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.
Poll
