======================================================

AUTHENTICATED REPORT of the DISCUSSION which took place AT LONDONDERRY, BETWEEN SIX ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIESTS, AND SIX CLERGYMEN OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH; IN THE DIOCESE OF DERRY, March, (1828).

"the promise of infallibility was made to the college of the Apostles to preserve this passive infallibility, or, in other words, that the people should always profess the doctrine of Christ."

======================================================

A Catholic Dictionary, by W.E. Addis and T. Arnold (1884):

The ecclesia credens, or body of the faithful, is infallible in its belief concerning faith in morals: i.e. in theological language, the Church has a passive infallibility; but, as the faithful are bound to learn the faith from their pastors, it follows that the Church has an active as well as a passive infallibility: i.e. the faithful cannot err in what they believe, because the same Holy Spirit which enables them to believe what their pastors teach provides that these pastors shall teach the truth with unerring voice.

======================================================

The Church of the First Three Centuries: A Work Founded on the Sacred Scripture and Early Patristic Writings, (1861)
Rev. H. E. Dennehy

On the other hand, if the active infallibility, or the inerrancy of the teaching body be proved, the passive infallibility, or the inerrancy of the body thought, is a natural and rational inference, So that, in reality, the proofs which are adduced in favour of the passive and active infallibility mutually prop up each other, or, to speak more correctly, they coalesce into one convincing argument of the proposition we are now considering.

======================================================

Catholic World, Vol. 42 (1885):

"It is true that what the church dispersed through the world teaches by her ordinary magistracy as of divine faith has an equal authority with her solemn teaching. Active infallibility is always in the teaching church, passive infallibility in the body of the faithful. The principal dogmas defined by the solemn acts of the church were explicitly taught and believed as of divine faith before the first oecuмenical council was convoked; and all the dogmas defined or definable have been objects of implicit faith from the days of the apostles. "

======================================================

The Dublin Review, Vol. 67 (1886):

"the Church's prerogative of passive infallibility will import, that Catholics can never be unanimous in holding any opinion, which either contradicts revealed truth or leads by legitimate consequence to such contradiction."

======================================================

The Creed Explained, or, An Exposition of Catholic Doctrine (1892)
Rev. Arthur Devine

"Passive infallibility is the gift of inerrancy, which is imparted to the Church believing (ecclesia credens) so that it may never, even in the least matter, believe or profess error in anything appertaining to faith "

======================================================

The Works of the Right Reverend John England: First Bishop of Charleston Vol. 1 (1908)
By Bishop John England, Archbishop Sebastian Gebhard Messmer

"The Infallibility of the Church is distinguished into active Infallibility and passive Infallibility. Active Infallibility resides in the Pastors and Doctors of the Church whom Christ gave (Eph. iv) for the edification of his mystic body. Passive Infallibility belongs to the universal Church, which (I Tim. iii. 15.) is called "the pillar and ground of truth."

======================================================

So-called "Passive Infallibility" is nothing other than the indefectibility of the Ecclesia Credens.

It's not the fake negative infallibility promoted by these dogmatic SV EENS-denying clowns which would have every theological opinion ever widely held among Catholics to be tantamount to infallible truth.

"Passive Infallibility" simply means that the faith of the Catholic Church cannot defect ... i.e., the entire Church cannot fall into HERESY.

Passive infallibility is a direct consequence of the Church's indefectibility.  At no time can the entire Ecclesia Credens embrace a notion that compromise the Deposit of Revelation, i.e., could ever embrace heresy and therefore all defect in the faith.

BoD, when properly formulated, does not undermine Catholic dogma.  It does not have to be Pelagian.  It does not necessarily lead to a heretical Protestant ecclesiology.  It does not have to result in a rejection of the dogma that the Sacraments are necessary for salvation.  In the traditionally-Catholic and acceptable understanding of BoD, it's the Sacrament of Baptism that justifies through the desire rather than the desire that justifies without the Sacrament.  That's why traditionally people are said to be saved this way by receiving Baptism in voto and not "without" the Sacrament of Baptism.  But bosco and Nado have a view of BoD that involve all these heresies.  Their views are heretical and not even remotely Catholic.

So this orthodox version of BoD being widely held does not compromise "passive" infallibility ... because it doesn't lead to an undermining of Catholic dogma and revealed truth.

But it also doesn't mean it's correct.

There are many counter-examples in history where Catholics held mutually-exclusive opinions on various subjects (one of which must necessarily be wrong), or wrong opinions on various subjects, where the Church has not wished to settle the matter.  This doesn't mean all these opinions are infallibly correct.  So the Nadonian "negative infallibility" doesn't exist.

At no point has the Church EVER endorsed the heresies being promoted by Nado and bosco.

So-called "Passive Infallibility" is nothing other than the indefectibility of the Ecclesia Credens.

It's not the fake negative infallibility promoted by these dogmatic SV EENS-denying clowns which would have every theological opinion ever widely held among Catholics to be tantamount to infallible truth.

"Passive Infallibility" simply means that the faith of the Catholic Church cannot defect ... i.e., the entire Church cannot fall into HERESY.

:applause:

Really is a sign of a heretic to thumb down several approved Catholic quotes spanning a century.

You should spend more time trying your usual double talk to salvage your way out of another lying thread of yours - New anti-sedevacantism book, recalled?

The believing Church being infallible, it is impossible that the subject matter of theologians which they teach unanimously and which goes unchecked for centuries to be in error.

This is absolutely false since you refuse to apply any distinctions whatsoever to this categorical statement.

You don't even add the qualification "regarding faith and morals" to subject matter.

AT LEAST the very same notes of infallibility apply as were defined by Vatican I to papal infallibility.  Then, when teaching about the infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, the additional qualification of "as divinely revealed" was applied.

So if these notes and criteria apply to papal infallibility and the OUM, much more would they apply to "theologians".

Something held unanimously by the Church Fathers regarding faith and morals was considered infallibly true, but not by virtue of some special Magisterial office held by these Church Fathers but by virtue of the fact that this made it certain that the subject matter traced back to the Apostles.

This infallibility of theologians position has been completely pulled out of people's posteriors.  Theologians enjoy NO SPECIAL ROLE OR STATUS within the Church.  They are not part of the Ecclesia Docens.  Period.  Only bishops with jurisdiction are part of Ecclesia Docens.

Yet these obscene hypocrites claim that while theologians cannot as a body teach error, they hold simultaneously that the entire body of bishops (who actually ARE part of the Ecclesia Docens) can teach actual heresy to the Universal Church.  In fact, with one or two exceptions, every theologian in the world has endorsed the teachings of Vatican II.  That constitutes a moral majority.

So the self-serving hypocrisy of these heretics is absolutely breathtaking.

If their unanimous consent is not binding you have to admit a huge error in the believing Church is possible.

Unanimous consent on what, the appropriate amount of incense to use during a Missa Cantata?

When I pointed out an example of exactly that (with the Augustinian position held unanimously for 800 years), you wrote this off as just being a mere "detail".  So then what level of truth is required before it falls under this protection?  Well, if you read Vatican I, then it's AT LEAST the note of "as divinely revealed" that's required.  VI teaches that regarding the OUM.  And theologians do not comprise the OUM.  As you agree, theirs is the infallibility of the Ecclesia Credens and not Magisterial authority.  So various theological positions that fall short of directly compromising the integrity of the Deposit do not qualify.  BoD, in my opinion, falls under the very same aspect of "detail" as that Augustinian position.  It's a disputed matter of speculative theology beyond the core Deposit and beyond core Catholic dogma that doesn't enjoy this protection.  As I said, if someone believes in BoD, as properly defined and understood, without all the heretical baggage usually attached to it, it does not compromise one's faith in any substantial way.  Consequently, even if this particular opinion is wrong, as I claim it is, holding this opinion does not constitute any substantial harm to the faith or to the Deposit of Revelation or to dogma.  In other words, it too is a "detail".  Passive infallibility does not apply.

It's the most manifestly heretical move for anyone to claim that the Baltimore Catechism, approved by a pope specifically to teach Catholic doctrine in America, (and anywhere in the world someone wishes to use it)...could possibly contain error against a previously defined solemn dogma. Particularly when we see generations live and die learning from. It is the most outrageously heretical arrogance.