Ladislaus has written volumes to you on this subject , so I do not need to say more. Your argument is full of holes. By your reasoning all the encyclicals and quotes from all the popes through history are not infallible. You give yourself a free pass by going with the "Vatican II was not declared infallible" excuse.

So, the only thing that will convince you that the pope is not a pope is they declare infallible something like that the Immaculate Conception was not true or Jesus Christ was not God. Your concept of divine protection from error is a tremendous piece of dung, it is good for nothing.

Your problem is that you limit the Magisterium's charism of truth to the .5% of Catholic doctrine that has been defined according to the strict notes of infallibility.  

Ladislaus But your understanding of this equates to the a defectible Magisterium, where 99%+ of it can become thoroughly corrupt and polluted and can by adherence to it lead souls to hell.  That crosses the line into blasphemy.

Monsignor Fenton: ... God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.

THIS is the Holy Catholic Church I believe in...

The auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis is nothing but an opinion that Cardinal Franzelin proposed in De Divina Traditione, and admitted was only an opinion.  It was later adopted by Billot, Fenton, Van Noort, before being modified slightly by Cardinal Journet (to only include doctrines in conformity with Tradition), but was never more than a minority opinion. Yet you and the other sedevacantist heretics treat it like a dogma, and base your understanding of the Church on it.

Quote

Absolute hogwash.  Magisterium does not defect simply because its exercise has been suspended through a vacancy of the Holy See.

It's laughable that you consider there to be a "Magisterium" simply due to a cadre of heretics walking around wearing miters.  These guys are your Magsterium?

During a state of vacancy, the Magisterium survives in potentia.  But when the Magisterium has failed in its MISSION, that's true defection (vs. a mere suspension of activity).

And the key to understanding the above teaching regarding the Magisterium is the phrase "commit ... to error".

It's one thing for a Pope to be mistaken regarding some obiter dictum in an Encyclical, or to speculate about something but then later change course.

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.”

“18. Hence it is that in this proper object of her mission, that is, "in faith and morals, God Himself has made the Church sharer in the divine magisterium and, by a special privilege, granted her immunity from error;”

 Ladislaus  Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#16), Dec. 31, 1929: “To this magisterium Christ the Lord imparted immunity from error...”

 “Upon this magisterial office Christ conferred infallibility, together with the command to teach His doctrine.”

Ladislaus “… 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.”

Ladislaus Pope Leo XIII, Caritatis Studium (#6) July 25, 1898: The Magisterium “could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.”

“But as the Church was to last to the end of time, something more was required besides the bestowal of the Sacred Scriptures. It was obviously necessary that the Divine Founder should take every precaution, lest the treasure of heavenly-given truths, possessed by the Church, should ever be destroyed, which would assuredly have happened, had He left those doctrines to each one's private judgment. It stands to reason, therefore, that a living, perpetual "magisterium" was necessary in the Church from the beginning, which, by the command of Christ himself, should besides teaching other wholesome doctrines, give an authoritative explanation of Holy Writ, and which being directed and safeguarded by Christ himself, could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.

At the risk of jumping into this mid stream, I am curious as to how SVists respond to the Spiritual vs Conventual Franciscan controversy.


John XXII, Quia nonnunquam
Translated by John Kilcullen from Corpus iuris canonici, ed. E. Friedberg, vol. 2, col. 1224 ff. "B" refers to the text of Bullarium Franciscanum, ed. H. Sbaralea and C. Eubelp. 224 ff.)

---

"Since sometimes what conjecture believed would be useful subsequent experience shows to be harmful, it should not be judged reprehensible if the maker of the canons desires to revoke, modify or suspend canons (or things contained in them) published either by himself or by his predecessors, if they seem to him to be obstructive rather than useful."



John XXII's Bull nullified Nicholas III's Bull as he deemed it harmful. What's more, the Spirituals introduced what could be termed as the modern mechanics of post Vatican I infallibility to protect and defend their approval from Nicholas III.  John XXII called their arguments from the devil, which appears to present a very real problem in the SVists understanding. What's more we have this:


Pope Pius VI condemned the Jansenist synod of Pistoia for suggesting that the “existing liturgical order received and approved by the Church might be in any part due to forgetfulness of the principles that ought to guide her” – he taught  that this idea was impossible because “the Church, guided by the Spirit of God, cannot establish a discipline …that is dangerous or harmful”.  Dz 1533 and 1578.


This appears to be in direct contradiction to what John XXII stated.

Thoughts?