[Ladislaus]

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.

So now Vatican II was not "official" teaching ... just the musings of a collection of private theologians over a beer?

[Ladislaus]

With the language used in those quotes I listed, it's hard to imagine any wiggle-room whatsoever for erroneous teaching however small.

I think that the language has to be understood as "overall" or "substantially" ... kindof like Fenton defined infallible safety.  Otherwise, you'd have to regard every line in an Encyclical as effectively infallible, no less infallible than a solemn dogmatic definition accompanied by canons and anathemas.

[Ladislaus]

Defection implies a GRAVE departure.  I say, technically, that V2 was not grave, because it was so ambiguous.

OK, then go Fellay-ite.  If we are forced to reject it and to establish an apostolate over and against the official hierarchy, then it must indeed be grave.  But if it's not that grave, as you now claim, then there's no excuse for severing communion with and submission to the hierarchy.  Then begin the task of resolving said ambiguities with the "hermeneutic of continuity" and return to the fold.

I, on the other hand, submit that these errrors ARE that grave; there's a fundamental shift to a subjectivist ecclesiology.

[Pax Vobis]

V2 was from the official magisterium, but as it was not infallible, nor was it authoritatively binding, then we are only required to accept conditionally, and can dispute it. 

The distinction you fail to make is that the magisterium can also be binding but not infallible, as when She makes a rule on canon law or some other matter which is not related to faith/morals.  V2 was neither binding, nor infallible.

A non-binding teaching may come from the OFFICIAL hierarchy/magisterium but it is not part of the OFFICIAL deposit of faith unless it is binding.  How can something which is optional be OFFICIAL teaching?  How can something optional be from the Holy Spirit?  How can something optional be protected by Indefectibility?

[Ladislaus]

V2 was from the official magisterium, but as it was not infallible, nor was it authoritatively binding, then we are only required to accept conditionally, and can dispute it.

Yeah, yeah, we're back to your non-Catholic assertion that 99% of the Magisterium could turn to complete garbage and imperil souls.

[Ladislaus]

How can something which is optional be OFFICIAL teaching?  How can something optional be from the Holy Spirit?  How can something optional be protected by Indefectibility?

Now you've gone from the fact that there's no solemn language mandating the teaching to calling it "optional".  Look, you'll never find "binding" language in an Encyclical either, but they're obviously official teaching.  There's absolutely no language in Vatican II which suggests that the teaching is optional ... hey, we're throwing this out there as a trial balloon, but you're free to take it or leave it.

[Ladislaus]

Notice how Pax has altered, shifted, and modified his position about a half dozen times now.  This usually indicates a lack of intellectual honesty.  Pax has already come to the conclusion that 1) V2 Popes are legitimate AND 2) Vatican II should be rejected.  He won't let go of either of these premises, begs the question, and then comes up with one justification after another for why it's OK to take his position.

[Pax Vobis]

OK, then go Fellay-ite.  If we are forced to reject it and to establish an apostolate over and against the official hierarchy, then it must indeed be grave.  But if it's not that grave, as you now claim, then there's no excuse for severing communion with and submission to the hierarchy.  Then begin the task of resolving said ambiguities with the "hermeneutic of continuity" and return to the fold.

I, on the other hand, submit that these errrors ARE that grave; there's a fundamental shift to a subjectivist ecclesiology.

It can be argued that V2 was not grave since there was no obligation.  It's errors can lead to grave heresies, but technically, they do not.  This is the diabolical disorientation and cleverness of satan!  The heretical interpretation of V2, however, is imposed as an obligation BY THE BISHOPS and therefore the matter is grave.  This is the 'emergency situation' spoken of in canon law which allows priests to provide the sacraments.

The second matter which is grave is related to the new mass, which OFFICIALLY is NOT obligatory, but again, THE BISHOPS say otherwise, in contradiction to Pope Paul, JPII and Benedict and in violation of Quo Primum.  Such an obligation FROM THE BISHOPS to attend the indult and accept the new mass is THE ISSUE, and we cannot be forced to commit sin and attend the illicit, probably invalid, and definitely immoral new mass.

If the issue is only V2, and there was no new mass, then yes, we could all work with the 'hermeneutic of continuity' experiment.  But the issue of the mass IS KEY.  The new mass is illegal and it is illegally imposed by THE BISHOPS so we must resist and we can because the law is on our side.

+Fellay and company don't take a hard stance on the new mass, which is why their version of R&R is illogical and destructive.  The mass is the life of the faith; V2's importance to the enemies of Christ is nothing compared to the new mass - which is THE MAIN FORCE of destruction.

[Pax Vobis]

1) V2 Popes are legitimate AND 2) Vatican II should be rejected. 

All I'm arguing is that V2 popes are not illegitimate because of V2.  There are plenty of other reasons for their illegitimacy.
Secondly, when I say 'optional' I'm referring to the 'conditional' aspect of 'religious assent'.  Maybe optional is too strong of a word, but 'conditional' means:
- depending on a condition
- contingent upon something

In other words, V2 is conditional and only must be accepted IF it somehow agrees with 'what has always been taught'.  It's the V2 magisterium's job to prove this, which Benedict tried to do, but it's not yet been solidified, so at this point, it's conditional.  If optional is the wrong word, I abjure my error.

[Pax Vobis]

Look, you'll never find "binding" language in an Encyclical either, but they're obviously official teaching. 

But not every official act of the magisterium is part of the official deposit of faith which we MUST believe.  You've already admitted this.

There's absolutely no language in Vatican II which suggests that the teaching is optional ...

There's no language which says it MUST be believed.  he V2 magisterium has repeatedly said that V2 only requires 'conditional religious assent'.  You cannot impose a stricter obligation than what the docuмents, and their authors, say. 

[Meg]

As you said a few posts ago, the R&R position does too much violence to theology.  

I just want to briefly mention that the position of Archbishop Lefebvre (if that's what you mean by R&R), does not do violence to Catholic theology. How many sedes were around at the Vll Council? What did they do then to try to stop the progressives from gaining ground there? They did absolutely nothing. They only came on the scene after +ABL did all of the hard work of trying to speak out against the Council's progressive agenda, and then did what he could to keep the TLM and tradition alive.

Sedes are just hangers-on, who have done nothing on their own, except whine and complain, and attack the Resistance. 

[Pax Vobis]

The new mass was not binding on anyone, neither from the wording of Paul VI's law, nor was it even mentioned at V2.  Pope Benedict cleared up the legal confusion when he stated in his "motu" that Quo Primum was not changed or revoked and is still in effect.  Therefore, Quo Primum forbids the new mass and COMMANDS the old.  This is beyond question, is a legal certainty and a moral obligation - with no ifs, ands or buts.

[Ladislaus]

You keep posting this nonsense and it's not even remotely true, Pax.  

Your pope, Paul VI addresses the binding issue of the false council, and the binding issue of his bastard mass in an address from 1976...an address dealing with Archbishop Lefebvre.  

"Pope" Montini says Vatican II is binding...c'mon man, it doesn't get any more clear.    

The man you consider the Roman Pontiff says that his mass was promulgated to take the place of the old!!  

I suppose you'll say - "It depends on how you define 'promulgate'".  

Yes, Pax, you've claimed that the man who approved Vatican II never intended it to be binding, and that he never intended the New Mass to be binding.  Here we have it in the man's own words.  So you're basically finished with this.

[Ladislaus]

The new mass was not binding on anyone, neither from the wording of Paul VI's law, nor was it even mentioned at V2.  Pope Benedict cleared up the legal confusion when he stated in his "motu" that Quo Primum was not changed or revoked and is still in effect.  Therefore, Quo Primum forbids the new mass and COMMANDS the old.  This is beyond question, is a legal certainty and a moral obligation - with no ifs, ands or buts.

Paul VI:  "The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful."

[Ladislaus]

For all his heresy, Paul VI was in this more orthodox than the proponents of R&R:

It is for this group, not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecuмenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith!  As you see, Venerable Brothers, such an attitude sets itself up as a judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock, and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith…