus]

Still haven't answered the question - if there are conflicting ideas in each of the docuмents, and if both parts are equally decreed, then what are we supposed to believe?  You're saying that V2 was infallible and that the ordinary magisterium can't err nor lead one into error, so if the council teaches A and B, which contradict each other, then how is that not in error?  How is that not a defection of the ordinary magisterium, since it's infallible?

uhm, because we don't believe it's infallible ... because it's not legitimate, i.e. approved by a legitimate pope.  What we're saying is that IF IT WERE LEGITIMATE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN INFALLIBLE.  That's precisely the argument modus tollentis.

Major:  Ecuмenical Councils cannot teach substantial error to the Church.
Minor:  Vatican II taught substantial error to the Church.
Conclusion:  Vatican II can not have been a legitimate Ecuмenical Council.

Traditional Catholics are largely defined as agreeing on the Minor.  But SVs uphold the Major, while R&R deny it.

[2Vermont]

Perhaps YOU need to educate yourself. The Roman Church CANNOT apostatize

Until you explain (with Church teaching) how no pope = defected Roman Church, all you are doing is blowing hot air and wasting everybody's time.

[2Vermont]

Obvious to everyone who has ears to hear and eyes to see.  Our Lord taught that His sheep know Him and know His voice.  These Conciliarists do not sound like Him at all.

Uhm, the entire Church at large must remain steadfast and faithful.  Any particular Church outside the Roman could defect.  But this modern condition has infected the entire Church, so your problem is moot.

So, are you even a Traditional Catholic?

I question this as well.  In another thread I asked him what his position on the Crisis is and his answer was he didn't have a definite answer for me.  But he is so certain that our positions are wrong.