[Ladislaus]

Right, and the SV says that if a pope teaches new doctrine, then he's not the pope.

Yes, but SVism does it without undermining the indefectibility of the Church and also creating a non-Catholic view of and attitude towards the Magisterium.

[Ladislaus]

You will not admit that the magisterium can err in any way, ...

Absolutely untrue.  You continue to distort my position.  Because I claim that the Magisterium can't basically turn to garbage ... except for a small handful of solemn infallible pronouncement, you claim that I believe in an absolute inerrancy of the Magisterium.  That's hogwash.  Implications of your narrow infallibility-based view is that 99% of the Magisterium (the non-"infallible" stuff) can completely turn to non-Catholic garbage that's harmful to faith and which we must reject or else jeopardize our salvation.

By tossing in your new little qualifier "CURRENT" (which you added after we called you out for essentially promoting Protestantism), you're claiming that the Magisterium can defect at any given point in time ... STILL not Catholic.

[Ladislaus]

Even if not absolutely inerrant, the Magisterium has always been considered a generally reliable guide to faith.  To say that it is not is to reject the indefectibility of the Church.  And this is why you guys are so anxious to (against Catholic teaching) eliminate the Magisterium as a rule of faith.  You do violence to Catholic theology in order to uphold your R&R position.

[Pax Vobis]

Pax Vobis, the promise of Divine Assistance does not exclusively apply whenever the Pope speaks ex-cathedra. The Church further teaches that Divine Assistance is also given to the Pope when he exercises his ordinary Magisterium.

I agree, but there are different levels of the 'ordinary' magisterium because it's not as clear-cut as solemn use.  To say that the ordinary magisterium is easy to recognize is untrue.  In orthodox times, we can trust the hierarchy; in non-orthodox times we can be wary.  Nothing anti-catholic about this approach, for it coincides with the 'religious/conditional assent' idea.

I keep reminding many of you about the 'conditional' aspect of religious assent and you accuse me of 'sifting' or saying that the magisterium can 'defect'.  That's taking my arguments to the extreme.  I'm not an sspx'er R&R.

[Ladislaus]

I think this is the problem when one introduces any mode or organ of the Magisterium that is able to err. The only people who have taught this are relatively recent theologians. There aren't any Popes who have taught that Magisterium is liable to error in any capacity.
We end up with problems like this above. If it is taught that the Magisterium is able to err in any mode, it's open to people like Pax, to go ahead an attribute all the errors of this false Vatican II sect to this imaginary mode of "ordinary and fallible" magisterium. That's why those quotes from the Popes stating that immunity from error was granted to the Church's Magisterium are relevant and should be the standard. That's why myself and others post them.


Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri : “… God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.”

Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri: “To this magisterium Christ the Lord imparted immunity from error...”

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus: “… the Church has, by its divine institution, the power of the magisterium to teach and define matters of faith and morals and to interpret the Holy Scriptures without danger of error.”

Pope Leo XIII, Caritatis Studium: The Magisterium “could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic magisterium.”

Yes, these papal quotes are completely incompatible with R&R ... unless you redefine Magisterium as Stubborn does to only the true teaching in the Magisterium.

Certainly no theologians that I know of held that the Magisteium was absolutely inerrant however.  NEVERTHELESS, looking at a high level (which the fallibilists like Pax refuse to do), the OVERALL INTEGRITY of the Magisterium can never be questioned.  It's not Catholic to say that there can be any SUBSTANTIAL corruption in the Magisterium.  Could there be smaller mistakes in the Magisterium, like a logical error in a long narrative portion of an Encyclical, or as Msgr. Fenton describes it, a matter of "relatively minute detail"?  I believe so.  But the problem is, as you note, that the fallibilists take this and extend it so as to claim that since V2 the Magisterium has become an unreliable piece of non-Catholic modernist garbage.  On the other hand, to claim absolute inerrancy is also a mistake.  At that point there's no difference between a papal allocution to midwives or a solemn definition of a dogma.

[Ladislaus]

I agree, but there are different levels of the 'ordinary' magisterium because it's not as clear-cut as solemn use.  To say that the ordinary magisterium is easy to recognize is untrue.  In orthodox times, we can trust the hierarchy; in non-orthodox times we can be wary.  Nothing anti-catholic about this approach, for it coincides with the 'religious/conditional assent' idea.

I keep reminding many of you about the 'conditional' aspect of religious assent and you accuse me of 'sifting' or saying that the magisterium can 'defect'.  That's taking my arguments to the extreme.  I'm not an sspx'er R&R.

Let's say that 99% of the Magisterium does not meet the notes of infallibility.  According to you, then, Pax, is it possible that that 75% of the remaining non-infallible Magisterium (that 99%) could go corrupt at any given time in history?  I'm not asking whether you think it's probable, but whether you think it's theoretically possible.

[Pax Vobis]

You continue to distort my position.  Because I claim that the Magisterium can't basically turn to garbage ...

I am challenging your definition of 'err'.  You put limits on the idea of 'error' because you are not distinguishing between the different levels of the magisterium.  Some parts can ERR, meaning they can teach error, garbage, whatever you want to call it, because fallible means 'able to err'.  If you can't accept that this is possible, then you are basically saying that the magisterium can be trusted 100% of the time, which is not supported by history.

Implications of your narrow infallibility-based view is that 99% of the Magisterium (the non-"infallible" stuff) can completely turn to non-Catholic garbage that's harmful to faith and which we must reject or else jeopardize our salvation.

No, i've never said that.  The ordinary magisterium is just less specific and definite than solemn statements.  Therefore it must agree with 'what has always been taught' because history matters.

By tossing in your new little qualifier "CURRENT" (which you added after we called you out for essentially promoting Protestantism), you're claiming that the Magisterium can defect at any given point in time ... STILL not Catholic.

The current magisterium can defect partially, even 99% of it.  This is what happened during arianism.  Your problem is that you look at 'the Church' as being the current magisterium only (which is why you have a problem when I say the current magisterium can defect), while I view the 'the church' as the current magisterium + all previous orthodox magisteriums.  The church includes historical magisteriums which is why it's known as PERPETUAL or UNIVERSAL or CONSISTENT.  Yes, the magisterium can defect in a given period of history because the Church is partially eternal and not dependent upon the current hierarchy, but upon Christ and ALL the popes, not just the current one.  This is our main difference.

[Ladislaus]

The current magisterium can defect partially, even 99% of it.

 ... this isn't even a remotely Catholic view of the Magisterium.

Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri : “… God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.”

Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri: “To this magisterium Christ the Lord imparted immunity from error...”

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus: “… the Church has, by its divine institution, the power of the magisterium to teach and define matters of faith and morals and to interpret the Holy Scriptures without danger of error.”

Pope Leo XIII, Caritatis Studium: The Magisterium “could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic magisterium.”

[Ladislaus]

The current magisterium can defect partially, even 99% of it.  This is what happened during arianism.

So you're claiming now that the Magisterium taught Arianism?

You get more hereticaler with each post, man.

Here, friends, we see on display the implications of R&R.

[Pax Vobis]

Let's say that 99% of the Magisterium does not meet the notes of infallibility.  According to you, then, Pax, is it possible that that 75% of the remaining non-infallible Magisterium (that 99%) could go corrupt at any given time in history?  I'm not asking whether you think it's probable, but whether you think it's theoretically possible.

First off, in my mind, the magisterium is an office, not a people.  So when we use the term magisterium I think of teachings, which is why I distinguish between the hierarchy and the magisterium's TEACHINGS (which come from the hierarchy/clergy).  So the magisterium includes encyclicals, papal bulls, speeches, the 'urbi et orbi' greeting, synod docuмents, etc.

Is it possible for the hierarchy to lose the faith?  Absolutely.  Church history proves this over and over.  Is it possible for the ALL the hierarchy to lose the faith?  No.  But 99%?  Yes.
Is it possible for a SOLEMN, infallible act of the magisterium to teach error?  Of course not.
Is it possible for the 'ordinary' magisterium to err and propose BINDING error on the faithful?  No, this has never happened and cannot.
Is it possible for the 'ordinary' magisterium to err and propose non-binding error, as at V2?  Yes.
Is it possible for the hierarchy to be infiltrated by anti-catholics and to propose non-binding error to the faithful?  Yes, reality proves this.

The key issue is if a teaching is 'binding' because all teachings which are binding have been taught with apostolic authority, both infallible and non-infallible, and the magisterium can teach both kinds.  A binding, authoritative teaching is OFFICIAL teaching.  Anything which is non-binding is also non-authoritative, by definition and hence, not official church teaching. 

Indefectibility protects the Church from being corrupted in Her OFFICIAL teachings, in Her official OFFICE of the magisterium as AUTHORITY on faith/morals.  V2 was not authoritative, it was not binding and therefore we cannot consider it official church teaching because we are only required to give CONDITIONAL assent and we are ALLOWED to question it. 

The hierarchy pushed their false interpretation of V2 upon the faithful, and they tried to use their PERSONAL DIOCESAN AUTHORITY as Bishops to impose V2.  This authority is NOT THE SAME as the magisterial authority coming from the pope, who never imposed V2 on anyone.  This is the key difference.

[Pax Vobis]

So you're claiming now that the Magisterium taught Arianism?

Did 90% of the bishops and priest teach arianism?  Yes.  So according to your definition of the magisterium, which includes the hierarchy, then 90% of the magisterium taught error.

I meant to use 'hierarchy' instead of the magisterium, so I'm sorry.

[Pax Vobis]

Even if not absolutely inerrant, the Magisterium has always been considered a generally reliable guide to faith.  To say that it is not is to reject the indefectibility of the Church.  And this is why you guys are so anxious to (against Catholic teaching) eliminate the Magisterium as a rule of faith.

All teachings of the OFFICIAL magisterium are teachings of the hierarchy.
Not all teachings of the hierarchy are teachings of the OFFICIAL magisterium.

The magisterium is OFFICIAL teaching.  The hierarchy (cardinals, bishops, etc) can teach un-officially (and often do) and this is from their personl understanding and personal knowledge as theologians or historians.  This is not part of the magisterium.

It's my opinon that post V2, the times when the magisterium has been used, even the ordinary magisterium, is quite small.

[Ladislaus]

Did 90% of the bishops and priest teach arianism?  Yes.  So according to your definition of the magisterium, which includes the hierarchy, then 90% of the magisterium taught error.

I meant to use 'hierarchy' instead of the magisterium, so I'm sorry.

Ah, yes, now we see again the Stubborn distinction between Magisterium and hierarchy.

Hierarchy + teaching = Magisterium.  When said hierarchy taught at Vatican II, that was Magisterium.  That was not merely hierarchy defecting but Magisterium defecting.

[Meg]

Four out of the eight forum members currently logged onto the forum are either sedes or sedewhatevers. 

[Pax Vobis]

Hierarchy + teaching = Magisterium.  When said hierarchy taught at Vatican II, that was Magisterium.  That was not merely hierarchy defecting but Magisterium defecting.

I agree, V2 was the magisterium, but since it was not BINDING then it's not OFFICIAL teaching.  If it's not official then it's not a defection if it's erroneous, because FALLIBLE means POSSIBLE ERROR.  Again, you fail to admit this is possible. 

Defection implies a GRAVE departure.  I say, technically, that V2 was not grave, because it was so ambiguous.  I say the GRAVE departure, the defection, occurred POST V2, in the "interpretation" of the council, which was not an act of the magisterium but of the individual bishops/theologians who pushed their agenda as part of their masonic plan.  Not all bishops/theologians agreed with the interpretation, and the pope did not endorse it officially, so we cannot say that the heretical interpretation was from the magisterium.