Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: MiracleOfTheSun on September 19, 2022, 04:57:29 PM
-
Are the teachings of the Universal Ordinary Magesterium infallible?
1) Yes
2) No
3) Not Sure
4) Other
-
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#18), Dec. 31, 1929: “… God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.” ... “To this magisterium Christ the Lord imparted immunity from error...”
Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus (# 4), May 17, 1835: “... 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 (#6) July 25, 1898: The Magisterium “could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.”
-
Can't vote. OUM is infallible on matters that are taught thereby to be "divinely revealed" (as per the VI definition). But, as CE states, as a matter of practical judgment, it's not always possible to discern whether something has been taught infallibly by the OUM.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
And while for subsequent ages down to our own day it continues to be theoretically true that the Church may, by the exercise of this ordinary teaching authority arrive at a final and infallible decision regarding doctrinal questions, it is true at the same time that in practice it may be impossible to prove conclusively that such unanimity as may exist has a strictly definitive value in any particular case, unless it has been embodied in a decree of an ecuмenical council, or in the ex cathedra teaching of the pope, or, at least, in some definite formula such as the Athanasian Creed. Hence, for practical purposes and in so far as the special question of infallibility is concerned, we may neglect the so called magisterium ordinarium ("ordinary magisterium") and confine our attention to ecuмenical councils and the pope.
-
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#18), Dec. 31, 1929: “… God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.” ... “To this magisterium Christ the Lord imparted immunity from error...”
Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus (# 4), May 17, 1835: “... 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 (#6) July 25, 1898: The Magisterium “could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.”
Do you realize what these words mean when you hold the exact opposite?
-
Do you realize what these words mean when you hold the exact opposite?
:popcorn:
-
Do you realize what these words mean when you hold the exact opposite?
It’s really really hard to believe that Stubborn can’t see his contradiction.
-
Do you realize what these words mean when you hold the exact opposite?
I'm not the one who holds the exact opposite, I accept, echo and hold that their explanations are as true today as they were then and always will be. Until you understand it as the popes have explained it, you will have to really need to admit that their teachings on what the magisterium is are wrong (error), mistaken and erroneous - which actually *is* the exact opposite of what they teach.
For the OP, the Church's universal magisterium is "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith." - Pope Pius IX
It is necessary to remember that within the Church, the word "Universal" *always* includes the element of time, as in "since the time of the Apostles and till the end of time," iow, what the Church has taught and the faithful have believed always and everywhere, this is the simple definition of Church's universal magisterium.
-
I'm not the one who holds the exact opposite, I accept, echo and hold that their explanations are as true today as they were then and always will be. Until you understand it as the popes have explained it, you will have to really need to admit that their teachings on what the magisterium is are wrong (error), mistaken and erroneous - which actually *is* the exact opposite of what they teach.
For the OP, the Church's universal magisterium is "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith." - Pope Pius IX
It is necessary to remember that within the Church, the word "Universal" *always* includes the element of time, as in "since the time of the Apostles and till the end of time," iow, what the Church has taught and the faithful have believed always and everywhere, this is the simple definition of Church's universal magisterium.
HUH? What? :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
-
It is necessary to remember that within the Church, the word "Universal" *always* includes the element of time, as in "since the time of the Apostles and till the end of time," iow, what the Church has taught and the faithful have believed always and everywhere, this is the simple definition of Church's universal magisterium.
So, by definition, the universal ordinary magisterium can't contradict itself because anything new is not the ordinary magisterium.
This is blatantly false and such a definition would make the OUM a useless tautology basically stating: whatever was true before is still true.
Only by redefining the magisterium can one escape the fact that the "Church" universally teaches error for the last 60 years.
-
It’s really really hard to believe that Stubborn can’t see his contradiction.
I've been arguing this point with him for years. He has this bizarre tautological definition of the Magisterium.
If it's true, it's Magisterium. It's it's not true, then it's not Magisterium. So, in other words, it's true if it's true and false if it's false. No a priori guarantee whatsoever of being even somewhat correct. It is determined to be Magisterium when Stubborn decides it is, having the effect of making Stubborn the Magisterium.
-
Try not to complicate the simple.
If you believe the quotes in reply #1, then you cannot disagree with me because I believe and even echo them.
If you disagree with me, then you disagree with the quotes in reply #1.
If you disbelieve the quotes, then to you the popes' teachings are wrong (error), mistaken and erroneous.
If you say that you believe the quotes but they do not apply since V2, then the popes' teachings are erroneous. I believe this to be the case.
-
Can't vote. OUM is infallible on matters that are taught thereby to be "divinely revealed" (as per the VI definition). But, as CE states, as a matter of practical judgment, it's not always possible to discern whether something has been taught infallibly by the OUM.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
And while for subsequent ages down to our own day it continues to be theoretically true that the Church may, by the exercise of this ordinary teaching authority arrive at a final and infallible decision regarding doctrinal questions, it is true at the same time that in practice it may be impossible to prove conclusively that such unanimity as may exist has a strictly definitive value in any particular case, unless it has been embodied in a decree of an ecuмenical council, or in the ex cathedra teaching of the pope, or, at least, in some definite formula such as the Athanasian Creed. Hence, for practical purposes and in so far as the special question of infallibility is concerned, we may neglect the so called magisterium ordinarium ("ordinary magisterium") and confine our attention to ecuмenical councils and the pope.
While I agree with your post Ladislaus, the bolded is interesting. Vatican II was an ecuмenical council approved by the pope. But it had errors in its decrees. Either the OUM is in error at Vatican II or the man who approved the errors wasn't pope.
-
I've been arguing this point with him for years. He has this bizarre tautological definition of the Magisterium.
If it's true, it's Magisterium. It's it's not true, then it's not Magisterium. So, in other words, it's true if it's true and false if it's false. No a priori guarantee whatsoever of being even somewhat correct. It is determined to be Magisterium when Stubborn decides it is, having the effect of making Stubborn the Magisterium.
Yes! I’ve told him many times in the past that his line of arguing is completely circular.
-
Vatican II was an ecuмenical council approved by the pope. But it had errors in its decrees. Either the OUM is in error at Vatican II or the man who approved the errors wasn't pope.
Now that's an interesting point...
-
While I agree with your post Ladislaus, the bolded is interesting. Vatican II was an ecuмenical council approved by the pope. But it had errors in its decrees. Either the OUM is in error at Vatican II or the man who approved the errors wasn't pope.
Exactly, Vermont.
-
Are the teachings of the Universal Ordinary Magesterium infallible?
1) Yes
2) No
3) Not Sure
4) Other
Number 2 is heresy. Number 3 can *possibly* be excused due to ignorance.
-
Can't vote. OUM is infallible on matters that are taught thereby to be "divinely revealed" (as per the VI definition). But, as CE states, as a matter of practical judgment, it's not always possible to discern whether something has been taught infallibly by the OUM.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
I respectfully disagree, If it is *taught* by the OUM it’s infallible, period, and we are in no position to argue with it. Not everything taught infallibly is Divinely revealed.
-
So, by definition, the universal ordinary magisterium can't contradict itself because anything new is not the ordinary magisterium.
This is blatantly false and such a definition would make the OUM a useless tautology basically stating: whatever was true before is still true.
Only by redefining the magisterium can one escape the fact that the "Church" universally teaches error for the last 60 years.
I'm not the one redefining the magisterium, which, as Pope Pius XI said, is immune from error. Do you believe him?
The universal ordinary magisterium is merely what the Church has always taught in an ordinary manner, i.e. via her clergy, nuns, catechisms, etc., even parents. The extraordinary magisterium are those things taught in an unusual manner, such as ex cathedra definitions - which are also contained in the Church's universal magisterium.
Nothing is new because all that is taught by the Church can be likened to one doctrine. Not only does it all mean one thing, but it is, as it were, a single cloth woven from the top so that there are no seams, there is a perfect unity.
Therefore, any opinions, ideas or teachings that in any way teach contrary to any one of it’s doctrines, any part of this holy deposit, violates it’s holiness and the truth of God, tearing the cloth.
-
I respectfully disagree, If it is *taught* by the OUM it’s infallible, period, and we are in no position to argue with it. Not everything taught infallibly is Divinely revealed.
"1. The perpetual agreement of the catholic church has maintained and maintains this too: that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards its source, but also as regards its object.
2. With regard to the source, we know at the one level by natural reason, at the other level by divine faith.
3. With regard to the object, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known." - First Vatican Council
Perhaps you should not use the word "infallible" when describing the UOM, maybe "immune from error" or "without error" would be better. Ex. "If it is *taught* by the OUM it’s without error, period."
I suggest saving the word "infallible" for when you're speaking about the Church or ex cathedra definitions.
-
Yes! I’ve told him many times in the past that his line of arguing is completely circular.
No, your typical rebuttal is seen a few posts above this ^^ one in your reply #7.
Watch, a simple question.....
Do you believe Pope Pius XI below?
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#18), Dec. 31, 1929: “… God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.” ... “To this magisterium Christ the Lord imparted immunity from error...”
-
"1. The perpetual agreement of the catholic church has maintained and maintains this too: that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards its source, but also as regards its object.
2. With regard to the source, we know at the one level by natural reason, at the other level by divine faith.
3. With regard to the object, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known." - First Vatican Council
Perhaps you should not use the word "infallible" when describing the UOM, maybe "immune from error" or "without error" would be better. Ex. "If it is *taught* by the OUM it’s without error, period."
I suggest saving the word "infallible" for when you're speaking about the Church or ex cathedra definitions.
For the purposes of this discussion, I assumed it was understood that infallibility with equated with being “with out error”.
-
For the purposes of this discussion, I assumed it was understood that infallibility with equated with being “with out error”.
For the purposes of this discussion, I assumed it was understood that infallibility was equated with being “with out error”.
-
For the purposes of this discussion, I assumed it was understood that infallibility with equated with being “with out error”.
The pope is infallible / exercises his infallibility / without error, *only* when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra, this is dogma.
The Church's Magisterium is always "unable to be mistaken," enjoys "immunity from error," and “could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching,” these are quotes taken from the papal teachings in reply #1.
IOW, unlike the Magisterium, the pope requires an event to be infallible / without error, whereas the Magisterium is always infallible / without error because the Magisterium is not human or humans at all, the magisterium is all the teachings that have always been taught by the Church i.e. "all that has been handed down." It is the Church who is the Authority i.e. "the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world" - - "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith." - Pope Pius IX
So to say the magisterium is infallible, although correct it can give the impression that an extraordinary or unusual event is required for it's infallibility, which it isn't, any more than an event is required for the Deposit Of Faith to be infallible. By their very nature they're immune from error - as the popes are quoted as teaching.
-
The pope is infallible / exercises his infallibility / without error, *only* when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra, this is dogma.
The Church's Magisterium is always "unable to be mistaken," enjoys "immunity from error," and “could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching,” these are quotes taken from the papal teachings in reply #1.
IOW, unlike the Magisterium, the pope requires an event to be infallible / without error, whereas the Magisterium is always infallible / without error because the Magisterium is not human or humans at all, the magisterium is all the teachings that have always been taught by the Church i.e. "all that has been handed down." It is the Church who is the Authority i.e. "the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world" - - "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith." - Pope Pius IX
So to say the magisterium is infallible, although correct it can give the impression that an extraordinary or unusual event is required for it's infallibility, which it isn't, any more than an event is required for the Deposit Of Faith to be infallible. By their very nature they're immune from error - as the popes are quoted as teaching.
So, the church you consider to be the Catholic Church, the one who’s head you believe is a man named Bergoglio, has promulgated a council that teaches numerous errors and heresy. It has a code of canon law that contains error and heresy. It has dubious, doubtful and downright invalid sacraments. It officially leads her “faithful” into sin by granting annulments by the boatload. The question is: how do you justify the enormous contradiction between the above and your proudly touted quotation from Venerable Pius IX?
-
I've been arguing this point with him for years. He has this bizarre tautological definition of the Magisterium.
If it's true, it's Magisterium. It's it's not true, then it's not Magisterium. So, in other words, it's true if it's true and false if it's false. No a priori guarantee whatsoever of being even somewhat correct. It is determined to be Magisterium when Stubborn decides it is, having the effect of making Stubborn the Magisterium.
The irony here is palpable.
Here's Ladislaus version of Stubborn's "circle":
He's the pope if he speaks truly; if he speaks falsely he's not the pope. (I use "speaking" in terms of Magisterial teaching: an ecuмenical council, a Magisterial act involving the faith or worship for the universal Church, like Vatican II, the imposition of the Novus Ordo Mass).
So in other words, he's pope if he's pope, and not pope if he's not pope.
How do you know? Laddy does the same thing Stubborn does: he takes a teaching and decides if it's true or false. If it's false - he rejects the teacher as false. Stubborn just rejects the teaching.
Either way, you have lay Catholics rejecting a teaching that should - if the pre-V2 20th Century theologian/Laddy definition of indefectibility is true - should be free from error. Stubborn does so at least without any inconsistency; Lad rejects teachings of popes that he says can't be erroneous and which he says one can't reject.
Part of the indefectibility of the Church is not only her not teaching error but also always having an identifiable governing body. Laddy misplaced the governing body but can't let go of his indefectibility definition, which flies in the face of reality. Poor Laddy.
And he does so while throwing rings of circularity at Stubborn while doing the Hula Hoop and eating onion rings.
Circle, meet circle.
Perhaps, Lad, could you take a break from your Hooping and respond to this post of mine that you - didn't see? It's where you were decrying "private judgment" by Stubborn - a shared beam in your eye to go with a shared circle.
Quote from: Ladislaus on August 31, 2022, 06:02:06 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/why-the-neo-sspx-position-on-the-crisis-is-untenable/msg843998/#msg843998)
There is in fact a role for private judgment where it comes to faith, and it was clearly taught by Vatican I.
It's in determining in the first place the credibility of the authority behind the Magisterium. We use our reason to assess what are called the "motives of credibility" and to make the determination based on these that the Catholic Church is the True Church founded by Christ that exercises His teaching authority. We then submit to the authority of the Church's Magisterium.
More empty rhetoric that becomes absurd in application to real events.
When John XXXIII was elected, was he "the Magisterium"? That was 1959. What did the "motives of credibility" say, or would they say? Nothing at the time said he wasn't of "the Magisterium." Submission to his authority was required.
When Paul VI was elected, was he "the Magisterium"? That was 1963. What did the "motives of credibility" say, or would they say? Nothing at the time said he wasn't of "the Magisterium." Submission to his authority was required.
At some point a magisterial act was weighed, or you weigh it in hindsight in rejecting either John XXXIII or Paul VI. Maybe a certain act of the Vatican II Council, maybe the promulgation or establishment of the New Mass. Point being, at some point a Magisterium that had all the marks of "credibility" - demanding submission - made a decision or act that you and other Catholics judged: a specific Magisterial act that was weighed and questioned.
Perhaps it was several magisterial acts. In any event, you and we all weighed certain magisterial acts and effectively pronounced "anti-gospel." For some that meant also therefore "not pope"; for others, simply a magisterial act not to be believed or followed.
The point being, again, for you, as well as Stubborn, I, for everyone here, some papal, magisterial act or acts - which under your standard should be accepted, believed, and obeyed - was rejected. Then, for some, the magisterium itself was rejected. But not until acts from a magisterium that had all the "motives of credibillity" violated the teachings of Scripture or Tradition.
Again, you live in a fog of "I always obey the Magisterium; it is the sole guide of truth" that is nothing more than a self-deception that, I don't know, makes you feel more Catholic, more orthodox, more traditional . . . I don't know, but your psyche needs it. But it's delusional . . .
https://www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/why-the-neo-sspx-position-on-the-crisis-is-untenable/msg844030/#msg844030
-
How do you know? Laddy does the same thing Stubborn does: he takes a teaching and decides if it's true or false. If it's false - he rejects the teacher as false. Stubborn just rejects the teaching.
You gotta look at the big picture here, Pax. We're not just saying that this or that teaching is erroneous and therefore to be rejected. We are saying that an entire false religion has come out of Rome since Vatican II. Stubborn is basically saying that with each statement from the pope or the magisterium, one must look at it and see if it corresponds with tradition. If it does, the individual looking at it accepts it as part of the magisterium. If not, the individual rejects it as part of the magisterium. The problem here is that it's the individual making himself the pope of the pope, i.e., the individual corrects the pope as necessary. This is not correct.
Your claim that sedevacantism is basically the same has a superficial logic to it, but if you look at the big picture, it's really not the same at all. Sedevacantists say an entire false religion has come from Vatican II, and therefore the people promoting that false religion cannot be the pope and bishops, and magisterium.
The real difference between the two positions is that it's a lot easier and clearer to identify an entire false religion than to identify an error in a statement coming from a pope whom you generally believe unless he says something you disagree with. The sedevacantist rejects the person claiming to be pope in toto, so there is no need to sift his statements once he is identified as a heresiarch.
While I'm sure Stubborn would also assert an entire false religion has come out of Rome, that is not the basis on which he bases his position. He is not rejecting everything coming from Rome on that basis, but instead claiming the head of this false religion is the pope (?), and he, Stubborn, must check everything this person says to keep the good and reject the bad. Sedes don't sift anything; they throw the whole thing in the garbage.
I understand your point of view, and these are monumentally difficult questions, but I hope this helps?
Either way, you have lay Catholics rejecting a teaching that should - if the pre-V2 20th Century theologian/Laddy definition of indefectibility is true - should be free from error. Stubborn does so at least without any inconsistency; Lad rejects teachings of popes that he says can't be erroneous and which he says one can't reject.
Er, no, pre-Vatican II theologians never told us to accept any teachings from heretics.
Part of the indefectibility of the Church is not only her not teaching error but also always having an identifiable governing body. Laddy misplaced the governing body but can't let go of his indefectibility definition, which flies in the face of reality. Poor Laddy.
This is an extremely popular idea but I've never seen the proof of this claim. Can you show it to me?
When John XXXIII was elected, was he "the Magisterium"? That was 1959. What did the "motives of credibility" say, or would they say? Nothing at the time said he wasn't of "the Magisterium." Submission to his authority was required.
When Paul VI was elected, was he "the Magisterium"? That was 1963. What did the "motives of credibility" say, or would they say? Nothing at the time said he wasn't of "the Magisterium." Submission to his authority was required.
With John 23rd, that is quite plausible, but by the time Paul VI was elected, it was clear to people who knew about such things that there were serious problems in the Council that was going on at the time, in terms of its orthodoxy. Also, I think it is very likely Paul VI had a prior history of evidence of being a heretic, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to prove that.
At some point a magisterial act was weighed, or you weigh it in hindsight in rejecting either John XXXIII or Paul VI. Maybe a certain act of the Vatican II Council, maybe the promulgation or establishment of the New Mass. Point being, at some point a Magisterium that had all the marks of "credibility" - demanding submission - made a decision or act that you and other Catholics judged: a specific Magisterial act that was weighed and questioned.
Perhaps it was several magisterial acts. In any event, you and we all weighed certain magisterial acts and effectively pronounced "anti-gospel." For some that meant also therefore "not pope"; for others, simply a magisterial act not to be believed or followed.
The point being, again, for you, as well as Stubborn, I, for everyone here, some papal, magisterial act or acts - which under your standard should be accepted, believed, and obeyed - was rejected. Then, for some, the magisterium itself was rejected. But not until acts from a magisterium that had all the "motives of credibillity" violated the teachings of Scripture or Tradition.
Again, you live in a fog of "I always obey the Magisterium; it is the sole guide of truth" that is nothing more than a self-deception that, I don't know, makes you feel more Catholic, more orthodox, more traditional . . . I don't know, but your psyche needs it. But it's delusional . . .
I think the problem with your description here is that you seem to think everything was fine in Vatican II except for one little sentence or one detail that went wrong, that trads or sedevacantists or whoever you are talking about here then jumped on and started judging the pope or whatever. This is wildly inaccurate. What happened, rather, was that countless lines were crossed, which you correctly describe as heretical statements of the Council, a heretical ceremony being imposed in the place of the Mass of the ages, fake sacraments to replace the real ones, and so on and so on. There was lots and lots of proof that what was going on in Rome was not Catholic, so much proof that everyone of good will rejected the changes and novelties. We only have different ways of explaining why we reject them.
-
You gotta look at the big picture here, Pax. We're not just saying that this or that teaching is erroneous and therefore to be rejected. We are saying that an entire false religion has come out of Rome since Vatican II.
Correct. There is one place where private judgment comes into play, as taught clearly by Vatican I, and is in ascertaining the authority of the Church based on the motives of credibility. But I've explained this ad nauseam, but the Old Catholics here on the forum (Decem, Stubborn, and a few others) refuse to understand this in their pertinacious rejection of Catholic ecclesiology.
-
I'm not the one redefining the magisterium...
The universal ordinary magisterium is merely what the Church has always taught in an ordinary manner, i.e. via her clergy, nuns, catechisms, etc., even parents. The extraordinary magisterium are those things taught in an unusual manner, such as ex cathedra definitions - which are also contained in the Church's universal magisterium.
:facepalm:
Wow! You just redefined the ordinary magisterium right here! Neither nuns nor catechisms nor parents enjoy Magisterial authority. This belongs solely to the petrine office and the universal episcopate in communion with Peter. These are all bishops. There did exist what was called the theological magisterium that was a special analogous teaching authority held by the faculty (graduates who were all clergy) of the University of Paris on account of that institution's theological preeminence. However, this theological magisterium disappeared in the French Revolution. But, yes, you have a very mistaken notion of who holds magisterial authority and how that authority is exercised.
-
So, the church you consider to be the Catholic Church, the one who’s head you believe is a man named Bergoglio, has promulgated a council that teaches numerous errors and heresy. It has a code of canon law that contains error and heresy. It has dubious, doubtful and downright invalid sacraments. It officially leads her “faithful” into sin by granting annulments by the boatload. The question is: how do you justify the enormous contradiction between the above and your proudly touted quotation from Venerable Pius IX?
You never answered:
Do you believe Pope Pius XI below?
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#18), Dec. 31, 1929: “… God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.” ... “To this magisterium Christ the Lord imparted immunity from error...”
-
:facepalm:
Wow! You just redefined the ordinary magisterium right here! Neither nuns nor catechisms nor parents enjoy Magisterial authority. This belongs solely to the petrine office and the universal episcopate in communion with Peter. These are all bishops. There did exist what was called the theological magisterium that was a special analogous teaching authority held by the faculty (graduates who were all clergy) of the University of Paris on account of that institution's theological preeminence. However, this theological magisterium disappeared in the French Revolution. But, yes, you have a very mistaken notion of who holds magisterial authority and how that authority is exercised.
I never said nuns or catechisms enjoy magisterial authority because that is not the teaching of Pope Pius IX. You read meanings into words that the words do not say while failing to advert to what the words do say.
-
You gotta look at the big picture here, Pax. We're not just saying that this or that teaching is erroneous and therefore to be rejected. We are saying that an entire false religion has come out of Rome since Vatican II. Stubborn is basically saying that with each statement from the pope or the magisterium, one must look at it and see if it corresponds with tradition. If it does, the individual looking at it accepts it as part of the magisterium. If not, the individual rejects it as part of the magisterium. The problem here is that it's the individual making himself the pope of the pope, i.e., the individual corrects the pope as necessary. This is not correct.
No, that is not what I am basically saying. I am echoing what the popes taught, believing their teaching is as true today as when they taught it and always will be true and can never be anything but true.
The problem here is the prevalent error that the pope and bishops are the magisterium, or Lads novel idea, that whatever they preach is / becomes the magisterium. This thinking is altogether wrong per the teachings of the popes I've quoted. Try to concentrate on those teachings and forget about an empty chair for the time being.
While I'm sure Stubborn would also assert an entire false religion has come out of Rome, that is not the basis on which he bases his position. He is not rejecting everything coming from Rome on that basis, but instead claiming the head of this false religion is the pope (?), and he, Stubborn, must check everything this person says to keep the good and reject the bad. Sedes don't sift anything; they throw the whole thing in the garbage.
Rome has been infiltrated with the Church's enemies, it has been taken over and is no longer Catholic. Again, I base "my position" on what the popes taught, believing their teaching is as true today as when they taught it and always will be true and can never be anything but true.
We do not need to check what comes out of Rome, we do not sift anything because everything that comes out of Rome is liberal, anti-Catholic, modernist heresy - it's been this way since the 60s. What is this "sifting" you're talking about?
If Rome ever says anything Catholic that is of substance, the entire world will take notice. The world will take notice because it will be contrary to everything Rome has spewed for the last three generations. What is this "sifting" you're talking about?
-
You gotta look at the big picture here, Pax. We're not just saying that this or that teaching is erroneous and therefore to be rejected. We are saying that an entire false religion has come out of Rome since Vatican II. Stubborn is basically saying that with each statement from the pope or the magisterium, one must look at it and see if it corresponds with tradition. If it does, the individual looking at it accepts it as part of the magisterium. If not, the individual rejects it as part of the magisterium. The problem here is that it's the individual making himself the pope of the pope, i.e., the individual corrects the pope as necessary. This is not correct.
Your claim that sedevacantism is basically the same has a superficial logic to it, but if you look at the big picture, it's really not the same at all. Sedevacantists say an entire false religion has come from Vatican II, and therefore the people promoting that false religion cannot be the pope and bishops, and magisterium.
The real difference between the two positions is that it's a lot easier and clearer to identify an entire false religion than to identify an error in a statement coming from a pope whom you generally believe unless he says something you disagree with. The sedevacantist rejects the person claiming to be pope in toto, so there is no need to sift his statements once he is identified as a heresiarch.
While I'm sure Stubborn would also assert an entire false religion has come out of Rome, that is not the basis on which he bases his position. He is not rejecting everything coming from Rome on that basis, but instead claiming the head of this false religion is the pope (?), and he, Stubborn, must check everything this person says to keep the good and reject the bad. Sedes don't sift anything; they throw the whole thing in the garbage.
I understand your point of view, and these are monumentally difficult questions, but I hope this helps?
Er, no, pre-Vatican II theologians never told us to accept any teachings from heretics.
This is an extremely popular idea but I've never seen the proof of this claim. Can you show it to me?
With John 23rd, that is quite plausible, but by the time Paul VI was elected, it was clear to people who knew about such things that there were serious problems in the Council that was going on at the time, in terms of its orthodoxy. Also, I think it is very likely Paul VI had a prior history of evidence of being a heretic, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to prove that.
I think the problem with your description here is that you seem to think everything was fine in Vatican II except for one little sentence or one detail that went wrong, that trads or sedevacantists or whoever you are talking about here then jumped on and started judging the pope or whatever. This is wildly inaccurate. What happened, rather, was that countless lines were crossed, which you correctly describe as heretical statements of the Council, a heretical ceremony being imposed in the place of the Mass of the ages, fake sacraments to replace the real ones, and so on and so on. There was lots and lots of proof that what was going on in Rome was not Catholic, so much proof that everyone of good will rejected the changes and novelties. We only have different ways of explaining why we reject them.
Yeti,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
As you say, these are "monumentally difficult questions," and we need to think through them and parse the claims out so to speak.
Of course, I understand the "totally off the rails" - I think that's one of Lad's phrases - distinction that is trying to be made. In effect, that is simply saying a "pope" and the "magisterium" have become extremely erroneous, very, very badly erroneous. Either way, it's a claim of error by what constitutes the magisterium of the Church. However, my I think critical point remains: the error(s) come from a body that, under the traditional thinking, could not commit it. A body that we are told cannot commit error and we are bound to listen to. To simply say, when this body goes "totally off the rails," it's not THE BODY, is an evasion of the issues and the crux of the problem.
With John 23rd, that is quite plausible, but by the time Paul VI was elected, it was clear to people who knew about such things that there were serious problems in the Council that was going on at the time, in terms of its orthodoxy. Also, I think it is very likely Paul VI had a prior history of evidence of being a heretic, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to prove that.
Paul VI was elected pope in June of 1963. When did the "motives of credibility" apply in accepting his papacy? July of 1963? January of 1964? Why the delay? Are the "motives of credibility" to be suspended for 6 months, a year, two years? Is he a pope whose official Magisterial acts are to be accepted upon his election and acceptance? If not, when are they to be?
I know you see my point: the prerogatives of indefectible teaching and the necessity of submission fell upon Paul VI at some point before the "errors." The subsequent errors make false the claim the pope's universal magisterium is free from error. Those "errors" occurred at some point after the "motives of credibility" would have said he was pope, and thus from that point the errors would impossible per the traditional - or let's say in vogue - teaching prior to V2.
Thank you for the dialogue.
As to a governing body being part of the Church's indefectibility, I give you the draft constitution of the fathers of Vatican I, which my volume of The Church Teaches I think accurately states reflects the "mind of the Church." It is from the section entitled, "The Indefectibility of the Church":
We declare, moreover, that, whether one considers its existence or its constitution, the Church of Christ is an everlasting and indefectible society, and that, after it, no more complete nor more perfect economy of salvation is to be hoped for in this world. For, to the very end of the world the pilgrims of this earth are to be saved through Christ. Consequently, his Church, the only society of salvation, will last until the end of the world ever unchangeable and unchanged in its constitution. Therefore, although the Church is growing—and We wish that it may always grow in faith and charity for the upbuilding of Christ's body—although it evolves in a variety of ways according to the changing times and circuмstances in which it is constantly displaying activity, nevertheless, it remains unchangeable in itself and in the constitution it received from Christ. Therefore, Christ's Church can never lose its properties and its qualities, its sacred teaching authority, priestly office, and governing body, so that through his visible body, Christ may always be the way, the truth, and the life for all men.
Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's College. The Church Teaches: Docuмents of the Church in English Translation . TAN Books. Kindle Edition.
-
Perhaps, Decem, with a good cop - bad cop schtick you can be snapped out of this mentality where you're basically regurgitating verbatim the main talking points from the Old Catholic Declaration of Utrecht.
We're not speaking about some minor error here or there by way of an obiter dictum in some Encyclical. If the problem were merely a matter of a problematic sentence or two in Vatican II, there would be no Traditional Catholicism.
But what we have here in the Conciliar Church, with its Modernist theological system, its public worship (displeasing to God, harmful to souls), and its fake saints whose lives are a scadal to both faith and morals ... is something that is substantially different from Catholicism, and legitimate papal authority, guided by the Holy Spirit, is incapable of substantially altering both the Church and the faith. This is not possible, and the only thing that makes sense is that the true Catholic Church has been eclipsed, replaced by a counterfeit ... and there is a significant body of Catholic prophecy which predicts percisely this scenario.
Let us not throw the entire Catholic Church, with her marks, the motives of credibility (which are completely absent from the Conciliar establishment), particularl the Holiess of the Church ... let us not throw the Church under the bus to save Jorge Bergolgio. What does it matter in the least to have some clown prancing around in a white cassock? Why does it matter if such a papacy, one that can destroy the Church and alter the Catholic religion into something that's more readily recognized by Cranmer and Luther than by St. Pius X? We'd be better off without such a papacy. Heck, we had David Bawden (God rest his soul) wearing the white cassock.
This is all someone has to ask. If St Pius X were time-warped forward to today and beheld the NOM, saw Bergolgio in action, spouting his heretical Modernist nonsense on a daily basis, if he were not told "This is the Catholic Church." would he recognize it? That's a rhetorical question, the answer to which is obviously ... absolutely not. He would think it some aberrant Protestant sect. Even Luther or Cranmner would find the Conciliar Church an abomination. And, then, if you were to tell the time-travelling St. Pius X, "This is the Catholic Church, and that is the Holy Father." ... he would immediately drop dead from the horror.
This is why the simple faithful have become Traditional Catholics. One need not have a theological degree and subject the various problematic passages in V2 to analysis. We have the Catholic sheep who know the voice of their Shepherd recognizing that this is NOT the voice of Our Lord, but that of a wolf dressed up in sheep's clothing.
This is where I speak of the motives of credibility regarding the identity of this institution. That is in fact where "private judgment" and reason play a role. As people who were not Catholic generally convert because they recognize the identity of the Church as being the insitution established by Our Lord to teach with his authority, so too we fail to recognize the identity of the Conciliar institution as being that of the Catholic Church. Archbishop Lefebvre repeatedly stated in public that this Conciliar Church lacks the marks of the Catholic Church.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia on The Church:
Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard.
-
Perhaps, Decem, with a good cop - bad cop schtick you can be snapped out of this mentality where you're basically regurgitating verbatim the main talking points from the Old Catholic Declaration of Utrecht.
We're not speaking about some minor error here or there by way of an obiter dictum in some Encyclical. If the problem were merely a matter of a problematic sentence or two in Vatican II, there would be no Traditional Catholicism.
But what we have here in the Conciliar Church, with its Modernist theological system, its public worship (displeasing to God, harmful to souls), and its fake saints whose lives are a scadal to both faith and morals ... is something that is substantially different from Catholicism, and legitimate papal authority, guided by the Holy Spirit, is incapable of substantially altering both the Church and the faith. This is not possible, and the only thing that makes sense is that the true Catholic Church has been eclipsed, replaced by a counterfeit ... and there is a significant body of Catholic prophecy which predicts percisely this scenario.
Let us not throw the entire Catholic Church, with her marks, the motives of credibility (which are completely absent from the Conciliar establishment), particularl the Holiess of the Church ... let us not throw the Church under the bus to save Jorge Bergolgio. What does it matter in the least to have some clown prancing around in a white cassock? Why does it matter if such a papacy, one that can destroy the Church and alter the Catholic religion into something that's more readily recognized by Cranmer and Luther than by St. Pius X? We'd be better off without such a papacy. Heck, we had David Bawden (God rest his soul) wearing the white cassock.
This is all someone has to ask. If St Pius X were time-warped forward to today and beheld the NOM, saw Bergolgio in action, spouting his heretical Modernist nonsense on a daily basis, if he were not told "This is the Catholic Church." would he recognize it? That's a rhetorical question, the answer to which is obviously ... absolutely not. He would think it some aberrant Protestant sect. Even Luther or Cranmner would find the Conciliar Church an abomination.
This is why the simple faithful have become Traditional Catholics. One need not have a theological degree and subjet the various problematic passages in V2 to analysis. We have the Catholic sheep who know the voice of their Shepherd recognizing that this is NOT the voice of Our Lord, but that of a wolve dressed up in sheep's clothing.
This is where I speak of the motives of credibility regarding the identity of this institution. That is in fact where "private judgment" and reason play a role. As people who were not Catholic generally convert because they recognize the identity of the Church as being the insitution established by Our Lord to teach with his authority.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia on The Church:
Lad,
Thank you. Perhaps, through the intercession of Yedi, we can move to a deeper discussion without the enmity, even if the enmity is only for sake of argument.
We are talking specifically about a teaching regarding indefectibility which posits that a pope and the bishops in union with him cannot teach error Magisterially. Period. That teaching is belied by the Conciliar Church.
The CE article speaks in your terms, but doesn't address the issue of any Magisterial teaching being incapable of error, which, again, is the focus from my end.
So, I do not think you have dealt with this objection:
Of course, I understand the "totally off the rails" - I think that's one of Lad's phrases - distinction that is trying to be made. In effect, that is simply saying a "pope" and the "magisterium" have become extremely erroneous, very, very badly erroneous. Either way, it's a claim of error by what constitutes the magisterium of the Church. However, my I think critical point remains: the error(s) come from a body that, under the traditional thinking, could not commit it. A body that we are told cannot commit error and we are bound to listen to. To simply say, when this body goes "totally off the rails," it's not THE BODY, is an evasion of the issues and the crux of the problem.
Before the "errors," was John XXIII, Paul VI etc. pope of an indefectible Church or not?
And, where is the "governing body" of this indefectible Church which cannot lose its governing body?
-
DR: Are you questioning whether the Catholic Church was ever indefectible given what has happened over the last 60 years?
-
Before the "errors," was John XXIII, Paul VI etc. pope of an indefectible Church or not?
They never were Popes, sedevacantists claim, as they were manifest heretics prior to claiming office, falling under the precepts of cuм Ex.
-
They never were Popes, sedevacantists claim, as they were manifest heretics prior to claiming office, falling under the precepts of cuм Ex.
Yes, I understand that.
But I keep pointing out the "governing body" aspect of this. Indefectibility requires not only teaching without error but also a teacher, i.e. a "governing body" to do the teaching.
All the bishops in union with the Conciliar popes are heretics and not members of the Church per this "manifest heretic" argument. Where is the "governing body"? It's not even like an interregnum since they're all Novus Ordo heretics. Not even a single Catholic bishop with ordinary jurisdiction can be pointed to.
I guess my main point is the traditional teaching regarding indefectibility, which requires both a teacher and a teaching without error, has been stood on its head by V2 and the Conciliar popes.
-
DR: Are you questioning whether the Catholic Church was ever indefectible given what has happened over the last 60 years?
I question the definition of indefectibility, as there appears to have been errors in Magisterial teaching regarding the changes of stance on geocentrism and usury primarily.
For example, per Stubborn's understanding of indefectibility, yes, the Church is indefectible. As a former Feeneyite I use to argue the solemn Magisterium v. Ordinary Magisterium distinction, and recognize the possibility of error in ordinary magisterial teaching. That seems to make sense more and more these days.
The question is brought into intensity with the errors of the Conciliar Church.
-
For example, per Stubborn's understanding of indefectibility, yes, the Church is indefectible. As a former Feeneyite I use to argue the solemn Magisterium v. Ordinary Magisterium distinction, and recognize the possibility of error in ordinary magisterial teaching. That seems to make sense more and more these days.
Canon 1323, section 1 (https://d2y1pz2y630308.cloudfront.net/24851/docuмents/2021/1/The 1917 or Pio-Benedictine Co - Benedict XIV Pope Peters E_7786.pdf) of the 1917 Code of Canon Law states: All of those things are to be believed with a divine and Catholic faith that are contained in the written word of God or in tradition and that the Church proposes as worthy of belief, as divinely revealed, whether by solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium.
I will try to address some of your other points today, but I don't think I understand your position here. You are claiming the hierarchy cannot defect, so I'm not sure what your belief is about the state of the hierarchy today, since it doesn't appear that you recognize what is coming from Rome right now as part of the Church's teaching either.
Regarding your quote about the Church always having a governing body, first of all, it didn't make it into Vatican I, so maybe the Holy Ghost prevented it from going in. Who knows. But it's not a statement of the magisterium, so it doesn't have any authority in itself. Even then, it doesn't say there will always be a living human being holding office in the college of bishops or the papacy. I realize there are different positions on this, and smarter guys than me believe it is Catholic dogma that there will always be a living person holding office as an ordinary, so I tread cautiously here ... but all the quotes adduced as proof of this don't seem quite specific enough to prove the claim they are offered in support of. Okay, so the Church will have "shepherds until the end of time", as Vatican I says. Of course I accept this. But I don't understand how that can't be understood to be simply a description of the fact that the Church has a perpetual structure of authority, both doctrinal and disciplinary, a structure of shepherds that will rule until the end of time. In other words, I don't see why this statement can't be taken as describing the structure within which the shepherds exercise authority, rather than referring to the shepherds themselves, as everyone seems to take it. Obviously, until the post-Vatican II era that distinction has never had to be made, so maybe that's why this quote is not as explicit as we would wish, but I really don't find this argument convincing by itself.
-
I literally have no idea what DR thinks.
-
For anyone who marked 'Other' to the initial question, what are the grounds/support for that? Is this the position of Stubborn, et al. (no offense Stubborn, or anyone else, just trying to get some clarity here).
-
For anyone who marked 'Other' to the initial question, what are the grounds/support for that? Is this the position of Stubborn, et al. (no offense Stubborn, or anyone else, just trying to get some clarity here).
So far no one will answer the question, will you?....
Do you believe Pope Pius XI below?
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#18), Dec. 31, 1929: “… God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.” ... “To this magisterium Christ the Lord imparted immunity from error...”
-
You never answered:
Do you believe Pope Pius XI below?
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#18), Dec. 31, 1929: “… God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.” ... “To this magisterium Christ the Lord imparted immunity from error...”
Of course I believe his words, I figured that what I wrote above made that clear. What puzzles me is that you claim to believe it, but in actuality you contradict it.
-
Of course I believe his words, I figured that what I wrote above made that clear. What puzzles me is that you claim to believe it, but in actuality you contradict it.
Agreed QvD. Some of these posts make me feel like I'm reading a different language.
-
Agreed QvD. Some of these posts make me feel like I'm reading a different language.
I think (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-attack-on-ultramontanism/msg763688/?topicseen#msg763688)it truly is another language.
-
Of course I believe his words, I figured that what I wrote above made that clear. What puzzles me is that you claim to believe it, but in actuality you contradict it.
No, I believe it is as true today as it was then. The Church's magisterium is today, was, and always will be immune from error. It's how we all learn and grown in the true faith, even in these abominable times.
-
I think (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-attack-on-ultramontanism/msg763688/?topicseen#msg763688)it truly is another language.
Except the confusion in this thread doesn't seem to be about the papacy. It's about the OUM.
-
Catholic Magisterium is not free from error. IF, MIGHT the Pope and his followers, Bishops take the Graces given to them for their Divine Office, then the Holy Ghost will be there.
Read "The True Story of the Vatican Council, by Henry Manning in archives 1880. It explains and states that Papal Infallibility had a need to be defined. Yes, defined deeper. It now has 1 hour and 50 minutes of definition.
I was very surprised to find what I thought was Papal Infallibility was not what I thought it was. At Vatican I, 2 Popes were found to be Anti-popes. This is infallible as well. Man can error. He can be given the Graces/powers of God IF/MIGHT they decide to take these Graces. Vatican I was such a blessing.
-
I will try to address some of your other points today, but I don't think I understand your position here. You are claiming the hierarchy cannot defect, so I'm not sure what your belief is about the state of the hierarchy today, since it doesn't appear that you recognize what is coming from Rome right now as part of the Church's teaching either.
I was going to say perhaps you don't understand my position because I never claimed the hierarchy can't defect - if it means teach error in its official, ordinary, universal magisterium, because it has in fact being doing that. So, no, I don't believe that. Anyway, I won't say that's the cause of your misunderstanding since I confuse Vermont as well. :laugh1:
I'm in search of truth, and question. I take positions and vet them, to test their reliability, as I and the rest of you struggle in this crisis in search of reasonable answers. I subject them to the reaches of their logical consequences and, if I see contradiction, and the contradiction holds under continued scrutiny, I know the concept isn't true; the laws of thought necessitate its falsity.
So I'm a bit of a gadfly sometimes, well, most times.
-
Regarding your quote about the Church always having a governing body, first of all, it didn't make it into Vatican I, so maybe the Holy Ghost prevented it from going in. Who knows. But it's not a statement of the magisterium, so it doesn't have any authority in itself. Even then, it doesn't say there will always be a living human being holding office in the college of bishops or the papacy. I realize there are different positions on this, and smarter guys than me believe it is Catholic dogma that there will always be a living person holding office as an ordinary, so I tread cautiously here ... but all the quotes adduced as proof of this don't seem quite specific enough to prove the claim they are offered in support of. Okay, so the Church will have "shepherds until the end of time", as Vatican I says. Of course I accept this. But I don't understand how that can't be understood to be simply a description of the fact that the Church has a perpetual structure of authority, both doctrinal and disciplinary, a structure of shepherds that will rule until the end of time. In other words, I don't see why this statement can't be taken as describing the structure within which the shepherds exercise authority, rather than referring to the shepherds themselves, as everyone seems to take it. Obviously, until the post-Vatican II era that distinction has never had to be made, so maybe that's why this quote is not as explicit as we would wish, but I really don't find this argument convincing by itself.
It is a draft constitution on the church prepared by top churchmen and theologians at I believe the pope's request, like the schema for Vatican II that were rejected by the modernists. I think one can safely refer to it as representative of the thought of the Church on the Church's indefectibility.
The draft constitution states what I think is indisputable as to the purpose of indefectibility: "so that through this visible body, Christ may always be the way, the life and the truth for all men."
As I said elsewhere, a bogus "governing body" accepted by the world as the true Church misrepresenting Christ's truth with an anti-Gospel totally obliterates the raison d'être for indefectibility in the first place. That (the above as expressed in the Vatican I Dogmatic Constitution on th Church) is the reason for the doctrine, not so that it could serve as a way for Sedes to argue away popes and bishops accepted as "the Church" as not popes and bishops of the Catholic Church.
The maintain that the concept of indefectibility is formally and theoretically true as to the nature of the "true" Church in the face of the reality of the Conciliar Church is to me simply an evasion that soothes some of our troubled minds at best.
-
I was going to say perhaps you don't understand my position because I never claimed the hierarchy can't defect - if it means teach error in its official, ordinary, universal magisterium, because it has in fact being doing that.
It says in Vatican I (Denzinger 1792): "Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed."
-
It is a draft constitution on the church prepared by top churchmen and theologians at I believe the pope's request, like the schema for Vatican II that were rejected by the modernists. I think one can safely refer to it as representative of the thought of the Church on the Church's indefectibility.
I don't think it's safe at all to accept that quote as representative of the thought of the Church, especially since I gave a plausible reason why it didn't make it into the decrees of the Council itself, namely that maybe it was not correct or at least worded poorly so the Holy Ghost didn't allow it in. That's how the Holy Ghost guards the teaching of the Church.
The draft constitution states what I think is indisputable as to the purpose of indefectibility: "so that through this visible body, Christ may always be the way, the life and the truth for all men."
I'm not at all convinced this isn't happening now anyway. How do we know to reject the errors of Vatican II and the New Mass, except through the teachings of the hierarchy of the past? Isn't Christ the way, the truth and the life to us now by the actions of the true popes of the past? Doesn't that mean that that visible body in the past is still making Christ the way, the truth and the life?
As I said elsewhere, a bogus "governing body" accepted by the world as the true Church misrepresenting Christ's truth with an anti-Gospel totally obliterates the raison d'être for indefectibility in the first place. That (the above as expressed in the Vatican I Dogmatic Constitution on th Church) is the reason for the doctrine, not so that it could serve as a way for Sedes to argue away popes and bishops accepted as "the Church" as not popes and bishops of the Catholic Church.
What is remarkable, though, is the way that "governing body" you refer to has been almost unanimously rejected on some level by everyone who truly has the Catholic Faith. In spite of not having a visible body of men currently living who currently hold the offices of and operate the hierarchy doesn't seem to have prevented us from practicing the Faith, so I'm not sure how valid your argument is. You seem to be allowing the Faith to be defined by "the world", which is always a bad idea.
You say that there is a serious problem that the governing body that the world accepts as the true Church is teaching error. This would be a serious problem, except for the fact that "the world" in the sense that you are using it here is composed of people who don't have the Faith anyway, so who cares what they think? You are confused because you are allowing the peoples of heathendom, basically, to define what the Church is and who is in charge of it and what it teaches. It's no wonder this creates problems for you.
To maintain that the concept of indefectibility is formally and theoretically true as to the nature of the "true" Church in the face of the reality of the Conciliar Church is to me simply an evasion that soothes some of our troubled minds at best.
The true Church is just as real, if not more so, than the Conciliar Church. The existence of the Conciliar Church does not pose any problem for the existence of the Catholic Church; in fact, nothing can pose a problem for the existence of the Catholic Church, since it is indefectible.
-
The CE article speaks in your terms, but doesn't address the issue of any Magisterial teaching being incapable of error, which, again, is the focus from my end.
I've never held that the Magisterium is ABSOLUTELY incapable of error, just that it can't be in serious or substantial error. Sometimes people misinterpret these quotes from various popes about the Magisterium being inerrant as referring to an absolute inerrancy, and thus the only way Stubborn can make sense of this is to turn it into a tautology, where if it's true, it's Magisterium, but if it's not, then it's not Magisterium ... which renders that teaching rather moot and almost absurd.
There can in theory be some error in the Magisterium per accidens, in a manner that does not compromise the overall inerrancy or integrity of the Magisterium ... according to those citations that I have made from Msgr. Fenton.
So, with regard to the greater indefectibility of the Church, what degree of error would entail a substantial change, a transformation of the Magisterium from a generally reliable guide to the faith into one that's actually inimical to the faith?
To me the litmus test is presented to us in practice. If the Conciliar Church is so alien to our sense of Catholic Church that we feel that we must separate from it, reject its teaching and its overall orientation, its public worship, etc. ... that is the point at which this has crossed the line from a myopic discussion regarding the precise limits of infallibility in the strict sense (as it was strictly defined at Vatican I).
We have a much bigger problem here than just an erroneous teaching here or there in a Papal Encyclical or Allocution. We have an entire institution that we no longer "identify with" as Catholics. I've used this thought experiment before, where we would imagine St. Pius X time-warping to our day and beholding Bergoglio, the NOM, and all the nonsense of the Conciliar Church ... right down to the aberrant Novus Ordo celebrations and the half-naked male gymnasts performing at a Vatican audience hall. If you didn't tell him that "This is the Catholic Church." ... would he even recognize it? He absolutely would not. He would think it's some Protestant sect. In fact, Luther would probably not even recognize it as Protestant. If you then told St. Pius X, "This is the Church." he would undoubtedly suffer a stroke and drop dead on the spot. This Conciliar Church, as Archbishop Lefebvre has stated in public numerous times, lacks the Marks of the Holy Cathlic Church, the marks meaning the essential identifying characteristics.
If it were possible for the Papal Magisterium to undermine and harm the faith and establish corrupt moral standards, a noxious and sacrilegeous public worship that offends God and harms souls, this would render Our Lord's promises regarding the papacy to be meaningless. It would render the Church meaningless. When we speak about the Church's public worship, what we mean by that isn't just that it's done in public. What is meant by that is that the Public Worship fo the Church (the Liturgy in Eastern terminology) is in fact the Church herself praying. Can the Church pray to God in an offensive and even blasphemous manner?
-
I feel that the debate between R&R and SV on the grounds of "infallibility" has led to extremes on both sides, with a dogmatic SV tendency to hold that the Pope is infallible every time he passes wind (through his lips ... or possibly even through his posterior), nay, as I have heard from some, that any imprimatured work out there was to be treated as effectivel infallible ... but on the other hand, you have R&R reducing the protection of the Holy Spirit over the Church to the two-or-three-per-century dogmatic definitions, leaving it theoretically possible for 98% plus of Catholic Magisterium to become corrupt. If we thus limit the protection of the Holy Spirit over the Catholic Magisterium, how do we even know that Pius IX and the other popes who rejected what would later be taught by Vatican II were not themselves mistaken, and that Vatican II was not actually making a correction of their mistakes?
-
Except the confusion in this thread doesn't seem to be about the papacy. It's about the OUM.
Yes, it is because of the confusion or "different language" that I purposely tried to keep the popes' status out of the conversation and focus strictly on the papal quotes in reply #1.
If the papal quotes are true, and they are, then it is for our benefit that they remain true today in this crisis and always.
Because they are true today, today and for all time the magisterium is immune from error and absolutely incapable of error.
Because the magisterium is immune from error, this immunity is universal, i.e. it is immune from error for all time.
Because the magisterium of today is immune from error, the magisterium cannot possibly be popes or popes and hierarchy, nor can the magisterium be Lads novel idea that whatever the popes/hierarchy preach is / becomes the magisterium, or that the magisterium can become corrupt.
To say otherwise is to disbelieve and make erroneous the papal quotes.
Whatever opinions and ideas people have regarding the status of popes cannot change the points above.
-
nor can the magisterium be Lads novel idea that whatever the popes/hierarchy preach is / becomes the magisterium, or that the magisterium can become corrupt.
I am really astonished by whatever intellectual defect you have that causes you to keep slandering me with YOUR heresy. I have repeatedly stated that these are NOT the Popes and the Hierarchy. You are the one who keeps claiming that they are and therefore attribute corruption to the Magisterium ... except that you claim that if something is erroneous, it's not Magisterium, making it into a tautology. This borders upon a serious psychological problem that you have in failing to comprehend this. You beg the question that the V2 papal claimaints are popes, and attribute an acceptance of this premise even to sedevacantists who flat-out deny it. This is utterly insane.
-
I am really astonished by whatever intellectual defect you have that causes you to keep slandering me with YOUR heresy. I have repeatedly stated that these are NOT the Popes and the Hierarchy. You are the one who keeps claiming that they are and therefore attribute corruption to the Magisterium ... except that you claim that if something is erroneous, it's not Magisterium, making it into a tautology. This borders upon a serious psychological problem that you have in failing to comprehend this. You beg the question that the V2 papal claimaints are popes, and attribute an acceptance of this premise even to sedevacantists who flat-out deny it. This is utterly insane.
In your misplaced zeal to side track with your sedeism, you missed this part.....
Whatever opinions and ideas people have regarding the status of popes cannot change the points above.
Now try to remain focused on the points made in that post and feel free to actually reply to the points I made in that post while keeping sedeism out of it, lest we remain in the tower of babble.
-
...the magisterium is all the teachings that have always been taught by the Church i.e. "all that has been handed down."
Stubborn, wouldn't this be considered the Deposit of Faith?
-
Lad,
Thank you. Perhaps, through the intercession of Yedi, we can move to a deeper discussion without the enmity, even if the enmity is only for sake of argument.
We are talking specifically about a teaching regarding indefectibility which posits that a pope and the bishops in union with him cannot teach error Magisterially. Period. That teaching is belied by the Conciliar Church.
The CE article speaks in your terms, but doesn't address the issue of any Magisterial teaching being incapable of error, which, again, is the focus from my end.
So, I do not think you have dealt with this objection:
Of course, I understand the "totally off the rails" - I think that's one of Lad's phrases - distinction that is trying to be made. In effect, that is simply saying a "pope" and the "magisterium" have become extremely erroneous, very, very badly erroneous. Either way, it's a claim of error by what constitutes the magisterium of the Church. However, my I think critical point remains: the error(s) come from a body that, under the traditional thinking, could not commit it. A body that we are told cannot commit error and we are bound to listen to. To simply say, when this body goes "totally off the rails," it's not THE BODY, is an evasion of the issues and the crux of the problem.
Before the "errors," was John XXIII, Paul VI etc. pope of an indefectible Church or not?
And, where is the "governing body" of this indefectible Church which cannot lose its governing body?
If you remember anything from your high school logic class this issue is easily solved.
A = Magisterium teaches X
B = X is without error.
A -> B (If the Magisterium teaches X, X is without error.)
(That little arrow means "it necessarily follows" or "implies".)
The contrapositive of “A implies B” is “¬B implies ¬A (¬ means not)
So, we have discovered that some teaching X is erroneous. So we have not B.
It necessarily follows A is false.
Now, since we know that an ecuмenical council, canon law, and 60 years worth of universal consistent teaching is necessarily magisterial, it necessarily follows that the supposed council is not a true council of the Church, the canon law is likewise counterfeit and the institution that promulgated it had no authority or protection from error.
-
Stubborn, wouldn't this be considered the Deposit of Faith?
Well, no. The Deposit of Faith is the body of doctrines which constitute the rule of faith. Those doctrines are not dormant nor hidden from us, they gotta get to us somehow, and the way they get to us is through the Magisterium i.e. "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world" as PPIX teaches in Tuas Libenter, and also V1.
Popes and bishops are not the ordinary way we lay members of the Church learn our holy faith, popes and bishops are the shepherds who guard and preserve what's already there - which was handed down to them, and they supervise those under them with laws, rules and etc,. Conciliar popes and bishops excluded.
Did any pope or bishop ever teach anyone here about Limbo, or our Guardian Angels, or how to make the sign of the cross, or learn the Hail Mary, or pray the rosary, or how to make a good confession, or etc. etc.? No, of course not - because they are not "the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world." Although they do not hold religion classes, this is not to say they don't teach at all, but popes and bishops are not the ordinary way we lay members learn the basic and most necessary tenants our holy religion. It just isn't.
I don't know where trads learn their faith from these days, but I learned my faith, not from any pope or bishop, I learned it first from my parents, then from a variety of sources including nuns, priests, catechisms and other books and teachers. Some choose to go on to higher learning institutions and or seminaries etc. But for me and probably every other Catholic whose ever lived, what I learned was handed down from them to me. The same is to be said for them, and so on all the way back to the time of the Apostles.
This handing down by "the ordinary teaching authority" is the Ordinary Magisterium, "of the entire Church spread over the whole world and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith" is the Universal Magisterium.
-
Well, no. The Deposit of Faith is the body of doctrines which constitute the rule of faith. Those doctrines are not dormant nor hidden from us, they gotta get to us somehow, and the way they get to us is through the Magisterium i.e. "all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world" as PPIX teaches in Tuas Libenter, and also V1.
I see that we differ with regards to the rule of faith. Notwithstanding, here's what I've always understood as the Magisterium:
The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. The Magisterium consists of a teaching body, an episcopal body, at the head of which is the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff.
The Magisterium, the teaching body, teaches the Church in two ways:
Ordinary Means
Extraordinary Means
The Ordinary means of teaching is as you described in your post. Each bishop is charged with the teaching of his flock, and this may be delegated to his priests, nuns, etc. This ordinary way of teaching is described as follows:
Catholic Encyclopedia - Tradition and Living Magisterium
"Although the bishops, taken individually, are not infallible their teaching participates in the infallibility of the Church according as they teach in concert and in union with the episcopal body, that is according as they express not their personal ideas, but the very thought of the Church."
The Extraordinary means of teaching is done through ex cathedra proclamations by the pope, and ecuмenical councils.
I know this all seems simple, but this has always been my basic understanding of the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church.
-
I see that we differ with regards to the rule of faith. Notwithstanding, here's what I've always understood as the Magisterium:
The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. The Magisterium consists of a teaching body, an episcopal body, at the head of which is the supreme authority of the Roman Pontiff.
If this were the case, then the papal quotes in reply #1 of this thread are at least erroneous and certainly not true, whether the chair is currently empty or not. Because the quotes are true, the magisterium has always been, and will forever be immune from error. Which means the magisterium cannot be a teaching body made up of the pope and episcopacy.
Catholic Encyclopedia - Tradition and Living Magisterium
"Although the bishops, taken individually, are not infallible their teaching participates in the infallibility of the Church according as they teach in concert and in union with the episcopal body, that is according as they express not their personal ideas, but the very thought of the Church."
This is actually heresy. What the CE is teaching here is the Lumen Gentium heresy. JP2 dubbed V2 as being the "Second Pentecost," which is heresy.
For us, we know that at Pentecost, at the decent of the Holy Ghost upon Our Blessed Mother and the Apostles, St. Peter and all the Apostles were each made individually infallible whenever and wherever they taught the faith. God did this in order to establish Church on earth and facilitate the beginnings of the Church throughout the entire world.
It is because each of the Apostles were individually infallible that wherever and whatever each of the Apostles taught regarding the faith, dispersed as they were throughout the world, by virtue of the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, were most certainly and could only be, each-individually-infallible, and on that account,
1) whatever they taught regarding the faith, they would have all taught the exact same thing in unison because they all taught the same divinely protected *truths*, as such,
2) no matter what they taught regarding the faith, they would have all been in agreement with each other and St. Peter - not to mention with all the future popes whenever they speak ex cathedra till the end of time.
*That's* the true infallibility of the Apostles, not their successors. That's how infallibility works, that's how infallibility worked when the Church on earth was in it's infancy. This truth is not based on a unanimity of bishops in union with the pope, it's based on the descent of the Holy Ghost upon each one of the Apostles - individually.
OTOH, the NO's Second Pentecost's idea of infallibility is built upon the idea of collegiality, that at V2 aka the Second Pentecost, that's when they made "the unanimous agreement of the totality of bishops in union with the pope" so as to pass off their modernist teachings being infallible, which as we have seen for the last 60 years, their novel doctrine of "bishops in union with the pope" bs is entirely false, on top of that is an utterly diabolical corruption of Pentecost.
The Extraordinary means of teaching is done through ex cathedra proclamations by the pope, and ecuмenical councils.
I know this all seems simple, but this has always been my basic understanding of the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church.
Well, ecuмenical councils without a pope (is there such a thing?) cannot proclaim anything ex cathedra, only popes can, whether in or out of an ecuмenical council.
-
If this were the case, then the papal quotes in reply #1 of this thread are at least erroneous and certainly not true, whether the chair is currently empty or not. Because the quotes are true, the magisterium has always been, and will forever be immune from error. Which means the magisterium cannot be a teaching body made up of the pope and episcopacy.
But your thinking is directly contrary to what Pope Leo XIII teaches:
Satis Cognitum, #9
...Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true.
Here we have a clear picture of the Magisterium, as articulated by the Roman Pontiff.
This is actually heresy. What the CE is teaching here is the Lumen Gentium heresy. JP2 dubbed V2 as being the "Second Pentecost," which is heresy.
I disagree... I believe it's perfectly in line with Pope Leo XIII's teaching:
Satis Cognitum #14
...and just as it is necessary that the authority of Peter should be perpetuated in the Roman Pontiff, so, by the fact that the bishops succeed the Apostles, they inherit their ordinary power, and thus the episcopal order necessarily belongs to the essential constitution of the Church. Although they do not receive plenary, or universal, or supreme authority, they are not to be looked as vicarsof the Roman Pontiffs; because they exercise a power really their own, and are most truly called the ordinary pastors of the peoples over whom they rule.
Well, ecuмenical councils without a pope (is there such a thing?) cannot proclaim anything ex cathedra, only popes can, whether in or out of an ecuмenical council.
I don't think I disputed this.
-
I don't know where trads learn their faith from these days, but I learned my faith, not from any pope or bishop, I learned it first from my parents, then from a variety of sources including nuns, priests, catechisms and other books and teachers. Some choose to go on to higher learning institutions and or seminaries etc. But for me and probably every other Catholic whose ever lived, what I learned was handed down from them to me. The same is to be said for them, and so on all the way back to the time of the Apostles.
Well said. I learned the Catholic Faith from a priest of the SSPX, as well as older catechisms, and the old Angelqueen forum. Certainly not from any pope. Though I did learn a thing or two from Bp. Williamson and +ABL. But normally, it seems that we are supposed to learn the Faith at a local level, from family and our parish/chapel.
Before the Vll council, how many Catholics really paid that much attention to the Pope?
-
But your thinking is directly contrary to what Pope Leo XIII teaches:
Satis Cognitum, #9
...Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true.
Here we have a clear picture of the Magisterium, as articulated by the Roman Pontiff.
Yes, very clear. I think you are missing something. Christ did institute in the Church, "a living, authoritative and permanent magisterium," don't forget that it's immune from error.
When he says "it's teachings" should be received as His own, that's exactly what he means, "it's teachings." He does not say their teachings, he says "it's teachings."
I disagree... I believe it's perfectly in line with Pope Leo XIII's teaching:
Satis Cognitum #14
...and just as it is necessary that the authority of Peter should be perpetuated in the Roman Pontiff, so, by the fact that the bishops succeed the Apostles, they inherit their ordinary power, and thus the episcopal order necessarily belongs to the essential constitution of the Church. Although they do not receive plenary, or universal, or supreme authority, they are not to be looked as vicarsof the Roman Pontiffs; because they exercise a power really their own, and are most truly called the ordinary pastors of the peoples over whom they rule.
Catholic Encyclopedia - Tradition and Living Magisterium
"Although the bishops, taken individually, are not infallible their teaching participates in the infallibility of the Church according as they teach in concert and in union with the episcopal body, that is according as they express not their personal ideas, but the very thought of the Church."
Pope Leo XIII is indeed teaching the truth, but he does not say anything like your CE quote. The CE quote, like LG, makes their teachings infallible so long as they're all teaching the same thing at basically the same time - this is NO teaching.
Compare SG #14 with the heresy taught in LG 25.2 which is more in line with the CE quote you posted....
LG 25.2
"Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecuмenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith."
There are many trads who believe this, which if true, means that the NO is right and all trads are wrong.....not that being wrong within the NO means anything, unless you're trad.
-
Yes, very clear. I think you are missing something. Christ did institute in the Church, "a living, authoritative and permanent magisterium," don't forget that it's immune from error.
When he says "it's teachings" should be received as His own, that's exactly what he means, "it's teachings." He does not say their teachings, he says "it's teachings."
Satis Cognitum #8
"It was consequently provided by God that the Magisterium instituted by Jesus Christ should not end with the life of the Apostles, but that it should be perpetuated. We see it in truth propagated, and, ‘as it were, delivered from hand to hand. For the Apostles consecrated bishops, and each one appointed those who were to succeed them immediately “in the ministry of the word.”
Nay more: they likewise required their successors to choose fitting men, to endow them with like authority, and to confide to them the office and mission of teaching."
This particular passage clearly shows that the Magisterium is most definitely a living, teaching episcopal body. The authority to TEACH is perpetuated in the successors of the Apostles. The deposit of faith is physically delivered, by the teaching authority of the Church, the Magisterium, by ordinary and extraordinary means, "from hand to hand."
He continues:
Satis Cognitum #9
"The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium."
Proposed
verb
past tense: proposed; past participle: proposed
1. put forward (an idea or plan) for consideration or discussion by others.
A simple web definition shows that the Magisterium ACTS by PROPOSING doctrine.
The Magisterium is literally the teaching authority commissioned by Christ Himself to go forth and teach all nations.
Satis Cognitum #10
"But as this heavenly doctrine was never left to the arbitrary judgment of private individuals, but, in the beginning delivered by Jesus Christ, was afterwards committed by Him exclusively to the Magisterium already named, so the power of performing and administering the divine mysteries, together with the authority of ruling and governing, was not bestowed by God on all Christians indiscriminately, but on certain chosen persons.
For to the Apostles and their legitimate successors alone these words have reference: “Going into the whole world preach the Gospel.” “Baptizing them.” “Do this in commemoration of Me.” “Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them.” And in like manner He ordered the Apostles only and those who should lawfully succeed them to feed – that is to govern with authority – alll Christian souls."
Again, given the context of the term Magisterium, used by Pope Leo XIII, I believe it clearly shows a physical office commissioned by Christ. The Magisterium was established by Christ to guard and protect the whole of Catholic Doctrine - which is immune from all error.
Pope Leo XIII is indeed teaching the truth, but he does not say anything like your CE quote. The CE quote, like LG, makes their teachings infallible so long as they're all teaching the same thing at basically the same time - this is NO teaching.
That's not necessarily how I read it, as the CE goes on to explain that the bishops must remain in communion with the pope to retain their teaching authority. There was more context, but you're right, Pope Leo XIII's explanation is much better, and more precise.
-
Basically, until the last sixty years, unless you were a religious the average Catholic knew about piety and not doctrine - say novenas, read about the saints, say your prayers, etc. None of this has to do with Doctrine and even now it's clear that most Trads only want a Latin Mass anyway.
Christ is the Good Shepherd, and a pope rules with that authority. While popes didn't factor in directly at the parish or school level, it was because they didn't have to - what they taught was Catholic. And that made its way through the ranks (schools, penny catechisms, etc.) in just the way the Church was established to run.
-
Well said. I learned the Catholic Faith from a priest of the SSPX, as well as older catechisms, and the old Angelqueen forum. Certainly not from any pope. Though I did learn a thing or two from Bp. Williamson and +ABL. But normally, it seems that we are supposed to learn the Faith at a local level, from family and our parish/chapel.
Before the Vll council, how many Catholics really paid that much attention to the Pope?
Absolute rubbish! You sound like a typical Protestant. This demonstrates just how messed up you are about the papacy. This also vindicates my assertion that the R&R position will eventually lead *some* into heresy. Your insistence on the validity of the fake “popes”, Paul VI, JPII, Ratzinger, and Bergoglio has led you into a completely unorthodox understanding of the papacy. Remember, just because you say and accept that so and so is the Vicar of Christ does not make you a Catholic, sorry.
-
Absolute rubbish! You sound like a typical Protestant. This demonstrates just how messed up you are about the papacy. This also vindicates my assertion that the R&R position will eventually lead *some* into heresy. Your insistence on the validity of the fake “popes”, Paul VI, JPII, Ratzinger, and Bergoglio has led you into a completely unorthodox understanding of the papacy. Remember, just because you say and accept that so and so is the Vicar of Christ does not make you a Catholic, sorry.
Sheesh! Should have known my comment would upset sedevacantists, who obsess about the Pope (or rather the guy in Rome whom they believe is not the Pope).
-
Sheesh! Should have known my comment would upset sedevacantists, who obsess about the Pope (or rather the guy in Rome whom they believe is not the Pope).
Frankly Meg, the only thing that I can see that saves you from abandonment of the Catholic Faith, is your crass ignorance. Basically you are a Gallican. You believe in the church of the superfluous pope, I believe in a Church in which the pope (Saint Peter) confirms his brethren. I love the papacy, you have disdain for it and sully it. I have undying respect for the pope and his office, you ignore it and assert your authority as superior to it. Yes, we are different, I love the Church, I love the Pope (and the papacy), and I love the Faith.
-
Frankly Meg, the only thing that I can see that saves you from abandonment of the Catholic Faith, is your crass ignorance. Basically you are a Gallican. You believe in the church of the superfluous pope, I believe in a Church in which the pope (Saint Peter) confirms his brethren. I love the papacy, you have disdain for it and sully it. I have undying respect for the pope and his office, you ignore it and assert your authority as superior to it. Yes, we are different, I love the Church, I love the Pope (and the papacy), and I love the Faith.
Meg: “Well said. I learned the Catholic Faith from a priest of the SSPX, as well as older catechisms, and the old Angelqueen forum. Certainly not from any pope. Though I did learn a thing or two from Bp. Williamson and +ABL. But normally, it seems that we are supposed to learn the Faith at a local level, from family and our parish/chapel. Before the Vll council, how many Catholics really paid that much attention to the Pope?”
Honestly, who can deny that if we traveled back in time to 1950, my statement above would undoubtedly be recognized as coming from the pen of a Catholic, while the one below would be thought to have been written by a resentful Protestant. Think about that.
-
Meg: “Well said. I learned the Catholic Faith from a priest of the SSPX, as well as older catechisms, and the old Angelqueen forum. Certainly not from any pope. Though I did learn a thing or two from Bp. Williamson and +ABL. But normally, it seems that we are supposed to learn the Faith at a local level, from family and our parish/chapel. Before the Vll council, how many Catholics really paid that much attention to the Pope?”
Honestly, who can deny that if we traveled back in time to 1950, my statement above would undoubtedly be recognized as coming from the pen of a Catholic, while the one below would be thought to have been written by a resentful Protestant. Think about that.
You choose to think my statement is protestant (that's your choice) - but at least I believe that we have a pope. You do not. You are popeless. Who's the protestant now?
-
You choose to think my statement is protestant (that's your choice) - but at least I believe that we have a pope. You do not. You are popeless.
Yeah, the Coptic Orthodox have a pope too, who is no more legitimate than Francis, outside of the fact that he at least has valid Holy Orders.
Who's the protestant now?
The one who picks and chooses what doctrines to follow.
-
Yeah, the Coptic Orthodox have a pope too, who is no more legitimate than Francis, outside of the fact that he at least has valid Holy Orders.
The one who picks and chooses what doctrines to follow.
....And the one who makes up his own doctrines to follow, too.
There is no doctrine which states that Catholics are obligated to decide who is or who is not the Pope. We do not decide this for ourselves. It is outside of our perview.
-
....And the one who makes up his own doctrines to follow, too.
Yeah, like picking and choosing which doctrines in the Ordinary Magisterium to follow. Like you do.
A positive doubt about the validity of one's orders is not a doctrine. Therefore, avoiding those with doubtful orders is prudence, not generation of doctrine. Plus, it's one that would extend to the SSPX and Resistance as well, otherwise why would they conditionally ordain former NO "priests"?
There is no doctrine which states that Catholics are obligated to decide who is or who is not the Pope. We do not decide this for ourselves. It is outside of our purview.
Right, but Catholics are expected to identify other legitimate Catholics. And it is a doctrine that it is necessary that one is baptized and profess the true Faith in order to be a Catholic. Francis is certainly baptized, but he does not profess the true Faith.
-
Yeah, like picking and choosing which doctrines in the Ordinary Magisterium to follow. Like you do.
A positive doubt about the validity of one's orders is not a doctrine. Therefore, avoiding those with doubtful orders is prudence, not generation of doctrine. Plus, it's one that would extend to the SSPX and Resistance as well, otherwise why would they conditionally ordain former NO "priests"?
Right, but Catholics are expected to identify other legitimate Catholics. And it is a doctrine that it is necessary that one is baptized and profess the true Faith in order to be a Catholic. Francis is certainly baptized, but he does not profess the true Faith.
We do not decide as to the legitimacy of the Pope. That is not Catholic. If it were, there would be doctrine that addresses it. But there isn't any.
-
We do not decide as to the legitimacy of the Pope. That is not Catholic. If it were, there would be doctrine that addresses it. But there isn't any.
Meg, you're presupposing that he is the Pope to begin with. You'd have a point if there were no doubts about that; but there are, which is why my position exists.
-
Meg, you're presupposing that he is the Pope to begin with. You'd have a point if there were no doubts about that; but there are, which is why my position exists.
I have a point because there is no church teaching that allows for laymen deciding the legitimacy of a pope.
-
I have a point because there is no church teaching that allows for laymen deciding the legitimacy of a pope.
Catholic principles allow for it. See my previous post:
Right, but Catholics are expected to identify other legitimate Catholics. And it is a doctrine that it is necessary that one is baptized and profess the true Faith in order to be a Catholic. Francis is certainly baptized, but he does not profess the true Faith.
That being said, Catholics also do not have the right to pick and choose what doctrines of the Ordinary Magisterium to follow either.
-
Catholic principles allow for it. See my previous post:
That being said, Catholics also do not have the right to pick and choose what doctrines of the Ordinary Magisterium to follow either.
Well then, we are at an impasse.
-
Well then, we are at an impasse.
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/D6WuLOKOpR2fK/giphy.gif?cid=790b76110cf2dc8e91f0a656c6461632807b03db9db9f2fe&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
-
This post is not a 'pick on Meg' post but just a question, and is for anyone really as I used to be R'n'R -
Why are SSPXers attending illegal chapels founded by an Archbishop who is still officially excommunicated? Have you determined through your own judgment that the popes have been teaching you error? Or that an Ecuмenical Council has promulgated error? Or do SSPXers just like the Gregorian Chant and the Latin Mass performed in illegal chapels?
-
This post is not a 'pick on Meg' post but just a question, and is for anyone really as I used to be R'n'R -
Why are SSPXers attending illegal chapels founded by an Archbishop who is still officially excommunicated? Have you determined through your own judgment that the popes have been teaching you error? Or that an Ecuмenical Council has promulgated error? Or do SSPXers just like the Gregorian Chant and the Latin Mass performed in illegal chapels?
As one who has no affiliation, I think it rather a question of making the best of what is available to a person.
-
Satis Cognitum #8
"It was consequently provided by God that the Magisterium instituted by Jesus Christ should not end with the life of the Apostles, but that it should be perpetuated. We see it in truth propagated, and, ‘as it were, delivered from hand to hand. For the Apostles consecrated bishops, and each one appointed those who were to succeed them immediately “in the ministry of the word.”
Nay more: they likewise required their successors to choose fitting men, to endow them with like authority, and to confide to them the office and mission of teaching."
This particular passage clearly shows that the Magisterium is most definitely a living, teaching episcopal body. The authority to TEACH is perpetuated in the successors of the Apostles. The deposit of faith is physically delivered, by the teaching authority of the Church, the Magisterium, by ordinary and extraordinary means, "from hand to hand."
"We see it in truth propagated, and, ‘as it were, delivered from hand to hand." The words "it" and "truth propagated" is the magisterium, teachings immune from error handed down, this truth does not end with the life of the Apostles. This is the magisterium.
"For the Apostles consecrated bishops, and each one appointed those who were to succeed them immediately “in the ministry of the word.”
Nay more: they likewise required their successors to choose fitting men, to endow them with like authority, and to confide to them the office and mission of teaching."
Yes of course the Apostles have successors whose mission is teaching, but being human they are not immune from error, they are not truth propagated handed down.
He continues:
Satis Cognitum #9
"The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium."
Proposed
verb
past tense: proposed; past participle: proposed
1. put forward (an idea or plan) for consideration or discussion by others.
A simple web definition shows that the Magisterium ACTS by PROPOSING doctrine.
The Magisterium is literally the teaching authority commissioned by Christ Himself to go forth and teach all nations.
The "authoritative magisterium" is "the Church." "The Church" is the teaching authority. "...this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith." - PPIX Tuas Libenter
Pope Leo XIII is saying that the Fathers are condemning as alien to the Church anyone who does not believe every single human being has a Guardian Angel for example. Sorry for the poor example, but this belief is contrary to the doctrine of Guardian Angels hence is condemned by the Fathers. THAT is what he is saying. Feel free to insert any doctrine at all, it's all I have in mind at this moment, only had a few sips of coffee so far.
Satis Cognitum #10
"But as this heavenly doctrine was never left to the arbitrary judgment of private individuals, but, in the beginning delivered by Jesus Christ, was afterwards committed by Him exclusively to the Magisterium already named, so the power of performing and administering the divine mysteries, together with the authority of ruling and governing, was not bestowed by God on all Christians indiscriminately, but on certain chosen persons.
For to the Apostles and their legitimate successors alone these words have reference: “Going into the whole world preach the Gospel.” “Baptizing them.” “Do this in commemoration of Me.” “Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them.” And in like manner He ordered the Apostles only and those who should lawfully succeed them to feed – that is to govern with authority – alll Christian souls."
Again, given the context of the term Magisterium, used by Pope Leo XIII, I believe it clearly shows a physical office commissioned by Christ. The Magisterium was established by Christ to guard and protect the whole of Catholic Doctrine - which is immune from all error.
You are taking this one a bit out of context because he explains what is meant by "This heavenly doctrine" in the previous paragraph: "It is then undoubtedly the office of the church to guard Christian doctrine and to propagate it in its integrity and purity...." Again, it is "The Church" or "The office of The Church" who is the authority and has "the authority of ruling and governing."
"The Magisterium already named" is named in the previous paragraph as "The Church."
Alas it looks like this thread has been degraded into yet another dose of sede vs R&R scurrility.
-
Basically, until the last sixty years, unless you were a religious the average Catholic knew about piety and not doctrine - say novenas, read about the saints, say your prayers, etc. None of this has to do with Doctrine and even now it's clear that most Trads only want a Latin Mass anyway.
Christ is the Good Shepherd, and a pope rules with that authority. While popes didn't factor in directly at the parish or school level, it was because they didn't have to - what they taught was Catholic. And that made its way through the ranks (schools, penny catechisms, etc.) in just the way the Church was established to run.
Well, pre V2, the average Catholic did not learn their holy religion from popes and bishops, what they learned was the Catholic religion handed down to them from generation to generation whether they were 3 years old or 100, whether taught by parents, teachers, priests, books or seminaries. This is an example of the Church's living magisterium. It's living because souls still yearn to learn the truth to save their souls and the Church provides for those souls and will do so till the end of time. The term's definition has managed to be morphed into being popes and bishops, leaving a magisterium that is falsely believed to be altogether corrupt and a Church that has been, or will soon be destroyed, sadly, even by those (trads) who should know better.
-
This post is not a 'pick on Meg' post but just a question, and is for anyone really as I used to be R'n'R -
Why are SSPXers attending illegal chapels founded by an Archbishop who is still officially excommunicated? Have you determined through your own judgment that the popes have been teaching you error? Or that an Ecuмenical Council has promulgated error? Or do SSPXers just like the Gregorian Chant and the Latin Mass performed in illegal chapels?
We have no qualms between our obligation to Church authorities and our obligation to save our souls. The obligation to save our souls comes first.
I have quoted Fr. Wathen saying: "We can judge for our own sake that a heresy has been publicly pronounced, that is not questionable, that’s just a matter of observing what has been said, and we can judge that matter as easily as we can judge the pronouncements of a protestant minister. I mean, if a protestant minster says something that is contrary to the faith, it’s not crime or anything for us to say, “That’s heresy”. It does not matter who says it, if it’s contrary to the faith, its heresy."
I think the above quote suffices to explain your questions in a nutshell, and it goes well with my signature.
-
I have a point because there is no church teaching that allows for laymen deciding the legitimacy of a pope.
Yes, this is generally true. But in the scenario of a heretical pope, someone has to be the first to call it out. You don't go from zero to universal rejection of a papal claimant at the flip of a switch. There is a progression that goes something like this:
1) Pope manifests heresy in some way.
2) One or more Catholics call it out.
3) Gradually more and more Catholics come to the realization that the man is a heretic.
4) Universal rejection of the papal claimant.
We're at step #3 (somewhere along that path).
But that's the case of an ordinary heretic pope. And, as I try to point out over and over again, this isn't so much about the heresy or lack thereof of a Pope. We're confronted with this Conciliar Church. We find that we don't recognize it as the Catholic Church and feel oblige to sever communion with it. So the question is whether it is possible for the Catholic Church (via the authority of a legitimate pope), to become so corrupt as to basically require Catholics to sever communion with it and to submission to the Catholic hierarchy, in order to save our souls. At the end of the day, whether Bergoglio is a heretic or not, it really isn't our problem. What's our problem is the Conciliar Church.
What's at issue here is whether R&R actually undermine and destroy Catholic doctrine regarding the Magisterium and the Papacy in order to save Bergoglio, just so the can have some guy prancing around in white vestments in Rome. If you want a guy in white vestments, you would have been better off with David Bawden. Both of them in your eyes have the same authority, and in fact Bawden had more because his "teaching" was in conformity with Tradition. This is the R&R ecclesiology, and it's horrible. There's a real risk of people losing the actual Catholic faith by adhering to false R&R principles.
So, I ask you, why don't you guys jump on board with Father Chazal's sede-impoundism? This way you can have your guy walking around in white without attributing the evils of the Conciliar Church to the authority of the Pope. What's your aversion to it?
-
Alas it looks like this thread has been degraded into yet another dose of sede vs R&R scurrility.
I agree the Magisterium is immune from all error, there is no doubt about that, since I've provided those quotes countless times.
I can see where this thread is starting to veer off topic, so I won't say too much more on this. However, I believe this confusion about the Magisterium stems from the larger problem of not recognizing the pope as our rule of faith. Or at least failing to recognize the pope as our "proximate" rule of faith.
-
What's so classic is that no Trad pays any attention whatsoever to the Vicar of Christ. Pure comedy (if the pope is legitimate).
-
I agree the Magisterium is immune from all error, there is no doubt about that, since I've provided those quotes countless times.
I can see where this thread is starting to veer off topic, so I won't say too much more on this. However, I believe this confusion about the Magisterium stems from the larger problem of not recognizing the pope as our rule of faith. Or at least failing to recognize the pope as our "proximate" rule of faith.
The pope is the rule of faith when he is immune from error, that is, when he speaks ex cathedra. And I agree 100% it all stems from this.
The rule of faith is truth, i.e the holy Catholic doctrines which we are bound to because without those truths, we place our faith, our trust and belief in error, we then live in error and are lost. These days are a good example of this.
I've always wanted to ask - who is the pope's rule of faith?
Initially, the pioneering trads had no idea that it was the pope who perpetrated all that happened within the Church 60 years ago. For a year at least, (maybe 2 or 3 hard to remember) they kept the faith while waiting for the pope to straighten things out! This shows why the truth / doctrines are the rule of faith.
When they finally found out and accepted the fact that PPVI was the culprit, as regards keeping the faith nothing changed for them because in knowing truth, they knew right from wrong.
-
I have a point because there is no church teaching that allows for laymen deciding the legitimacy of a pope.
Indeed. It is above our pay grade.
-
That being said, Catholics also do not have the right to pick and choose what doctrines of the Ordinary Magisterium to follow either.
We must follow God's teaching before that of the Church.
-
Indeed. It is above our pay grade.
How did you decide to attend illegal chapels in line with unrecognized bishops whose founder is still officially excommunicated?