.Drew is an extremely well spoken proponent of basic, fundamental Catholic theology.
It seems to me that Drew makes a strong argument here.
.
Pope Honorius was a formal heretic (no matter how much sedes and Protestants insist),
Firstly, no Church father or doctor or magisterial docuмent has ever claimed that each individual pope possessed a "never-failing faith." St. Thomas and Rev. Haydock do not even address the question in their commentaries. Rev. Cornelius a Lapide in his great Commentary specifically addresses this question and says that the "never-failing faith" was a personal grace granted to St. Peter alone. The promise to his successors was that they would never engage the Church's attribute of infallibility to teach error. Pope Honorius was declared a heretic by at the Sixth Ecuмenical Council that was approved by the Pope Leo II. It matters not whether his heresy was formal or only material except to Honorius himself. If the pope is taken as the rule of faith, then he must be preserved from even material heresy because for the faithful following his example it would make no difference.
Neither was this privilege of St. Peter's person, but of his Office, that he shall not fail in faith; but even confirm all other in their Faith. For the Church, for whose sake the privilege was thought necessary in Peter the Head there of, was to be preserved no less afterward, then in that Apostle's time. Whereupon all the Fathers apply this privilege of not failing and of confirming other in faith, to the Roman Church and peter's successors in the same.
To which, saith St. Cyprian, infidelity or false Faith cannot come. And St. Bernard saith writing to Innocent Pope, against Abaliardus the Heretic, we must refer your Apostleship all the scandals and perils which may fall, in matter of faith specially. For there the defects of faith must be helped, where faith cannot fail.
For to what other See was it ever said I have prayed for thee Peter, that thy Faith do not fail? so say the Fathers, not meaning that none of Peter's seat can err in person, understanding, private doctrine or writing, but that they cannot nor shall not ever judicially conclude or give definitive sentence for falsehood or heresy against the Catholic Faith, in their Consistories, Courts, Councils, decrees, deliberations, or consultations kept for decision and determinations of such controversies, doubts, questions of faith as shall be proposed unto them: because Christ's prayer and promise protected them therein for conformation of their Brethren.
If the pope is taken as the rule of faith, then he must be preserved from even material heresy because for the faithful following his example it would make no difference.
I agree that the Pope is not the rule of Faith; but the whole Traditionalist movement is based upon errors found in nothing less than an ecuмenical Council.
I remember Drew on here. His little tagline was "you make the Pope your rule of faith" (paraphrasing) as opposed to Dogma. He was correct that Dogma is the rule of faith but that has little to do with the problems with Vatican II and what divine law will allow the Pope to do.There is no divine law that allows the pope to not do certain things, the only promise, or law if you want to call it that, is the protection by the Holy Ghost from the possibility of error when the pope speaks ex cathedra. Outside of that specific circuмstance as dictated by Pope Pius IX at V1, there is nothing, certainly no divine law, stopping any pope from doing what the conciliar popes have done.
Furthermore, there is not logical contradiction between Infallibility and a pope being a heretic and more than the heretic, Caiaphas being the high priest, who was a Sadducee and denied the doctrine of the resurrection, prophesized being the High Priest, that Christ should die for the nation.
And no marvel that our Master would have his Vicar's Consistory and Seat infallible, seeing even in the old Law the high Priesthood and the Chair of Moses wanted not great privilege in this case, though nothing like the church's prerogative. But in both, any man of sense may see the difference between the person, and the Office, as well in doctrine as life. Liberius in persecution might yield. Marcellinus for fear might commit Idolatry, Honorious might fall into Heresy, and more than all this, some Judas might creep into the Office: and yet all this without prejudice of the Office and the Seat, in which saith St. Augustine Our Lord hath set the doctrine of Truth, Caiphas by privilege of his office prophesied right of Christ, but according to his own knowledge and faith, knew not Christ.
The annotation above ( Luke 22:32 ) is very explicit in describing when the Pope may not judicially err, even when he errs in his private capacity.First off, scriptural commentary isn't infallible, so you have to take it with a grain of salt, especially when it is dealing with theological speculation, which is by definition, a guess.
Now the teaching Church is the Apostolic body continuing to the end of time (Matthew 28:19-20 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat028.htm#vrs19)); but only one of the bishops (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm), viz., the Bishop of Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm), is the successor of St. Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm); he alone can be regarded as the living Apostle and Vicar of Christ, and it is only by union with him that the rest of the episcopate can be said to possess the Apostolic character (Vatican Council (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15303a.htm), Sess. IV, Prooemium). Hence, unless they be united with the Vicar of Christ, it is futile to appeal to the episcopate in general as the rule of faith.
The rule of faith is the teaching Church (the Magisterium) which safeguards and teaches to every generation God's revealed truth found in both Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition.This is not what Lad said. He said the Magisterium is the "role of" (not the rule of) faith. Not sure what "role of" means. Maybe he means the magisterium "has the role of (protecting the faith)." I would agree, but what if they DON'T protect the faith? This is where it gets complicated and you have to distinguish.
This is not what Lad said. He said the Magisterium is the "role of" (not the rule of) faith. Not sure what "role of" means.
I have to disagree. Dogma is not the proximate rule of faith. Neither is the pope himself personally. Proximate rule of faith is the Magisterium.
Dogma is in fact the OBJECT of our faith. We have the remote rule of faith in Scripture/Tradition, and the proximate role of faith in the Magisterium.
Truth of the matter is actually in between the two sides debating in the OP.
The Magisterium is the teaching office that engages the Church’s attribute of infallibilty. Dogma is the result of the exercise of that office. Dogma is the proximate rule of faith delivered by the Magisterium. The Magisterium is the means, Dogma is the end and it is the end that constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic Faith. It is this "formal object" that is our proximate rule of faith.I agree with all of this. Why did Christ send the Apostles to the end of the earth? To preach the Truth/doctrine. Why did Christ create the Church? To preach the Truth/doctrine and protect it from error. What is the job of the hierarchy (i.e. the ordinary magisterium) in the Church? To preach the Truth and protect it from error and clarify it when necessary. What is the sum total of the CONSISTENT Truths of the Church over the period of 2,000 years? This is called the 'ordinary and UNIVERSAL' magisterium. Everything relates back to Truth/doctrine, of which Christ is the author. This is why Catholicism does not change.
The Magisterium is the teaching office that engages the Church’s attribute of infallibilty. Dogma is the result of the exercise of that office. Dogma is the proximate rule of faith delivered by the Magisterium. The Magisterium is the means, Dogma is the end and it is the end that constitutes the formal object of divine and Catholic Faith. It is this "formal object" that is our proximate rule of faith.
Drew
The word rule (Latin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09019a.htm) regula, Gr. kanon) means a standard by which something can be tested, and the rule of faith means something extrinsic to our faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm), and serving as its norm or measure. Since faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) is Divine and infallible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm), the rule of faith must be also Divine and infallible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm); and since faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) is supernatural (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14336b.htm) assent to Divine truths (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) upon Divine authority, the ultimate or remote rule of faith must be the truthfulness of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) in revealing Himself. But since Divine revelation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm) is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions (Vatican Council (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15303a.htm), I, ii), the Bible (http://www.newadvent.org/bible) and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm); since, however, these are only silent witnesses and cannot interpret themselves, they are commonly termed "proximate but inanimate rules of faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm)". Unless, then, the Bible (http://www.newadvent.org/bible) and tradition are to be profitless, we must look for some proximate rule which shall be animate or living. [Goes on to demonstrate that this proximate animate/living rule is the Church/Magisterium]
The Magisterium is the teaching office that engages the Church’s attribute of infallibilty.
I have never seen a quote from the Magisterium itself which says that it is not infallible. There are many quotes that describe itself in different ways (authentic, living, ordinary, supreme etc...) and they all say it is infallible. Maybe there are theologians that say the Magisterium can err, I haven't seen any, but there is nothing from the Popes that say this.What you are alluding to is correct, the magisterium is always infallible.
The Magisterium is the teaching office of the Church, how could it err in anything?
I have never seen a quote from the Magisterium itself which says that it is not infallible. There are many quotes that describe itself in different ways (authentic, living, ordinary, supreme etc...) and they all say it is infallible. Maybe there are theologians that say the Magisterium can err, I haven't seen any, but there is nothing from the Popes that say this.
The Magisterium is the teaching office of the Church, how could it err in anything?
What you are alluding to is correct, the magisterium is always infallible.
Except that you decide when it's Magisterium after the fact based on your private judgment, so you are NOT in agreement with AeS.Wrong again.
Wrong again.
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/2002_January/Popes_Infallible_Magisterium.htmThe link looks to be spot on and agrees with what I said - that the magisterium is always infallible. Thanks for the link!
cites pre-Vatican II theological sources
The link looks to be spot on and agrees with what I said - that the magisterium is always infallible. Thanks for the link!
Similarly, Salaverri, in his Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.) distinguishes the following: 1) Extraordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 592ff); 2) Ordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 645ff); 3) Papal Magisterium that is mereauthenticuм, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility (no.659ff).
What an idiot! :facepalm: You apparently can't even read plain English.Try hard and see if you can read what I already posted from that link you doubting nincompoop. The magisterium is always infallible. Quote it 10 more times if you need to.
I could cite about 10 other paragraphs as well.
The link looks to be spot on and agrees with what I said - that the magisterium is always infallible.As Lee Corso would say: "Not so fast, my friend". It depends which type you are talking about - there are 3 types of magisteriums and ALL have multiple names. So confusing!
As Lee Corso would say: "Not so fast, my friend". It depends which type you are talking about - there are 3 types of magisteriums and ALL have multiple names. So confusing!Yes, it is confusing, as Lad's link said: "In conclusion we shall excerpt the text of a theologian, whose passing is much to be regretted, who had a very clear grasp of the doctrine we are recalling here, and who knew well that it had been brought into confusion by the New Theologians."
This is true that bishops alone or the Pope, clearly not intending to teach the whole Church something, is not infallible. The problem is that this cannot be part of the Magisterium since there are numerous Papal Teachings which state that any form of Magisterium (there are only 2 categories) is infallible. There has never been any statement by a Pope that the Magisterium can err in any capacity whatsoever.In that regard, all V2 proves is that it was not infallible, that is all it proves in that regard,and it actually proves this in virtue of it's own teachings riddled with error and heresies. It apparently takes great faith in the doctrine of papal infallibility to accept this fact because without that faith, people start theorizing all sorts of wild theories till they become doctrines unto themselves. It further proves that the ideas held by the masses as regards infallibility of popes and councils are decidedly false.
As for Vatican II, if it had valid Popes presiding over it, it was definitely infallible. This means that it would have infallibly taught error and the Gates of Hell prevailed against the Church. There is nothing in Church history which one can point to that would prove that an official Pope approved Ecuмenical Council of the Catholic Church could be anything less than Infallible. Any aspect touching morals and faith would be infallible. Our Lord said "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, I am there in the midst of them." This applies to all the General Councils. One would NOT be able to point to any part of a Council of the past dealing with faith or morals that one is free to reject as not Infallible. This is why we can appeal to any Docuмent of a Council, not dealing with changeable disciplines, to refute any heretic that comes along.
So either Vatican II is infallible and religious liberty is divinely revealed or we worship the same god as muslims etc... or the men presiding over them were not Catholic and had no authority to call a council.
Let me make it less confusing for you, man...All of the quotes in that article are from pre-V2 times, so we have some trust that these theologians were orthodox. Yes, there are not 3 magisteriums (strictly speaking) but 3 LEVELS of the magisterium. Sorry for not being precise; I assumed you would understand since you read the article.
I have to disagree. Dogma is not the proximate rule of faith. Neither is the pope himself personally. Proximate rule of faith is the Magisterium.
Dogma is in fact the OBJECT of our faith. We have the remote rule of faith in Scripture/Tradition, and the proximate role of faith in the Magisterium.
Truth of the matter is actually in between the two sides debating in the OP.
This is true that bishops alone or the Pope, clearly not intending to teach the whole Church something, is not infallible. The problem is that this cannot be part of the Magisterium since there are numerous Papal Teachings which state that any form of Magisterium (there are only 2 categories) is infallible. There has never been any statement by a Pope that the Magisterium can err in any capacity whatsoever.The pre-V2 theologians who were quoted in the article are not contradicting previous papal statements, but are further distinguishing the different levels of the magisterium (since in the past, the orthodox hierarchy spoke only orthodox things). Such a distinguishment was necessary because in the 1900s, popes had the duty of speaking on non-doctrinal matters (i.e. communism, social theory, education) which may or may not be infallible, depending.
As for Vatican II, if it had valid Popes presiding over it, it was definitely infallible.No, no, no. Just because a pope gives a talk in St Peter's square does not make it infallible. Just because a pope writes an encyclical does not make it infallible. Just because the pope presides at a council does not make it infallible. All previous ecuмenical councils were infallible (because they officially taught doctrine) but that does not mean that all ecuмenical councils are infallible, just because they're ecuмenical.
This means that it would have infallibly taught error and the Gates of Hell prevailed against the Church. There is nothing in Church history which one can point to that would prove that an official Pope approved Ecuмenical Council of the Catholic Church could be anything less than Infallible. Any aspect touching morals and faith would be infallible. Our Lord said "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, I am there in the midst of them." This applies to all the General Councils. One would NOT be able to point to any part of a Council of the past dealing with faith or morals that one is free to reject as not Infallible. This is why we can appeal to any Docuмent of a Council, not dealing with changeable disciplines, to refute any heretic that comes along.Previous councils were infallible because they defined doctrine. If they had not, they would not have been. V2 was unique in that it was the first ecuмenical council to not define doctrine.
So either Vatican II is infallible and religious liberty is divinely revealed or we worship the same god as muslims etc... or the men presiding over them were not Catholic and had no authority to call a council.Or...V2 didn't define doctrine (solemn magisterium) and it didn't teach "what has always been taught" (ordinary and universal magisterium) therefore it only employed its "merely authentic" or "ordinary" magisterium which is fallible. Therefore, it requires no "assent" because
As Lee Corso would say: "Not so fast, my friend". It depends which type you are talking about - there are 3 types of magisteriums and ALL have multiple names. So confusing!For the readers, please explain who Lee Corso is ?
First, what you said proves that you have no faith that what the Councils of the Church teach is infallible, thereby giving you no reason whatsoever to use a Council to prove any of your points.First, if you have any faith at all and want to keep it, all we can say with absolute certainty of faith is that V2 was not infallible. All other opinions and theories are simply that, useless opinions and useless theories elevated to be doctrines by those with no faith and no faith in the doctrine of infallibility.
Second, since all of the prerequisites were met for Vatican II to be an act of the Magisterium, it would most definitely be infallible, were the claimants presiding actually Popes.
Third, what all this proves is that it cannot be a Council of the Catholic Church and the men presiding were not Popes. If they were, the Church has defected and the Gates of Hell have prevailed.
Ladislaus, Please guide me on my thinking here.Great points!
So, it seems the modern popes have broken with tradition and the proximate rule of faith (Magisterium), but have not made any Dogmatic decrees from the seat? Is this correct?
If this is correct, why would it be?
From his record, why wouldn't Francis just go for it, and make a heretical dogmatic pronouncement from the Seat of Peter?
Even a de facto, destroyer Pope would know, the Holy Ghost would block him from doing so?
There are no "levels" of the magisterium...Bellator, you sound foolish and it goes to show you haven't read the article. Go read it and get back to us.
The magisterium is always infallible.
In that case, dude, you'd better accept Religious Liberty as de fide.No, I cannot accept RL at all, certainly not based on you having an altogether ridiculous understanding of what the Magisterium even is - re: your sededoubtism.
[Of course we know that you have redefined "Magisterium" to include only the true things taught by popes ... so making infallibility into a tautology.]
So, for those who claim that the Magisterium is always infallible, are you claiming that every word that came out of Pius XII's mouth that appeared in AAS is to be regarded as infallible?For those who do not believe the magisterium is always infallible - (by Magisterium, I mean the Divine, Ordinary and the Universal Magisterium) are you claiming that re: Denz., Jesus Christ instituted a binding magisterium in the Church that can err at all?
[I'm talking to the SVs here. Stubborn has redefined Magisterium according to his Magisterium-sifting principles and does not believe in a priori infallibility for anything except solemn definitions].
(https://i.imgur.com/qUp4M0V.gif):laugh1: :laugh1:
(by Magisterium, I mean the Divine, Ordinary and the Universal Magisterium)Stubborn, considering this thread is partially discussing the article where it explains the various levels of the magisterium, then your above definition is only going to cause confusion, since it's correct, but incomplete. There is a part of the magisterium outside of your definition above. If you disagree, then you must become a sede because logically, that's where it will lead. And we all know that won't happen, ha ha. So, for clarity's sake, please quit talking about the magisterium only in the infallible sense...
Stubborn, considering this thread is partially discussing the article where it explains the various levels of the magisterium, then your above definition is only going to cause confusion, since it's correct, but incomplete. There is a part of the magisterium outside of your definition above. If you disagree, then you must become a sede because logically, that's where it will lead. And we all know that won't happen, ha ha. So, for clarity's sake, please quit talking about the magisterium only in the infallible sense...We have the Magisterium of the Church which is always infallible, and we have the Church's hierarchy, who are not always infallible and in fact can and have taught heresies. This should be clear.
A pope can exercise the Magisterium in a talk in St. Peters, he can speak infallibly in an Encyclical,
and an official Promulagtion by a Pope of a General Council makes it infallible.
The two, as referenced at V1, are not the same thing, but folks keep trying to make them the same thing thereby confusing the two right into sedevacantism or sededoubtism.I agree it is confusing, but when the "folks" who are using these words are theologians and Church officials, we sorta have to accept that one can use the word 'magisterium' in an infallible sense, no matter how confusing we think it is. We aren't trained to know the difference; they are. This is their area of expertise, not ours. We must study so to understand what they are saying, not dumb it down so they speak on our level.
I agree it is confusing, but when the "folks" who are using these words are theologians and Church officials, we sorta have to accept that one can use the word 'magisterium' in an infallible sense, no matter how confusing we think it is. We aren't trained to know the difference; they are. This is their area of expertise, not ours. We must study so to understand what they are saying, not dumb it down so they speak on our level.I meant to say "folks here". And yes, I do accept that one can (and should) use the word magisterium in an infallible sense, otherwise the term itself actually is confusing infallible teachings with teachings that are fallible. That isn't dumbing it down, that is simply applying actual meaning to proper wording.
None of this is true. There are statements by Paul VI saying that it was infallible and was binding. The V II docs themselves ALL imply that it is intended to be believed by the entire Church and Paul VI says he is using his supreme and apostolic authority to promulgate them. You don't have a leg to stand on. There is no way around it. If Paul VI was a true Pope, you must adhere to the teaching in Vatican II.What were these statements pertaining to?
The V II docs themselves ALL imply that it is intended to be believed by the entire ChurchOf course they IMPLIED it, because the modernists wanted people to think they were binding. An implication is not enough. It must be clear and without doubt. And I'm talking about the docuмents themselves - they must be clear as to their intent and clear that they are binding of the faithful because they teach truths which have a 'certainty of faith'. V2 contradicts itself - so which side of the contradiction am I bound to believe?
and Paul VI says he is using his supreme and apostolic authority to promulgate them.We've been over this before..."promulgate" is a legal word which has to do with issuing a legal docuмent (in this case, Paul VI was declaring that the coucil docuмents were legally formalized and that the council was complete). It has nothing to do with faith/morals/infallibility.
You don't have a leg to stand on. There is no way around it. If Paul VI was a true Pope, you must adhere to the teaching in Vatican II.Another 'either-or' from a sede, with no room for distinctions or reality. How amusing.
Stubborn, I still don't understand your view of the magisterium. What is it exactly? The magisterium...Here (https://www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/what-exactly-is-the-magisterium/msg574095/?topicseen#msg574095)is a previous post that should help explain it.
Therefore, not everything in the AAS is by itself infallible. It requires our assent unless it can be shown to contradict something from the Magisterium. I believe that some of Pius XII's errors (NFP, theistic evo.) and his situation is similar to Honorius. We don't have Pope teaching a doctrine to the entire Church (like what was done in Vatican II). We merely have a validly elected Pope, allowing a belief or practice that is against divine law or Church Teaching. Honorius furthered or allowed Monothelitism; Pius XII furthered or allowed NFP, theistic evolution, etc...
BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT,"These things". What things? The contents of each docuмent. If you go back to the council docuмents, there is nothing that is binding. Each docuмent must be clear in what they bind (this is why ALL PREVIOUS ecuмenical councils were infallible because the CANONS were clear, explicit and contained the anathemas we all know. There's no doubt as to what they mean).
Here (https://www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/what-exactly-is-the-magisterium/msg574095/?topicseen#msg574095)is a previous post that should help explain it.
"These things". What things? The contents of each docuмent. If you go back to the council docuмents, there is nothing that is binding. Each docuмent must be clear in what they bind (this is why ALL PREVIOUS ecuмenical councils were infallible because the CANONS were clear, explicit and contained the anathemas we all know. There's no doubt as to what they mean).
So V2 approved, decreed and established what? Answer: each individual docuмent.
What did each individual docuмent bind us to? Answer: nothing.
Obviously not everything coming out of the mouth or from the pen of a Pope is infallible. Deducing what has been said about the Teaching office in the past, we can, first of all, surmise that it cannot err. Then we know how Magisterium is exercised Extraordinarily as per Vatican I.Agree.
The Magisterium exercised ordinarily and universally must be considered infallible as per V I.V1 only defines the parameters for Extraordinary/Solemn papal definitions. It doesn't define the 'ordinary and universal' magisterium...which is why we are reading articles and debating it.
This means that anything that can be shown to contradict a teaching we know to have been taught as divinely revealed must not be infallible.Agree.
Every Vatican II docuмent starts this way:So you are saying that regardless of what was actually taught, you think in virtue of his authority (vs by virtue of his infallibility) that those teachings would have been infallible had a "true" pope, say, Pope St. Pius X, taught them because all that is needed for infallibility is contained in the body of the docuмents, not in the actual teachings.
“PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY.”
Every Docuмent in Vatican II ends this way.
“EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS. WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY… I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”
All that's needed is for the body of the Docuмent to be explaining faith or morals, which all of them did. If these claimants were real Popes, these docuмents would be infallible. It does not matter if these things were contained in Scripture or Tradition or Divinely Revealed, what matters is that your "popes" taught "infallibly" that they were. If you believe these men were popes then V II must be infallible to you.
You will note that Stubborn does not believe in any a priori guarantee of infallibility. He believes that something is infallible if it's part of the Deposit of Revelation and non-infallible if it is not ... leaving Stubborn's private judgment to discern between which is which. In point of fact, infallibility is an a priori guarantee that when some teaching meets the notes of infallibility, it is guaranteed a priori to be true. So if one of these teachings doesn't correspond with what WE think has been divinely revealed, then we change our mind and now accept them as divinely revealed. For Stubborn, if we think they're not revealed, we reject them. Stubborn would have made a very good Old Catholic.Well, it is supposed to help explain it, and I think it does, meanwhile, your whole idea leads straight to doubtism - so though you may not accept what the magisterium of the Church is, by virtue of your own doubtism you should know what it isn't.
but if an Ecuмenical Council teaches a fundamentally erroneous and flawed system of theology (with its faulty ecclesiology and soteriology) that we must reject in order to preserve our faith, then the Magisterium would have failedThe key words are 'teaches' and 'reject' and 'magisterium'. If we establish that V2 was not infallible, then indefectibility doesn't enter the equation because something which is fallible is not binding. And all non-binding 'teachings' (which aren't teachings at all) are therefore unofficial. Indefectibility means the Church will never OFFICIALLY teach error, which V2 never did.
The key words are 'teaches' and 'reject' and 'magisterium'. If we establish that V2 was not infallible, then indefectibility doesn't enter the equation because something which is fallible is not binding. And all non-binding 'teachings' (which aren't teachings at all) are therefore unofficial. Indefectibility means the Church will never OFFICIALLY teach error, which V2 never did.Well stated!
The 2nd word, 'reject', is a good one because it implies we have a choice - which we do in the face of V2. We know that the new mass is illicit due to Quo Primum, (and probably invalid and definitely immoral) therefore it is also non-binding. We reject it because we are obligated to. In the same way, we know that the errors of V2 are errors because they already are condemned by previous infallible, ex cathedra statements. We MUST reject them, as a matter of Faith.
The 3rd word, 'magisterium' is used too imprecisely above. You said 'the magisterium would have failed'. Well, it can! ...if you're talking about the "merely authentic", non-infallible magisterium (which is another word for the 'current hierarchy'), which is the magisterial level of V2. So, yes, V2 was an example of the "merely authentic" magisterium failing, because it did not define anything, nor did it teach anything which agrees with "what has always been taught". But indefectibility does not protect the fallible hierarchy; it only protects OFFICIAL, infallible statements from binding catholics to error. None of which V2 contained.
What is it that you are in disagreement about with the "folks" on CI?In a nutshell, certain folks claiming that the hierarchy is in some way the infallible magisterium.
Square your garbage theology with Pope Leo XIII...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.
Square your garbage theology with Pope Leo XIII...
The key words are 'teaches' and 'reject' and 'magisterium'. If we establish that V2 was not infallible, then indefectibility doesn't enter the equation because something which is fallible is not binding. And all non-binding 'teachings' (which aren't teachings at all) are therefore unofficial. Indefectibility means the Church will never OFFICIALLY teach error, which V2 never did.
The 2nd word, 'reject', is a good one because it implies we have a choice - which we do in the face of V2. We know that the new mass is illicit due to Quo Primum, (and probably invalid and definitely immoral) therefore it is also non-binding. We reject it because we are obligated to. In the same way, we know that the errors of V2 are errors because they already are condemned by previous infallible, ex cathedra statements. We MUST reject them, as a matter of Faith.
The 3rd word, 'magisterium' is used too imprecisely above. You said 'the magisterium would have failed'. Well, it can! ...if you're talking about the "merely authentic", non-infallible magisterium (which is another word for the 'current hierarchy'), which is the magisterial level of V2. So, yes, V2 was an example of the "merely authentic" magisterium failing, because it did not define anything, nor did it teach anything which agrees with "what has always been taught". But indefectibility does not protect the fallible hierarchy; it only protects OFFICIAL, infallible statements from binding catholics to error. None of which V2 contained.
Doesn't the teaching office of the Church require teachers?It certainly does. The teachers are not the infallible magisterium though, rather, the teachers are people, people who are quite capable teaching error, just as the last +50 years have proven.
Regardless of the limits of infallibility, the Universal Magisterium, whether infallible or not, must be regarded as infallibly safe.If the magisterium is not infallible, then it is not infallibly safe.
So by accepting the Church's Magisterium I can endanger my faith and displease God?Yes, by accepting the Church's ("merely authentic" and "non-fallible") magisterium (as binding) I can endanger my faith and displease God. Indefectibility and Infallibility go hand in hand. If something is infallible, that means the pope is telling us it is "of the Faith" and must be believed as coming from God. In such teachings, the Church is protected by indefectability from error.
In Latin...
Right, dogma is the object of that faith, but not the rule.
Object of faith: dogma
Ultimate/Remote RULE of faith: truthfulness of God
Proximate/Inanimate RULE of faith: divine revelation (Scripture/Tradition)
Proximate/Living RULE of faith: Magisterium/the Church
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm
from Catholic Encyclopedia:
QuoteQuote from: Catholic EncyclopediaThe word rule (Latin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09019a.htm) regula, Gr. kanon) means a standard by which something can be tested, and the rule of faith means something extrinsic to our faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm), and serving as its norm or measure. Since faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) is Divine and infallible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm), the rule of faith must be also Divine and infallible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm); and since faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) is supernatural (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14336b.htm) assent to Divine truths (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) upon Divine authority, the ultimate or remote rule of faith must be the truthfulness of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) in revealing Himself. But since Divine revelation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm) is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions (Vatican Council (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15303a.htm), I, ii), the Bible (http://www.newadvent.org/bible) and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm); since, however, these are only silent witnesses and cannot interpret themselves, they are commonly termed "proximate but inanimate rules of faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm)". Unless, then, the Bible (http://www.newadvent.org/bible) and tradition are to be profitless, we must look for some proximate rule which shall be animate or living. [Goes on to demonstrate that this proximate animate/living rule is the Church/Magisterium]rule = something extrinsic to the faith and serving as its norm or measureQuote from: DrewThe Magisterium is the teaching office that engages the Church’s attribute of infallibilty.Magisteirum may or may not be infallible, depending on the circuмstances and notes.
The Rule of Faith was given to the Church in the very act of Revelation and its promulgation by the Apostles. But for this Rule to have an actual and permanently efficient character, it must be continually promulgated and enforced by the living Apostolate, which must exact from all members of the Church a docile Faith in the truths of Revelation authoritatively proposed, and thus unite the whole body of the Church, teachers and taught, in perfect unity of Faith. Hence the original promulgation is the remote Rule of Faith, and the continuous promulgation by the Teaching Body is the proximate Rule.
Scheeben, Manual of Catholic Theology
In fact, this doctrine [doctrina] on liberty has its roots in divine Revelation; with all the more reason, therefore, it is to be preserved [servanda est] sacredly by Christians.”
Infallibility comes in because if V II's a legit council, a Pope, together with the world's Bishops, taught a heretical ecclesiology to the entire Church Infallibly. This is what Stub and Pax don't or won't understand. Yes, if this were true the Church would have defected. Because Infallibility is involved, defection is the conclusion.
I can't speak for all sedes but this is the reason why I'm sede. I am not 100% sure what would happen in the hypothetical situation of a true Pope gone heretical. If I thought that was the case I may not be Sede. I am sede because I know that General Councils of the Catholic Church cannot teach error to the Church. This to me, is 100% proof that these men were not validly elected and were heretics before their election with no power to call a Council.
It does not define what it is but it most certainly says it must be believed. If the Solemn Magisterium is infallible and must be believed with "divine and Catholic Faith" then the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium must be considered infallible as well.
Vatican II thus attempts to do exactly what Pope Leo XIII says the Magisterium does when it teaches infallibly.Yes, V2 "attempts" to do what Leo XIII said, but does not. It uses the phrases "has roots in" and "is in accord with" divine revelation. So what? It's making an argument; it's not making a direct, clear, authoritative statement that x IS FROM Divine Revelation. Big difference.
V2 is all smoke and mirrors and communistic mind games. Much like the devil's temptations, it wants to APPEAR good when it's not.
V2 at the very least is an act of the OUM ... even if not solemn. Pope and the vast majority (nearly all) the bishops signed the docuмents and have been teaching this stuff for 50 years. R&R like to add the element of TIME to the equation, but that's false. When you throw time in there, then the OUM can defect at any given time ... which is false.Again, you are using the OUM term incorrectly. The OUM (ordinary and universal magisterium) is the 'continuous' teaching of the church, over the period of 2,000 years. It is not made up of 1 hierarchy but of ALL the hierarchys.
And yet all theologians hold that Ecuмenical Councils are guided by the Holy Spirit overallAll of them were, except V2, because V2 was the only ecuмenical council which didn't make use of the Holy Spirit to issue infallible teachings. The Holy Spirit is AVAILABLE for ecuмenical councils, but the pope has to ALLOW Him to operate, by following the procedures and rules inherent in infallibility, which can be time consuming because it requires precise wording and theological exactness - none of which V2 has at all.
These are made up terms by theologians, who are not considered part of the teaching Church.Oh, +Bellarminist, thou contradict thyself...
And yet all theologians hold that Ecuмenical Councils are guided by the Holy Spirit overall ... whether or not any given statement has the notes of infallibility. How can we as Catholics have disdain for an Ecuмenical Council and hold it in contempt?
If I believed that V2 was a legitimate Ecuмenical Council, I'd take the neocath approach of bending over backwards to reconcile it with Tradition.
If Ecuмenical Councils are not infallible, then I do not know what is.An ecuмenical council HAS THE POTENTIAL to be infallible, of course. It's not automatically infallible though - who would say that? There are RULES and PROCEDURES to follow, which V2 did not follow and they have admitted it was not doctrinal/infallible many times.
After much discernment, I came to the conclusion that the only way to believe that VII is not infallible; it is to say that the pope who promulgated it was illegitimate.Or, you can read V1's rules, or theologian's commentary on what infallibility is, before you trust your own "discernment" which is CERTAINLY NOT infallible.
What is more credible to believe? an impostor Jew pretending to be pope or thousands of bishops defecting at once in an Ecuмenical Council?It's more credible to believe that the pope and hierarchy got together, issued a bunch of modernist statements, none of which were precise, doctrinally binding, or doctrinally in agreement with the constant Truth of our religion and everyone thought it was "ok" just because it was "ecuмenical". No one with any training (i.e. theologians) have EVER had a problem with such a possibility, only those of us who have no formal training find it "impossible" to believe. Truth is the conformity of the mind to reality. The reality is that V2 is the first ecuмenical non-binding, non-doctrinal council in the history of the Church - and this is not a theological problem, even if, to the untrained laity, it is scandalous, unbelievable or incredible.
You read one article off of an SSPX website and suddenly you're an expert on the magisteriumWhy don't you go post some quotes which support your position then? All you do is post your opinion, which doesn't further the discussion.
Bellarmine's opinions on the papacy were adopted by the Fathers of Vatican I.Some of his opinions were; some were not.
All of them were, except V2, because V2 was the only ecuмenical council which didn't make use of the Holy Spirit to issue infallible teachings. The Holy Spirit is AVAILABLE for ecuмenical councils, but the pope has to ALLOW Him to operate, by following the procedures and rules inherent in infallibility, which can be time consuming because it requires precise wording and theological exactness - none of which V2 has at all.
It's more credible to believe that the pope and hierarchy got together, issued a bunch of modernist statements, none of which were precise, doctrinally binding, or doctrinally in agreement with the constant Truth of our religion and everyone thought it was "ok" just because it was "ecuмenical".
Your point is wrong also and we've gone over this before. You don't even believe what you wrote. I have shown before that Vatican II teaches that Religious Liberty is divinely revealed, but in order for your hatred of the Sede position to continue in its irrational state, you must train yourself to overlook this point or explain it away.My hatred of the dogmatic sede position is nothing personal, it is due to it's recipients having separated themselves from the successor of St. Peter *FOR NO VALID REASON* and ipso facto have chosen for themselves to have no hope of salvation. Everyone should hate it for that same reason.
In other words, theThat the Hierarchy defected is an indisputable reality because it is an historical reality, the Magisterium however, can never defect - BD has it correct in the post above yours:MagisteriumHierarchy defected for the first time in history via Ecuмenical Council...
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri
God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.
Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri
To this magisterium Christ the Lord imparted immunity from error...
Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus
… 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 Pius XI, Quas Primas
… the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy.
That the Hierarchy defected is an indisputable reality because it is an historical reality, the Magisterium however, can never defect - BD has it correct in the post above yours:
Fallible means error, then I choose not to believe it.No, fallible does not mean error. It simply means it does not have a 'certainty of faith'. Any priest, bishop or cardinal is fallible (every saint was fallible!)- that just means they COULD make a mistake. But they also could not. This is why our Faith is not based on MEN; it is based on DOCTRINE. It is based on a culmination of teachings over 2,000 years, including all infallible statements, and consistent doctrinal teachings. This is summed up in the catechism, which a 3rd grader can understand. OUR FAITH IS NOT COMPLICATED. Ergo, when V2 comes along and teaches something different from the Baltimore catechism, and do so NON-SOLEMNLY, then you reject it.
Both infallible and fallible teaching proposed by the Magisterium should be generally accepted.No. The pope is not an oracle. The bishops/cardinals, whether inside or outside a council, are not error-free. Our Faith is based on Christ and HIS teachings, not the teachings of the current men in rome.
What good is the Magisterium if we cannot trust it, if we have to inspect every sentence proposed to us looking for falsehood? The Catholic Church is known for its clarity and the ability to teach and reach the hearts and intellects to people from all walks of life, both the learned and the unlearned.The situation in which we find ourselves is very unique to Church history. We have 2,000 years of consistent teachings, with multiple orthodox catechisms, with many learned Saints and Doctors to listen to. God did not leave us orphans in the Faith, when He allowed the modernists to inflitrate His Church. He even provided us with 3 saintly popes right in a row (Pius IX, Leo XIII and Pius X) all of whom fought these same modernists and St Pius X WARNED US sternly that they would come back! We knew this day would come and we have consistent teachings to compare V2 against.
Again, you are using the OUM term incorrectly. The OUM (ordinary and universal magisterium) is the 'continuous' teaching of the church, over the period of 2,000 years. It is not made up of 1 hierarchy but of ALL the hierarchys.
:facepalm:I no longer believe you know what reality even is - until you discover it, you may as well remain in your state of sededoubtism.
Apart from the fact that it's also heresy to say that the hierarchy has defected (that's actually one of the criticisms against straight sedevacantism), when the hierarchy TEACHES, that is Magisterium. You've come up with bogus re-definitions of terms to back your non-Catholic perspective on things.
You are trying to make a distinction where there is none. Vatican II has to be an act of the Magisterium. Yes, it appeared to be "hierarchy", but that "hierarchy" included the man you call "pope". A Popes approval of a Council is what makes it binding. You will not find any theologian, saint, Catholic writer etc... before Vatican II that would say that a General Council is not an act of the Magisterium. In fact, I would bet the only people that have said that it is not, are the people who adhere to the novel beliefs of the SSPX/R&R.V2 was an act of the pope and hierarchy - that is an indisputable reality which you dispute anyway *for no valid reason at all*.
There is no such thing as the "ordinary fallible" or "merely authentic" magisterium...
These are made up terms by theologians, who are not considered part of the teaching Church.
The popes have spoken on the issue, and you will not find a pope in the history of the Church referring to the magisterium as capable of teaching error.
If Ecuмenical Councils are not infallible, then I do not know what is.
It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, 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.
You are trying to make a distinction where there is none. Vatican II has to be an act of the Magisterium. Yes, it appeared to be "hierarchy", but that "hierarchy" included the man you call "pope". A Popes approval of a Council is what makes it binding. You will not find any theologian, saint, Catholic writer etc... before Vatican II that would say that a General Council is not an act of the Magisterium. In fact, I would bet the only people that have said that it is not, are the people who adhere to the novel beliefs of the SSPX/R&R.
I spent years trying to defend the indefensible. Believe me, I know what you are coming from. It used to be that Catholics could trust the Magisterium with a child-like confidence. Adherence to the pope was the mark of the Roman Catholic per excellence. Do you really think that the average layman had to be concerned with "precise wording and theological exactness"? We should not have to scrutinize in detail every single Magisterial word, trying to separate what is infallible from that is not; and then deciding on our own what to believe and what not.
The typical mindset is this: Infallible means truth, then I must believe it. Fallible means error, then I choose not to believe it. That extreme compartmentalization is not right; and the only reason people are doing it after Vatican II is so they end up choosing what to believe. Both infallible and fallible teaching proposed by the Magisterium should be generally accepted. God does not want this from us; otherwise the entire existence of a Magisterium would be utterly pointless. What good is the Magisterium if we cannot trust it, if we have to inspect every sentence proposed to us looking for falsehood?. The Catholic Church is known for its clarity and the ability to teach and reach the hearts and intellects to people from all walks of life, both the learned and the unlearned.
My hatred of the dogmatic sede position is nothing personal, ...
AES: Never disputed it. What you are disputing is that this is an act of the Magisterium with the approval of the Pope. You have no excuse for denying it.
And, honestly, at the end of the day, I could hardly care less whether you're a sedevacantist or not. What I find gravely offensive, and borderline heretical, is your attitude towards the Magisterium. I urge you to read Cantarella's post over a few times and try to imbibe the Catholic spirit that she conveys. You have none of that. And that's what I find so repugnant in your position ... not whether you have concluded that the Holy See is vacant.I could hardly care that you could hardly care. You don't even know what you are talking about when it comes to the magisterium, infallibility and indefectibility. Proof of this is your sededoubtism.
As I said - you must have great faith in the doctrine of infallibility, if you do not, then you believe all the wild ideas, opinions and theories as if they are authoritative Church teachings.
True. After looking over the link he provided earlier and going a little further through the thread, this is exactly what has happened. It seems to me that Stubborn believes that the magisterium is the Deposit of Faith.
Obviously, he is free to correct me if I'm wrong.
I could hardly care that you could hardly care. You don't even know what you are talking about when it comes to the magisterium, infallibility and indefectibility. Proof of this is your sededoubtism.
If you do, then how on God's green earth can you possibly say that V2 was an act of the magisterium?
sededoubtism -- you haven't the foggiest idea about my position and couldn't even articulate it back to me if you triedSededoubtism -= sededontknowism / sedesaywhatism/sedewhoknowsism/sedecantfigureitoutism/etc.
:facepalm: ... I can't believe that I just read this.My bad BD, sorry - it was the sededontknowist who said it:
He DOESN'T say that V2 was an act of the Magisterium.
Ladislaus said: Yeah, that's the thing ... V2 at the very least is an act of the OUM .
My bad BD, sorry - it was the sededontknowist who said it:
I might take your comment seriously if I believed that you have even the slightest clue about what those terms even mean (Magisterium, infallibility, indefectibility, and sededoubtism).Why must you make things up? - Is it in order to have the hope of saving your sededoubtism?
Magisterium -- Stubborn defines this as the truths in the Deposit of Revelation ... as some static thing that has no relationship with the hierarchy's presentation of it to the Church
Infallibility -- Stubborn holds a tautological view of infallibility (something is infallible if it's true and non-infallible if it's false) rather than understanding that it's an a priori guarantee of truth when the notes defined by Vatican I are present; rather, Stubborn believes that infallibility can be known only a posteriori once it has cleared his private judgment about what is Traditional and what isn'tInfallibility is freedom from error in teaching the Universal Church in matters of faith or morals, as defined by the First Vatican Council. (see “infallible teachings” below).
Indefectibility -- Stubborn believes that the Church is indefectible because the Deposit of Revelation cannot change and because there are people walking around calling themselves Pope and Cardinals and Bishops
sededoubtism -- you haven't the foggiest idea about my position and couldn't even articulate it back to me if you triedI already summed up this novel idea.
You took my quote out of context, buffoon. I was speaking hypothetically ... ASSUMING a legitimate Catholic hierarchy.
Yeah, that's the thing ... V2 at the very least is an act of the OUM ... even if not solemn. Pope and the vast majority (nearly all) the bishops signed the docuмents and have been teaching this stuff for 50 years. R&R like to add the element of TIME to the equation, but that's false. When you throw time in there, then the OUM can defect at any given time ... which is false.Now BD posted papal teachings that the magisterium is always infallible here (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/the-heretical-pope-fallacy/msg587536/#msg587536). So how can "V2 at the very least, be an act of the UOM" and NOT be infallible?
So how can "V2 at the very least, be an act of the UOM" and NOT be infallible?
You will not find any theologian, saint, Catholic writer etc... before Vatican II that would say that a General Council is not an act of the Magisterium. In fact, I would bet the only people that have said that it is not, are the people who adhere to the novel beliefs of the SSPX/R&R.
Like most R&R do, you're injecting the time element and imply that the entire ordinary teaching of the Church can defect at any given time.I'm not injecting anything; i'm simply posting quotes from pre-V2 theologians who say that non-solemn decrees from the pope are only infallible if they are part of the consistent universal magisterium:
With STRAIGHT ordinary teaching, the universality can be determined from time, but if the entire Church, pope and bishops, teach something even if it's at any given point in time, that cannot be in error.You use the word 'teach' too liberally. V2 did not 'teach' FORMALLY because it did not bind. By definition, if the magisterium is infallibly teaching something, then we must believe it. If you compare every ecuмenical counci with V2, you will see the difference in 'teaching' both in authority and clarity.
What you're talking about are qualifications to the Ordinary Magisterium per se. What's at issue is what causes the Ordinary Magisterium to assume Universality. Your allegation, and that of many R&R, is that it's always a function of time. But the Ordinary Magisterium ALSO takes on the charateristic of universality when the Pope and Bishops teach something in unison at any given point in time.I agree, but it goes back to the word 'teach'. I say that the ordinary magisterium only becomes universal when it FORMALLY teaches something as a 'matter of faith'. Then the protections of the Holy Ghost are present and thus, consistency with the past will occur.
No, the magisterium is not the Deposit of Faith. The Magisterium teaches from this Deposit, re: "The Magisterium is the Church authoritatively teaching all those truths contained in the Deposit of Faith" is what I posted in that link.
True. After looking over the link he provided earlier and going a little further through the thread, this is exactly what has happened. It seems to me that Stubborn believes that the magisterium is the Deposit of Faith.
Obviously, he is free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Here ^^^ you have Roncalli specifically stating that Vatican II is an EXTRAORDINARY act of the magisterium...being presented to ALL men.Irrelevant for 2 reasons. 1) he died before it was finshed 2) a pope can say whatever he wants about a council - the proof is in the words on the council docuмents.
I believe exactly what the popes have taught - that the magisterium is free from all error and that the Catholic Church is immune from error or heresy.I absolutely agree.
I don't believe that Vatican II was an act of the magisterium. I believe that it was called by a false pope, and ratified by a false pope.
However, if I believed that Roncalli and Montini were valid popes, I'd have to believe that Vatican II was an infallible act of the magisterium.
Like most R&R do, you're injecting the time element and imply that the entire ordinary teaching of the Church can defect at any given time.I would also challenge the idea that the 'entire' ordinary magisterium defected. Not so. +ABL didn't defect. Ottaviani and his theologians didn't defect, but taught that the new mass contained errors. Many, many cardinals voted against the various docuмents during the council. Yes, they were passed by a majority, but a simple majority does not constitute the 'entire' church.
and imply that the entire ordinary teaching of the Church can defect at any given time.Is it possible that all of the Apostles could have abandoned Our Lord after the agony in the garden? Yes.
It wasn't an act of the magisterium, it was an act of the hierarchy.
Your quibbling has already taken this thread in another direction that was discussed in detail years ago without any apparent benefit because there is still no accepted understanding even of the basic terminology that was covered before and which must be understood to form proper judgments.
Drew
It wasn't an act of the UNIVERSAL magisterium, it was an act of the ordinary, fallible magisterium.hierarchy.
Is it possible that all of the Apostles could have abandoned Our Lord after the agony in the garden? Yes.
Is it possible that all of the Apostels could have denied Our Lord, as St Peter did? Yes.
Is it possible for a Cardinal, Bishop or Pope to lose the faith and believe heresy? Yes.
Is it possible for ALL the cardinals, bishops and the Pope to lose the faith and believe heresy? Yes.
It hasn't happened yet, but it is possible. As St Athanasius told us, even if those holding the True Faith are reduced to a handful, there is the Church.
"for ALL the cardinals, bishops, and the Pope to lose the faith and believe heresy?"I could agree with you on this, but it's a matter of theory, and off topic (my fault). Back to V2 - not all of the hierarchy defected, so the question is irrelevant.
Absolutely NOT! That would mean a defection of the hierarchy (despite St. Athanasius' pious hyperbole).
It is the “promulgation,” that is, Dogma, that that is the “proximate Rule.”
There, Stubborn, I fixed it for you. If you want to debate matters of detail, you have to be detailed in your comments.For me, I think it's best to do away with the word magisterium entirely when talking about the hierarchy.
I could agree with you on this, but it's a matter of theory, and off topic (my fault). Back to V2 - not all of the hierarchy defected, so the question is irrelevant.
For me, I think it's best to do away with the word magisterium entirely when talking about the hierarchy.
Your quibbling has already taken this thread in another direction that was discussed in detail years ago without any apparent benefit because there is still no accepted understanding even of the basic terminology that was covered before and which must be understood to form proper judgments.
Drew
In fact, the Pope is the litmus test for Universality. If he along with all but one or two dissident bishops teaches something, it's universal.Agree. For a non-solemn teaching (i.e. humanae vitae) the pope acted alone and taught that this encyclical was consistent with Church doctrine. If it's a non-solemn teaching, it must agree with the past. If it does not agree with the past, then how can it be 'universal'?
It doesn't matter who voted on what.If you're talking about infallibility and that the pope's "vote" is all that matters, I agree. But we were discussing indefectibility and if V2 constituted the defection of the "entire" church, which according to the votes, it did not.
That an ecuмenical which satisfies the conditions above stated is an organ of infallibility will not be deniedI do not deny this either. An ecuмenical council is "an organ of" infallibility, meaning it is a "vehicle" or a "method" of a pope proclaiming something infallible. The pope can use other "organs" too, as he did with the Assumption (I think it was a 'papal bull' he used), which was outside of a council. The point is, I'm not denying that an ecuмenical council is POTENTIALLY infallible. I'm denying that it is AUTOMATICALLY infallible JUST BECAUSE it's ecuмenical. That's not how it works.
"That an ecuмenical which satisfies the conditions above stated is an organ of infallibility will not be denied by anyone who admits that the Church is endowed with infallible doctrinal authority."
Once the pope ratifies the conciliar decrees, (assuming there are 'decrees') the councils teachings are binding (if they are worded properly and are clear as to what they are binding) on the faithful.Agree, with the above specifications. All previous ecuмenical councils contained decrees (i.e. canons) which stated, very clearly, they were binding. V2 did not formally decree, nor bind anyone.
Without the ratification of the pope, the council and it's decrees are worthless. It is this act by the pope, and the pope alone, which makes the council an infallible act of the magisterium (if the council has the proper wording to make it clear in what it is teaching and binding).Agree, except...
A council's decrees approved by the pope are infallible by reason of that approbation, because the pope is infallible also extra concilium, without the support of a council.The key word is 'decrees'. I can go to any ecuмenical council before V2 and easily find the decrees which tell me exactly what I must believe, or what error I must avoid, and what the penalty is. Where do I find that in the V2 docuмents? - where is the enactment, law, or order in the docuмents??
:facepalm: ... my point is that it WOULD be infallible if one assumed a legitimate pope. I really don't understand why it's that difficult for you.No surprise here, but you did not answer the question, I already know what your point is - it's ridiculous.
You are trying to make a distinction where there is none. Vatican II has to be an act of the Magisterium. Yes, it appeared to be "hierarchy", but that "hierarchy" included the man you call "pope". A Popes approval of a Council is what makes it binding. You will not find any theologian, saint, Catholic writer etc... before Vatican II that would say that a General Council is not an act of the Magisterium. In fact, I would bet the only people that have said that it is not, are the people who adhere to the novel beliefs of the SSPX/R&R.Better known as "ANYTHING, but Sedevacantism".
Bellator is correct above. Confirming his statement above is Paul VI speaking of the "council" and John XXIII.You seem to have missed Pax's earlier comments that it doesn't matter what the pope says:
I'm sorry, but when the entire Church, in union with the Pope, teach something to the Church, the Holy Spirit absolutely guarantees that it cannot be substantially corrupt. Sure, not every single small point is guaranteed infallible. But it cannot be substantially corrupt without completely undermining the indefectibility of the Church and the Magisterium.But don't you also believe that it's Catholic to believe it is only possible that Paul VI was not a legitimate pope? Isn't that what sededoubtism is?
There are only two possible Catholic solutions:
1) Vatican II is substantially Catholic.
2) Paul VI was not a legitimate pope.
I have to question whether people who think like Stubborn even have Catholic faith anymore.
But don't you also believe that it's Catholic to believe it is only possible that Paul VI was not a legitimate pope? Isn't that what sededoubtism is?
We decide between #1 and #2 based on our private judgment, and the legitimacy of a pope must be known with the certainty of faith. Catholics may not simply decide the matter of papal legitimacy based on private judgment, so all we can do is act on the grave positive doubt until it's resolved by the authority of the Church. Based on classic sedevacantism, there's absolutely nothing to stop a Catholic living during the time of a legitimate pope (say, Pius XII) from waking up one morning and just deciding that Pius XII isn't pope and that therefore the dogma of the Assumption isn't to be held de fide.But it sounds that you do have certainty of faith. If one knows that the Vatican II council is not substantially Catholic, then one also knows with certainty that #2 has to be the correct position. Either the pope is legitimate or not. There is no he may or may not be pope.
The decrees of the Council have no definitive binding force unless they shall be confirmed by the Roman Pontiff and promulgated by his orders.
But it sounds that you do have certainty of faith. If one knows that the Vatican II council is not substantially Catholic, then one also knows with certainty that #2 has to be the correct position. Either the pope is legitimate or not. There is no he may or may not be pope.
Canon 227 /1917:Canon 228 is also interesting:
In other words, once it is confirmed by the Roman Pontiff, the decrees of an ecuмenical Council ARE indeed binding.
The General Council has supreme jurisdiction in the whole Church. From the judgement of the Roman Pontiff, there is no appeal to the General Council.
I do not have anything close to a certainty of faith; my assessment that V2 is not Catholic comes from my own private judgment.So is your "private judgment" that he "may not be a legitimate pope" or "is not a legitimate pope"? In your earlier post, you only include the latter as a possible "Catholic solution".
So is your "private judgment" that he "may not be a legitimate pope" or "is not a legitimate pope"? In your earlier post, you only include the latter as a possible "Catholic solution".
Canon 228 / 1917:ha, beat you by 16 seconds...lol
In other words, there is no appeal to Vatican II Council if a true pope in fact promulgated it, no matter how many bishops dispute it.
There are only two possible Catholic solutions:
1) Vatican II is substantially Catholic.
2) Paul VI was not a legitimate pope.
I have to question whether people who think like Stubborn even have Catholic faith anymore.
We decide between #1 and #2 based on our private judgment, and the legitimacy of a pope must be known with the certainty of faith. Catholics may not simply decide the matter of papal legitimacy based on private judgment, so all we can do is act on the grave positive doubt until it's resolved by the authority of the Church. Based on classic sedevacantism, there's absolutely nothing to stop a Catholic living during the time of a legitimate pope (say, Pius XII) from waking up one morning and just deciding that Pius XII isn't pope and that therefore the dogma of the Assumption isn't to be held de fide.
Absolutely correct, and clear as day from Canon Law.But it is okay for lay folks to interpret Ecuмenical Councils...even if they contradict what their popes say about them.
However, Pax Vobis will now begin to lecture you on how you have no business interpreting Canon Law and that it is TOTALLY off limits to lay folks...
(I don't really believe anything that he says)
There are only two possible Catholic solutions:If V2 was not binding, therefore it is not infallible, therefore indefectibility does not enter the equation. So the 3rd option is that V2 must be looked upon as 'advisory' or a 'proposal' on how to deal with 'pastoral' matters. It did not deal with 'faith and morals' directly but HOW TO APPLY faith and morals at the local level. If you assume satanic trickery and word games from the modernists, then you can assume that this whole council was a legal farce. Remember that the devil invented magic, which is the appearance of something which isn't really there. Or the hiding of something that is there.
1) Vatican II is substantially Catholic.
2) Paul VI was not a legitimate pope.
If V2 was not binding, therefore it is not infallible, therefore indefectibility does not enter the equation. So the 3rd option is that V2 must be looked upon as 'advisory' or a 'proposal' on how to deal with 'pastoral' matters. It did not deal with 'faith and morals' directly but HOW TO APPLY faith and morals at the local level. If you assume satanic trickery and word games from the modernists, then you can assume that this whole council was a legal farce. Remember that the devil invented magic, which is the appearance of something which isn't really there. Or the hiding of something that is there.Yes! It will be proven non-binding, because Paul VI was not a true pope!
The only complicating factor is that all this was done at an ecuмenical council, which some think has an automatic 'rubber stamp' of approval of every period and comma. No, you have to read the 'fine print' of the council docuмents, just like we did with Paul VI's 'new mass' constitution. 40 years later those who argued that Paul VI did NOT revoke Quo Primum have been vindicated. At some point in the future, I am positively sure we will see the same result with V2 - it will be proven to be an non-binding, diabolical charade.
In other words, once it is confirmed by the Roman Pontiff, the decrees of an ecuмenical Council ARE indeed binding.Show me ONE decree from V2 that I must follow under pain of sin.
Pax Vobis will now begin to lecture you on how you have no business interpreting Canon Law and that it is TOTALLY off limits to lay folks...If you're using canon law to depose the pope, then yes, that activity is "above our pay grade". Not a moral question; not our business.
But it is okay for lay folks to interpret Ecuмenical CouncilsIf you are reading the council to find out what it obligates you to do morally, so as to follow Church law, then yes, that activity is a layman's business because it concerns a personal obligation.
Yes! It will be proven non-binding, because Paul VI was not a true pope!I don't rule out that possibility. I just can't say with certainty.
Show me ONE decree from V2 that I must follow under pain of sin.
My current judgment is that it's very unlikely that he was a legitimate pope. I have to leave room for doubt because I could be wrong in some judgment I made in arriving at the conclusion. It is my opinion (call it a pious belief) that Paul VI would have been protected by the Holy Spirit from publicly teaching error ... even if he had personally been a heretic ... if his election had been legitimate. Worst case, I believe that God would have struck him dead. But I personally think that Siri was elected and that the subsequent papal elections were therefore not legitimate.So, it appears that, in your view, there is a third possible Catholic solution: not deciding on the other two solutions.
You are trying to make a distinction where there is none. Vatican II has to be an act of the Magisterium. Yes, it appeared to be "hierarchy", but that "hierarchy" included the man you call "pope". A Popes approval of a Council is what makes it binding. You will not find any theologian, saint, Catholic writer etc... before Vatican II that would say that a General Council is not an act of the Magisterium. In fact, I would bet the only people that have said that it is not, are the people who adhere to the novel beliefs of the SSPX/R&R.The magisterium is always infallible just as popes have taught - do you disbelieve the popes who taught this? The reason it appeared to be the hierarchy is because it *was* the hierarchy (including the pope).
So, it appears that, in your view, there is a third possible Catholic solution: not deciding on the other two solutions.
This source was already cited on this page or the last. Now moving on.You can't use Trent's profession for V2. You have to use V2's profession - post that. Does V2's have this in it?----> "and at the same time all things contrary thereto, and whatever heresies have been condemned, and rejected, and anathematized by the Church, I likewise condemn, reject, and anathematize."
Stubborn, This is part of the Trent Profession of Faith above. There are two questions you need to ask yourself right now. Your answers will determine whether you are Catholic or not.
1. Was Vatican II one of the Councils of the Catholic Church?
2. Do you accept and profess, without hesitation, everything taught in Vatican II?
Major: Legitimate hierarchy cannot teach substantial error to the Universal Church.Why do you keep posting crap like this I wonder? Post your source for this idea.
The Archbishop himself would formulate the fundamental tenet of opinionism: “I do not say that the pope is not the pope, but I do not say either that one cannot say that the pope is not the pope.”
Why do you keep posting crap like this I wonder? Post your source for this idea.
It sounds like it might be a Fentonism, certainly it must be a new theologian's idea of some sort, but whatever, post your source for this or accept the fact that this is so wrong that it has helped lead many people into losing their faith.
:facepalm: ... "new theologian". What an idiot! Every Church Father and every Catholic theologian has believed this and taught this. Your distinction between hierarchy and Magisterium has NO BASIS in Catholic theology. In fact, it was explicitly condemned at Vatican I ... to separate the Pope from his office.You're the idiot - can't you read? I said you must post your sources for your crazy talk from now on - so, post your sources mr. wind bag.
Stubborn's Lies
Lie #1: You can't use Trent's profession for V2.
The Profession of Faith (POF) does not say just Trent. It says all things taught by the Ecuмenical Councils. So I can and must, if I want to call myself Catholic, profess what every Council professes.
Yes, all the Ecuмenical Councils up until Trent - you want it to say all future Councils - sorry, it doesn't even imply that.
Lie #2: You have to use V2's profession - post that.
No I don't. The POF is clear about that. If it meant this POF only applied to Trent, then it definitely wouldn't say 'and especially by the sacred and holy Synod of Trent', this would be redundant.
Anything to keep your sedeism I suppose.
Lie #3: Does V2's have this in it?----> "and at the same time all things contrary thereto, and whatever heresies have been condemned, and rejected, and anathematized by the Church, I likewise condemn, reject, and anathematize."
This is not a lie per se but it is deceitful, falls in the same category. Stubborn here is attempting to say that because Vatican II didn't condemn etc... so this POF does not apply. This is not true because the POF says that one must profess everything that is merely taught in a Council. It's clear that this means a Council does not even need to use solemn language because of the nature of the Council itself.
I did not attempt anything of the sort -I asked you a question - why can't you simply answer a simple question for once?
Lie #4: You're problem is that *you say* that you believe everything in all councils are automatically infallible
This is a lie because I clearly never said that. In fact I have said multiple times that only the things that a Council teaches that concern faith or morals are infallible. Changeable disciplines do not fall into this category. Yet even then, if a Council changes something in the Church's discipline, the faithful may not disobey it or act like it doesn't apply to them.
You're the one who says all councils are automatically infallible - but you do not believe it yourself because if you believed it, you would be a card carrying NOer. You're confused because a true council actually taught error - this proves you to be wrong - live with it.
So as we can see, the Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent clearly says that whatever an Ecuмenical Council teaches and professes, every Catholic must do likewise. Stubborn has had to bear false witness four times in one post in order to try to refute the irrefutable. The answer to the questions I asked Stubborn, from Stubborn's heretical point of view, yes the Council was Catholic and no he does not profess everything in them. According to the Council of Trent, a Catholic Council, he is definitely NOT Catholic.
No, that is not what Trent's POF says, that's not even what the first part says - why don't you read what it says?
What is your understanding of the word "binding"?Just what it means: "to impose a legal or contractual obligation on" as in, the Pope infallibly binds all the faithful to believe "x" as a matter of faith. Those that do not, are anathema.
Stubborn has proven, beyond a doubt, that he does not profess the Catholic Faith.
Well, he still professes it, as I defined profession some time ago here, but his view of the Magisterium and the Church are not Catholic. Perhaps the confusion caused by this unprecedented crisis opens the possibility that his heresies are material only. I'm sure that, in ordinary times, Stubborn would have remained Catholic. This is a horrific mess that tries every Catholic's soul. Very few Catholic theologians alive before this crisis could have hypothesized about such as scenario as this in their worst nightmares.Two sedewhatevers agreeing that my view of the magisterium and Church aren't Catholic. :facepalm:
As I said before, someone makes their profession by their deeds as well as their words. If a Protestant declares up and down that he is a Christian but does not profess all the Catholic Church teaches, they are not a Christian. The same goes for anybody claiming to be a Catholic. Their heresy and apostasy can definitely be manifested by their deeds. Kissing korans, worshipping in mosques, etc... The point is that just because someone thinks they are something does not make it so. For instance, Subborn claims he is Catholic but denies several Dogmas and publically fights against Church Teaching. Maybe in normal times he would be Catholic but we are not in normal times and he does not have the Catholic Faith. Think whatever you want about why this is so but the truth is evident.Anytime a sedewhatever says I'm not Catholic, I fully understand why they say that and I just take it for what it's worth.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. I-II, Q. 103., A. 4: “All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally.”
... I'm not Catholic ...
Anytime a sedewhatever says I'm not Catholic, I fully understand why they say that and I just take it for what it's worth.
Since not everything taught by the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible, we must ask what kind of assent we should give to its various decisions.
(1) The Christian is required to give the assent of faith to all the doctrinal and moral truths defined by the Church's Magisterium (there were no doctrinal or moral truths defined at V2).
(2) He is not required to give the same assent to teaching imparted by the sovereign pontiff that is not imposed on the whole Christian body as a dogma of faith (nothing from V2 was imposed upon the whole Church as a dogma of faith).
(2 b) In this case it suffices to give that inner and religious assent which we give to legitimate ecclesiastical authority. (this is why new-rome says we must give 'religious assent' to V2)
(2 c) This is not an absolute assent, because such decrees are not infallible, but only a prudential and conditional assent, since in questions of faith and morals there is a presumption in favor of one's superior (under normal circuмstances, yes, we trust our superiors. Not in the case of post-V2)....Such prudential assent does not eliminate the possibility of submitting the doctrine to a further examination, if that seems required by the gravity of the question (Nicolas Jung, Le Magistère de L’Èglise, 1935, pp.153,154). (Yes, based on the gravity and confusion of V2, their "teachings" need to be further examined, for they are not infallible, nor clear, nor are they trival matters.)
You're just plain wrong, Drew. Promulgation is not the dogma itself. It's the object of the promulgation and also of our faith.Ladislaus,
You have two grave errors that were addressed in your original post:
Drew
Good idea. They seem to believe that their opinion is somehow binding. They're like little popes.
The word "promulgation" is applied univocally to God's revelation and the Church's infallible judgment of that revelation. In this quotation from Scheeben, if you deny that the "promulgation" by the Church's "Teaching Body" is Dogma, then you deny that the "promulgation" by God is divine revelation.
You're failing to distinguish between the object of the promulgation and the promulgation itself, and in particular the authority behind said promulgation.
Yes, the indefectibility of the Church in her Magisterium and Universal Discipline is indeed binding, and the infallibility of canonizations is also binding (that one proximate to faith but not optional). You guys deny all these things.
Again, you're just plain wrong. Dogma is the object of the promulgation and of revelation and of divine faith; it is not per se the rule of faith. You don't understand the terms involved. Evidently you don't understand the difference between the object of faith and the rule of faith.
The objects of faith and the rule of faith are one and same: divine revelation.
The Rule of Faith is the Teaching. It is delivered by the Magisterium.
I am willing to bet that this citation is NOT applicable to the decrees proposed by a General Council at all. The decrees proposed by a General Council are binding once ratified by the pope.Cantarella, why does it not apply? I can guess 2 reasons:
CANON 13
SUMMARY: The founding of new religious orders is forbidden. New monasteries must accept a rule already approved. A monk may not reside in different monasteries nor may one abbot preside over several monasteries.
Text. Lest too great a diversity of religious orders lead to grave confusion in the Church of God, we strictly forbid anyone in the future to found a new order, but whoever should wish to enter an order, let him choose one already approved. Similarly, he who would wish to found a new monastery, must accept a rule already proved. We forbid also anyone to presume to be a monk in different monasteries (that is, belong to different monasteries), or that one abbot preside over several monasteries.
Text: We firmly believe and openly confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immense, omnipotent, unchangeable, incomprehensible, and ineffable, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; three Persons indeed but one essense, substance, or nature absolutely simple; the Father (proceeding) from no one, but the Son from the Father only, and the Holy Ghost equally from both, always without beginning and end.
CANON II.-If any one saith, that these said sacraments of the New Law do not differ from the sacramnets of the Old Law, save that the ceremonies are different, and different the outward rites; let him be anathema.Second, because you are assuming that because all previous councils issued infallible statements that V2 must also be infallible, or it must have the same authority as all previous councils.
the ultimate or remote rule of faith must be the truthfulness of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) in revealing Himself
the rule of faith means something extrinsic to our faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm),
the Church as the rule of faith: The term Church, in this connection, can only denote the teaching Church
You are assuming that those Councils were infallible because of their content which is wrong. They are infallible because they are an act of the Magisterium.
The Church decides what is contained in the Deposit of Faith. Those teachings on faith or morals are our Rule of Faith.Your previous post is also incorrect, and both are interconnectedly wrong.
Read CE again, guys
Not the TRUTH of God but the truthFULNESS of God, not what He revealed but His truthfulness in the revealing of it
extrinsic because the truth of revealed truths cannot be known intrinsically since our intellects cannot grasp them as intrinsically true by themselves without the authority behind them
the FAITH is not the RULE OF FAITH
If some sources use the term faith loosely as rule of faith, it's because it's speaking of it materially rather than formally, just like you can consider faith materially as the propositions believed or formally as the supernatural virtue of faith
The word rule (Latin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09019a.htm) regula, Gr. kanon) means a standard by which something can be tested, and the rule of faith means something extrinsic to our faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm), and serving as its norm or measure. Since faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) is Divine and infallible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm), the rule of faith must be also Divine and infallible (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm); and since faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) is supernatural (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14336b.htm) assent to Divine truths (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) upon Divine authority, the ultimate or remote rule of faith must be the truthfulness of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) in revealing Himself. But since Divine revelation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm) is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions (Vatican Council (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15303a.htm), I, ii), the Bible (http://www.newadvent.org/bible) and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm); since, however, these are only silent witnesses and cannot interpret themselves, they are commonly termed "proximate but inanimate rules of faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm)". Unless, then, the Bible (http://www.newadvent.org/bible) and tradition are to be profitless, we must look for some proximate rule which shall be animate or living.
Cantarella, why does it not apply? I can guess 2 reasons:
- First because you are assuming that V2 issued 'decrees' in the same way that previous ecuмenical councils issued decrees (it did not).
This is an example of a decree: (4th Lateran council, 1215 AD)
Comment: This is a decree, meaning it's a church law. It is not infallible because it does not deal with faith/morals, but it is a legal decree. It is clear, concise and binding (from a church law perspective).
- Here are other 'decrees' issued from various councils. Both of these are infallible because they fulfill the requirements of V1 and deal with faith/morals. These are clear, concise and binding (from a divine law perspective).
1. Again, from 4th Lateran council, canon 1 (1st sentence only):
2. Trent, session VII:Second, because you are assuming that because all previous councils issued infallible statements that V2 must also be infallible, or it must have the same authority as all previous councils.
- Let's summarize V2's "decrees" and see what they actual force/bind us to.
... continued...
Again, it is a constant teaching of the Church that although not everything emanating from a General Council is infallible; it cannot be harmful for the faithful either.If it's not infallible, then in theory, it could be an error, and hence harmful. Where is this 'constant teaching'?
The fallible portion of the narrative must necessarily be in accord to the constant Magisterium of the Church.This is a contradiction. You're saying that the fallible portion is infallible (because the "constant"/universal magisterium is infallible).
Furthermore, the detailed compartmentalization is unnecessary.I don't follow.
An ecuмenical Council is an Act of the Magisterium.Agreed. It is an act of the ordinary magisterium, which is fallible, UNLESS what they teach agrees with the UNIVERSAL magisterium (which is 'what has always been taught').
The Magisterium cannot defect.The UNIVERSAL magisterium cannot defect. The ordinary (or 'merely authentic') can.
Even if you want to argue that VII is not infallible, but fallible, it could not have ever been detrimental or harmful to the faithful, once promulgated by legitimate authority.Same contradiction as above.
Doth it please you,--unto the praise and glory of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost ; for the increase and exaltation of the Christian faith and religion; for the extirpation of heresies; for the peace and union of the Church; for the reformation of the Clergy and Christian people; for the depression and extinction of the enemies of the Christian name,--to decree and declare that the sacred and general council of Trent do begin, and hath begun?Is this infallible? yes/no.
No, but then again, I never said every word is infallible.Good, but it was a general question not directed specifically to you.
For the completion of the salutary doctrine on Justification, which was promulgated with the unanimous consent of the Fathers in the last preceding Session, it hath seemed suitable to treat of the most holy Sacraments of the Church, through which all true justice either begins, or being begun is increased, or being lost is repaired.
Good, but it was a general question not directed specifically to you.
Follow-up question: If not every word of an ecuмenical council is infallible, how do you know which words are?
This is from the begining of the 7th session. Is this infallible? It's talking about faith/morals.
Well, Pax, I'm not sure what kind of Church you believe in. Perhaps you could call it the Church of Stubborn. But I don't believe in a Church whose Pope and Bishops could gather in Ecuмenical Council and teach to the Church a radically flawed ecclesiology and soteriology that we must reject in order to preserve our faith, and I don't believe in a Church where the Pope could promulgate a Rite of Mass that's harmful to our faith. I don't believe in a Church where we must in conscience reject 50 years of their Magisterium and reject their Universal Discipline in order to save our souls. It's really that simple. Do I believe that every single little statement or sentence in every Ecuмenical Council must be regarded as infallible. No, of course not. But the whole thing is radically flawed and harmful to faith. That is not compatible with the indefectibility of the Magisterium and of the Church.
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."
Well, Pax, I'm not sure what kind of Church you believe in. Perhaps you could call it the Church of Stubborn. But I don't believe in a Church whose Pope and Bishops could gather in Ecuмenical Council and teach to the Church a radically flawed ecclesiology and soteriology that we must reject in order to preserve our faith, and I don't believe in a Church where the Pope could promulgate a Rite of Mass that's harmful to our faith. I don't believe in a Church where we must in conscience reject 50 years of their Magisterium and reject their Universal Discipline in order to save our souls. It's really that simple. Do I believe that every single little statement or sentence in every Ecuмenical Council must be regarded as infallible. No, of course not. But the whole thing is radically flawed and harmful to faith. That is not compatible with the indefectibility of the Magisterium and of the Church.You really don't know what you believe, hence, your "sededoubtism". If you actually lived your conviction, you would be a card carrying NOer.
Well, Pax, I'm not sure what kind of Church you believe in. Perhaps you could call it the Church of Stubborn. But I don't believe in a Church whose Pope and Bishops could gather in Ecuмenical Council and teach to the Church a radically flawed ecclesiology and soteriology that we must reject in order to preserve our faith, and I don't believe in a Church where the Pope could promulgate a Rite of Mass that's harmful to our faith. I don't believe in a Church where we must in conscience reject 50 years of their Magisterium and reject their Universal Discipline in order to save our souls. It's really that simple. Do I believe that every single little statement or sentence in every Ecuмenical Council must be regarded as infallible. No, of course not. But the whole thing is radically flawed and harmful to faith. That is not compatible with the indefectibility of the Magisterium and of the Church.I get what you're saying; but I want to keep going down the road of distinguishment. Your above comments are too general. We have to look at the details.
I get what you're saying; but I want to keep going down the road of distinguishment. Your above comments are too general. We have to look at the details.
For example, your statement: and I don't believe in a Church where the Pope could promulgate a Rite of Mass that's harmful to our faith.
...
The only way to look at this is through legal technicalities because the modernists are sons of the pharaisees, who were masters of the legal system, just as satan is the master of lies.
If I can remain a Catholic in complete submission to the Church and follow her Universal Discipline, then I can simply critique those statements respectfully from within the Church.All trads are in complete (and perfect) submission to the laws of the Church and her Universal Discipline and thus, their crtiques are made from within the Church.
If, however, I must refuse submission to the hierarchy that taught these things, then it's crossed the line into indefectibility.The above questions apply here. The new V2 'church' is all 'smoke and mirrors'. The only penalty which can possibily exist is 'lack of jurisdiction' and this only applies to priests, not to the laity. Since canon law allows for supplied jurisdiction in cases of emergency, and since the 'salvation of souls is the supreme law' then trads are within their rights to request and receive sacraments from non-doubtful priests.
The modernists issued a valid, legal missal (Paul VI's) which was promulgated (made law). This missal did not violate Quo Primum (QP) because QP never outlawed a pope CREATING a new missal, it only outlawed USING any other missal than its own. So, technically, Paul VI's missal was legal. But...Paul VI could not FORCE anyone to use this missal (since QP was still in force).
All trads are in complete (and perfect) submission to the laws of the Church and her Universal Discipline and thus, their crtiques are made from within the Church.
You won't address that big picture, so you head right back down to the details and technicalities.I am addressing the big picture, but you don't like the answer. Our Lady said that 'the Church will be in eclipse'. In other words, the Church will APPEAR to be replaced, to have disappeared, to have gone away. The truth is that the appearance was not true. She was still there, still shining, had not changed.
Promulgating it for use by the Universal Church is all that's needed.Promulgate just means to pass a law. The words of the law and the requirements (or lack thereof) are the only important facts.
But, that's my entire point. It's only by getting mired down in technicalities can you lose sight of the big picture. You won't address that big picture, so you head right back down to the details and technicalities.I think Pax once admitted that he enjoys the debate. If he were to just address the big picture, there wouldn't be as much to debate.
Trads operate an entire apostolate outside the control of and submission to the hierarchy.They operate outside of the JURISDICTION of the hierarchy because said hierarchy is heretical and REQUIRES things against the faith (which V2 and the new mass do not). The hierarchy have taken the 'teachings' of V2/new mass and made it obligatory, but the docuмents themselves not require such obligation. Therefore, requiring such an obligation is, in fact, a violation of the law.
Trad priests to not trace their chain of command back to the pope in any way, shape, or form.Trad priests follow the papal law of Quo Primum in saying the true mass, providing the true sacraments and following the true (and only legally allowed) breviary. All other subsequent 'editions' of the missal, breviary and divine office are in violation of this law and hence, illicit. Because the pope has never said that Quo Primum is revoked or revised (and it isn't) and because the 'new editions' are not obligatory, then by definition, the Holy See still commands that Quo Primum be followed, even if every other bishop in the world says otherwise.
They operate outside of the JURISDICTION of the hierarchy because said hierarchy is heretical and REQUIRES things against the faith (which V2 and the new mass do not).
If he were to just address the big picture, there wouldn't be as much to debate.You can't address the big picture without examining the underlying details because the 'big picture' is built on facts.
So these things are SO bad that it requires breaking from the hierarchy rather than submit to them.No! We are required to break from our Bishops, but we are not breaking with Church law/Pope. Nothing which the post-conciliar popes have issued are binding, but the Bishops ARE MAKING US ACCEPT THAT WHICH CHURCH LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE. This is the distinction!
You can't address the big picture without examining the underlying details because the 'big picture' is built on facts.Your "beliefs" can not be correct given Vatican II was a general, ecuмenical council. It is not Catholic to believe that a general, ecuмenical council can be fallible and promote universal error in faith and morals. Your argument fails right out of the gate.
Let's just say that you agreed with me that
1) V2 was fallible and erred and that did not violate indefectibility, because it didn't teach officially
2) the new mass was a trick and not obligatory on anyone (this is 100% confirmed by Benedict in his "motu")
If you believe this (as I do) what's the next step? The next step is to say that:
1) the pope and hierachy are still heretics ON THE PERSONAL LEVEL it's just that their heresy is not OFFICIAL church teaching
In other words, they BELIEVE the heresies that V2 "proposed" in its indirect, ambiguous, non-binding way.
2) the new mass is new, it's not obligatory and it's (probably) invalid, 100% illicit and 100% immoral.
Ergo, Fr Chazal's argument about sedeprivationism still applies. We must separate ourselves from the hierarchy because they are heretical. I'll even say that sedevacantism is still in play but for the reason that the pope/bishops are personal heretics.
All I'm arguing is that we cannot say that the pope/bishops are heretics because V2/new mass were OFFICIALLY errors. We can say they are wrong for a 1,000 other reasons, but not for these 2. The legal facts do not show that V2/new mass are binding, therefore it's not a matter of indefectibility.
Ok, we've been talking about these distinctions for pages now. Your generalization doesn't answer the distinct questions nor has anyone proven that 'all ecuмenical councils are infallible without question'.You know that no one has stated in this thread that ecuмenical councils are infallible "without question", so why do you even say this?
Also all other things taught, defined, and declared by the sacred canons and ecuмenical Councils, and especially by the sacred and holy Synod of Trent, I without hesitation accept and profess..."
Did V2 formally teach anything? No.
Did V2 define anything? No.
Did V2 declare anything to be believe with the 'certainty of faith'? No.
Did V2 have any sacred canons? No.
V2 is not like any other ecuмenical council in the history of the church (it's not even close) so your comparisons are apples-oranges.
To simplify, the faith is the WHAT believed while the rule is related to the WHY believed.
What do I believe? the Assumption. Why do I believe it? Because it was proposed as dogma by the authority of the teaching Church (proximately) and ultimately by God in revealing Himself (remotely). So it's the proposal by the Church (viewed formally) that's the rule of what I believe.
This is similar to the distinction between the faith itself (the contents of Revelation) and the faith viewed as supernatural virtue as moved by the formal MOTIVE of faith
Like Ockham’s razor, this is very neat oversimplification trying drive a wedge between necessary elements of the virtue of faith.
If the Rule of Faith only answered why we believe, then Scripture and Tradition, the remote rule of faith, would have nothing to say to the question of what. This is obviously mindless proposal. But, since faith is believing what God has revealed on the authority of God (why), the revealer, the rule of faith necessarily answers both the questions, why and what. What a Catholic believes and why a Catholic believes it are both attributes of the virtue of Faith. If you drive a wedge between these attributes, the faith is lost. The rule of faith must necessarily address both questions and it does so in both the remote and proximate rules.
When the pope employing the teaching office of the Church engages the Church’s attribute of infallibility it is affirmed that God is the revealer answering both the questions of what and why. Such as in Vatican I Pastor Aeternus, on papal infallibility: “Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God Our Savior, the exaltation of the Catholic Religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the Sacred Council approving, We teach and define that it is a divinely-revealed dogma…”.
Your oversimplification makes the pope the revealer. The pope is the necessary but insufficient material and efficient cause of Dogma. God is the formal and final cause. Dogma is the proximate rule of faith.
Drew
Dogmas become such because the Church defines or proposes them as revealed Truths by God that we are boundto believe in order to maintain the unity of Faith and not fall into heresy.Did the Church believe in the infallibility of the pope before V1? Yes or no?
Did the Church believe in the infallibility of the pope before V1? Yes or no?
If yes, then this proves that doctrine PRECEEDS the Church's existence and is the rule of faith. The Church's role is to re-teach what Christ ALREADY taught the Apostles.
Dogmas become such because the Church defines or proposes them as revealed Truths by God that we are bound to believe in order to maintain the unity of Faith and not fall into heresy. The Church (Magisterium) is the proximate rule of Faith. This is, the teaching Church continuing to the end of time: The whole body of the episcopate, whether scattered throughout the world or collected in an ecuмenical Council IN UNION with the Vicar of Christ, the Pope, the legitimate successor of St. Peter.Cantarella, you are describing what you and the other sedes believe to be the rule of faith.
Your oversimplification makes the pope the revealer.
Cantarella, you are describing what you and the other sedes believe to be the rule of faith.
If the Magisterium as defined above, is in fact the proximate rule of faith, then all true trads are either in error, or they are in schism. Period. There is no other option.
:facepalm::facepalm:
Uhm, except that the Pope(s) who taught these things was/were not legitimate.
:facepalm:
Uhm, you cannot say that unless you have no faith at all in what you say is the rule of faith.
Logic isn't your strength, is it?Reality isn't yours (that's not a question).
If you believe what you say is the rule of faith, then there is not even the slightest possibility of an illegitimate pope. Simple.
There are no words. Stop before you hurt yourself.Those are the only type of words you ever have, so just keep guessing.
Try to spell it out for yourself oh wise one.
In 1962, a "true" pope called together a Council and nearly all the bishops in the world attended ...
What part of the SV thesis that this wasn't a "true" (aka legitimate) pope don't you understand?I understand the thinking, but not if you're going to stick with Councils are automatically infallible and the idea that "the proximate rule of faith is the magisterium".
I understand the thinking, but not if you're going to stick with Councils are automatically infallible and the idea that "the proximate rule of faith is the magisterium".
A Council was convened and completed - this actually happened. Dispute it all you like but reality dictates it happened and is therefore indisputable. If all councils are infallible, then you have zero leg to stand on just knowing there actually was a real Council and this council being universal in it's "magisterium", by your definition includes a pope.
IF the pope was not the pope when it convened, then neither were nearly all the bishops in the world who all preach(ed) the same thing in unison with the pope - - and the whole Catholic world kept the faith for all those decades before V2 without a pope or magisterium, i.e. without any rule of faith at all. So much for it lasting till the end of time.
You must have missed all the previous citations. Councils have Ecuмenical status if and only when they're approved by the pope. No legitimate pope = no Ecuмenical Council.The pope was legitimate when he convened the Council, you cannot even think otherwise much less prove it - particularly if all councils are automatically infallible - and there is no mistaking here, V2 was a real, genuine and authentic Council. As a real council, both the pope and the council were infallible. This is the common thinking and a major reason that +50 years later, we are still in this crisis.
As for the gap in time, the Magisterium can go many years without defining anything new ... without it thereby ceasing to be the rule of faith.
After the Church defines a dogma, then the faithful is obliged to believe in the veracity of it; if they do not, then they compromise the unity of the Faith separating themselves from the Church through heresy and incur in anathemas; but even before the dogmatic definitions occur, we are still bound to believe the revealed truths proposed by the Magisterium (Scripture / Tradition).(First off, using the word 'magisterium' to describe Scripture/Tradition is not accurate. Magisterium is related to the Church, of which Scripture/Tradition are separate.)
Councils have Ecuмenical status if and only when they're approved by the pope.No this is not accurate. Ecuмenical only refers to the council being represented by ALL the church.
No this is not accurate. Ecuмenical only refers to the council being represented by ALL the church.
A council, whether ecuмenical or local, is only INFALLIBLE (in potential, depending on what is said at the council) if it is approved by the pope.
Ecuмenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians.
The pope was legitimate when he convened the Council, you cannot even think otherwise much less prove it
Ecuмenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians.
Now you gratuitously add "No legitimate pope = no Ecuмenical Council" into the mix, ...
Ecuмenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians.
The pope was legitimate when he convened the Council, you cannot even think otherwise much less prove it ...
A council, Ecuмenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecuмenical councils. Such was the case with the Robber Synod of 449 (Latrocinium Ephesinum), the Synod of Pisa in 1409, and in part with the Councils of Constance and Basle.
Ecuмenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians.I agree. What I'm disputing is the definition of 'decrees', which many of you are assuming that V2 had. I say that V2 was ecuмenical; I say that it was presided over the pope; but I do not agree that it issued its docuмents in the same legal form, nor having the same legal clarity, nor using the same legal force which was used by all other previous ecuмenical councils. Anyone with an open mind can see this is blatantly obvious.
The pope was legitimate when he convened the Council, you cannot even think otherwise much less prove it. - Stubborn
Ecuмenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. - Ladislaus
A council, Ecuмenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecuмenical councils. Such was the case with the Robber Synod of 449 (Latrocinium Ephesinum), the Synod of Pisa in 1409, and in part with the Councils of Constance and Basle.The popes were true popes. This is the proof you are up against. The conciliar popes were all elected by the college of cardinals, same as always, they accepted their election and according to the law of the Church, were instantly the true pope, same as always - this election and acceptance is the infallible sign of legitimacy, same as always, it is the way the whole world knows who the successor of St. Peter is now and forever - same as always.
A council, Ecuмenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecuмenical councils. Such was the case with the Robber Synod of 449 (Latrocinium Ephesinum), the Synod of Pisa in 1409, and in part with the Councils of Constance and Basle.Good research.
I agree. What I'm disputing is the definition of 'decrees', which many of you are assuming that V2 had. I say that V2 was ecuмenical; I say that it was presided over the pope; but I do not agree that it issued its docuмents in the same legal form, nor having the same legal clarity, nor using the same legal force which was used by all other previous ecuмenical councils. Anyone with an open mind can see this is blatantly obvious.
Good research.
This raises a further question: Since V2 has many attributes in common with the 'robber council of 449' might V2, at a future date, be declared not ecuмenical and null/void? I think so. Let's look at the attributes of the Robber Council:
Papal approbation and not any of the other circuмstances is the differentiator.I stand corrected. The articles I read were confusing because they referred to some of the eastern bishops as 'pope'. I thought that the one eastern bishop at the council was the pope, when Leo was actually so. My mistake.
it's contrary to the indefectibility of the Church to say that submission to these things (new mass, V2) can cause harm to one's faith.I still think this is an unknown assertion, since the limits and parameters of indefectibility have not ever been adequately explained, because our present situation, which is more tumultuous than all 1,950 previous years combined, has never been experienced by the Church, nor could it have been forseen in all its details.
But being BINDING is not necessary in the case of indefectibility. Whether or not the New Mass was obligatory, whether or not any given statement in V2 has the notes of infallibility, it's contrary to the indefectibility of the Church to say that submission to these things can cause harm to one's faith.Still disagree with your reasoning because if something is not infallible, then it is not binding, then we are not required to give submission to it, because it's not a 'certainty of the faith'. Those who do give submission to fallible teachings, even if they are tricked, are accountable because ONE HAS THE OBLIGATION TO KNOW ONE'S FAITH. It's all right there in the catechism.
This is not proven true and one cannot appeal to the current claimants because it can't be proven that they were legitimately elected and therefore valid Popes to begin with.Proof that they are popes is in the election itself, that these popes accepted their election removes all doubt and is all the proof the Church has ever provided and ever will provide. No other proof is necessary and no other proof is possible. Period.
I wonder how many more times it needs to be said.Ad nauseum because "Anything but Sedevacantism" blinds them.
it can't be proven that they were legitimately elected and therefore valid Popes to begin with.Our current discussion assumes they were. If you think they weren't even elected, then why are you arguing about V2, the new mass and the heresies of a man you don't even think is pope?
Still disagree with your reasoning because if something is not infallible, then it is not binding, then we are not required to give submission to it, because it's not a 'certainty of the faith'. Those who do give submission to fallible teachings, even if they are tricked, are accountable because ONE HAS THE OBLIGATION TO KNOW ONE'S FAITH. It's all right there in the catechism.
This proves you don't quite understand what you're arguing against. A true Pope cannot OFFICIALLY teach error to the entire Church in an infallible capacity. Since we know that Vatican II taught error, infallibly in appearances since it is considered an Ecuмenical Council, we know that these men could not have been true Popes. Since error cannot be the official teaching of the Church, infallibly approved by the Pope, we have to assume they were not elected in the first place, thereby making them false claimants.
The fact that Vatican II did what it did, forces Catholics to look into the writings, statements, and actions of these men, prior to their election. Since we know that manifest heretics are not Catholics and therefore cannot be elected to the Papacy, we know they could not have been Popes. This resolves the issue of the appearance of DEFECTION of the Church, which is what it would have done were John XXIII and Paul VI validly elected Popes.
That an ecuмenical council (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm) which satisfies the conditions above (papal convocation and approbation + assembly of bishops) stated is an organ of infallibility will not be denied by anyone who admits that the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) is endowed with infallible doctrinal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) authority. How, if not through such an organ, could infallible authority effectively express itself, unless indeed through the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm)? If Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) promised to be present with even two or three of His disciples gathered together in His name (Matthew 18:20 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat018.htm#vrs20)), [color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.870588235294118)]a fortiori[/color] He will be present efficaciously in a representative assembly of His authorized teachers; and the Paraclete (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11469a.htm) whom He promised will be present, so that whatever the council defines may be prefaced with the Apostolic formula, "it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us."
Once ratified by the pope (and this is of most importance), the decrees formulated in a General Council are binding to all Catholics.What if there were no decrees? If you think there are, please point them out because I can't find them.
A true Pope cannot OFFICIALLY teach GRAVE AND SUBSTANTIAL error to the entire Church in an infallible capacity.
It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, 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.
What if there were no decrees? If you think there are, please point them out because I can't find them.
If there are no decrees, then what part is infallible? Without proper, strict language, how do we know which parts are infallible or not?
A decree is a law. The word 'formulate' usually accompanies 'decrees' because a decree is a specific, articulate, doctrinal statement which the clergy spends time to formulate and is meant to teach and bind, in an authoritative way. V2 was flowery, non-specific, inarticulate and non-doctrinal. Nothing in V2 comes REMOTELY close to a decree. This is the key.
I'm going to continue to do some research regarding Fenton's views. They make sense, but only in a general way. He's not specific enough to apply to the V2 situation, imo, because he's assuming the clergy are orthodox. If one assumes they are modernists, then one has to assume the worst and look at the EXACT limits of various attributes of the Church.
It's sorta like locking your bike up while you go into the library. If you are in a descent neighborhood and you live in normal times, then a simple lock will deter people from stealing your bike.
But if you live in economically depressed neighborhood where bikes are stolen all the time, you can't assume that you can trust a simple lock, but you have to start thinking like a thief and think "How could they steal my bike, even if I have the best lock in the world?"
Unless you are saying that you believe that it would be possible for a Pope to make a small error in an INFALLIBLE capacity, so long as it is not grave and substantial. Please clarify. Did you not read the end part of my sentence or are you saying what I just wrote (I hope it's not what I just wrote)?
You keep artificially trying to limit infallibility to matters that are imposed under strict obligation.I am not the one who puts limits on papal infallibility; V1 is the one who put the limits and did so, infallibly. We MUST look at matters of infallibility THROUGH V1'S PARAMETERS.
Please read again the "infallibility safety" quote from Fenton above.I will not say that Fenton contradicts V1, but I also cannot say that he agrees 100% with V1. V1 is infallible, is official, is clear and is concise in its teaching. Fenton is not infallible, nor is his an official teaching. I MUST accept V1 without question; I therefore MUST view Fenton through the lens of V1.
Vatican II presented a significant body of teaching from the entire hierarchy to the Universal Church ... whether or not it used solemn language (like "we declare and define").If V2 was not solemnly infallible, then it's either 1) non-solemnly infallible because it agrees with "what has always been taught" or 2) it's not infallible at all.
At the very least, it cannot contain substantial error harmful to faith.If a teaching is not infallible, then we cannot presume it is 100% orthodox, or else the purpose and use of infallibility becomes meaningless. Outside matters of infallibility, our presumption of orthodoxy is based on our trust in the personal orthodoxy of the hierarchy.
Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.”Do the words 'judgement' and 'decree' not mean anything? Do they not have a specific purpose in conveying an idea? Aren't they different in meaning from words like 'pastoral' or 'prescription', which is what V2 used? Yes, they are different, which is why your above quote does not apply.
Ultimately, however, this assent is not the same as the one demanded in the formal act of faith. Strictly speaking, it is possible that this teaching (proposed in the encyclical letter) is subject to error. There are a thousand reasons to believe that it is not. It has probably never been (erroneous), and it is normally certain that it will never be. But, absolutely speaking, it could be, because God does not guarantee it as He guarantees the teaching formulated by way of definition’.
Lercher teaches that the internal assent due to these pronouncements cannot be called certain according to the strictest philosophical meaning of the term. The assent given to such propositions is interpretative condicionatus, including the tacit condition that the teaching is accepted as true “unless the Church should at some time peremptorially define otherwise or unless the decision should be discovered to be erroneous.” Lyons and Phillips use the same approach in describing the assent Catholics are in conscience bound to give to the Church’s non-infallible teachings. Fr. Yves de la Brière speaks of the “submission and hierarchical obedience” due to these pronouncements.
it's more like an attitude of docility towards the Magisteirum ... which R&R have completely lost.Correction: "which the magisterium does not deserve, due to their lack of orthodoxy."
This article was published in Vatican Insider last November. Traditional Catholics should be familiar with its assumptions and arguments. It is unfortunate but true that many traditional Catholics share the same assumptions and consequently have a problemthanks. I have copied it to read later, as don't have much time
There is no such thing as the "non-infallible magisterium".Theologians would disagree with you.
The popes have spoken...Using terms which you are using incorrectly, which is why theologians exist, to explain such terms.
What if there were no decrees? If you think there are, please point them out because I can't find them.
If there are no decrees, then what part is infallible? Without proper, strict language, how do we know which parts are infallible or not?
A decree is a law. The word 'formulate' usually accompanies 'decrees' because a decree is a specific, articulate, doctrinal statement which the clergy spends time to formulate and is meant to teach and bind, in an authoritative way. V2 was flowery, non-specific, inarticulate and non-doctrinal. Nothing in V2 comes REMOTELY close to a decree. This is the key.
Furthermore, the CE explains that in respect of the general legislative acts of the pope there is never doubt as to the universal extent of the obligation;Correct, except V2 did not have any legislative acts! St Thomas defines a law as:
If Paul VI is Pope, he is infallibly saying that what is contained therein is binding.But V2 contradicts itself, so which parts are binding?
You still have no idea the point I'm trying to make...:facepalm:
I'm not talking about the end langauge of the council, but of the docuмents themselves, which are indirect and non-binding. If the individual decrees are not strict, then at the end of the council, when Paul VI says "all decrees are published by me, etc, etc" it means nothing because the decree/law itself is 'negotiable'.
It is not the precise narrative that makes the decrees binding;V1 says you're wrong.
it is the papal promulgation of them in a setting of a General Council.Yes, if the narrative is precise enough to warrant more than a 'religious assent', which is conditional.
Catholics are not supposed to scrutinize every detail of the council docuмents trying to identify what parts are binding and what parts are not.We don't have to srutinize every detail because USUALLY council docuмents are quite clear, short and to the point. It is plainly obvious that a 4th grader, with a general understanding of the english language, can recognize when the Church is teaching authoritatively and when She's not.
We are supposed to give religious asent to whatever is proposed in a ecunemical Council ratified by a pope, trusting that it is for our own benefit.'Religious assent' is conditional. It is not blind trust.
You can't pick and choose.The catechism is a summary of our Faith; it can be understood by children. When V2 says something different than the catechism, that should send 'alarm bells' off in our heads. We have a brain, we have a conscience - we are supposed to USE IT.
We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful,
We decided moreover that all that has been established
That is completely alien to any true sensus Catholicus.It is also an alien concept that the Church hierarchy is full of people who are trying to destroy Her from within. So, when war breaks out, certain "social norms" are disregarded, for 'life and death' purposes. What you are proposing is that we are supposed to blindly trust the hierarchy, who is openly trying to destroy the Faith, all in the name of 'catholic standards', none of which the hierarchy supports, believes in or cares about.
Sorry, Pax, but you keep relying upon the strict limits of infallibility but then have no concept whatsoever regarding the overall indefectibility of the Magisterium. If an Ecuмenical Council, guided by the Holy Ghost, could produce a body of doctrine so harmful to faith that it forces Catholics to break submission with the hierarchy rather than assent to them, then the Magisterium would have defected.
One of the (accidental) harms that people noticed from the Vatican I definition was precisely this notion of yours that everything which didn't have the notes of infallibility as defined by Vatican I became "take it or leave it" (your words). This was never taught by Vatican I but was wrongly inferred by people who think as you do. That is completely alien to any true sensus Catholicus.
"By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will be preserved unimpaired in 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."
It is also an alien concept that the Church hierarchy is full of people who are trying to destroy Her from within. So, when war breaks out, certain "social norms" are disregarded, for 'life and death' purposes.
"By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will be preserved unimpaired in 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."
What has been established? What is to be observed?
it is that the council was not an ecuмenical council in the same degree as all previous ones
This is garbage and you are making it up. This has no basis in Catholic belief or teaching whatsoever. If Paul VI is Pope, he is infallibly saying that what is contained therein is binding. So there is no teaching in any of the docuмents that may be disputed by the faithful. You have no proof from anything Church related that this is actually something Catholics must abide by. You are making it up as you go along in your attempt to circuмvent Catholic Dogma. This is purely fiction. You are so entrenched in your SSPX/Siscoe etc.. beliefs, that Catholic sense and teaching are foreign to you. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you are deliberately making all these nonsense distinctions on purpose in order to further keep people in their false view of the Church.At this point, this is how I'm leaning.
V1 says you're wrong..
Yes, if the narrative is precise enough to warrant more than a 'religious assent', which is conditional.
We don't have to srutinize every detail because USUALLY council docuмents are quite clear, short and to the point. It is plainly obvious that a 4th grader, with a general understanding of the english language, can recognize when the Church is teaching authoritatively and when She's not.
'Religious assent' is conditional. It is not blind trust.
The catechism is a summary of our Faith; it can be understood by children. When V2 says something different than the catechism, that should send 'alarm bells' off in our heads. We have a brain, we have a conscience - we are supposed to USE IT.
It is not 'picking and choosing' (unless you erroneously think that EVERY sentence in a council is binding, in some generalized, inspecific way) to compare one's catechism to a view that appears new. You act like the Faith is rocket science. IT'S ALL THERE IN THE CATECHISM. It will never change, be added to, or subtracted from. It's the same as it was in Christ's time. THERE IS NOTHING NEW IN CATHOLICISM. So when V2 comes along with something new, and doesn't teach it officially or clearly, the simpliest, most logical answer is that IT'S WRONG because it contradicts the catechism, and something wrong can't come from the Church.
The answer is not some complex, canon law interpretation, personal authority nonsense, whereby since a council can CREATE and CHANGE Church doctrine, therefore there's not a pope. That's circular logic. The simplest answer is not that Paul VI was not the pope; it is that the council was not an ecuмenical council in the same degree as all previous ones. This view requires much less canon-law acrobatics, is consistent with V1, and is supported by the council's own docuмents AND all the opinions of the post-V2 hierarchy, who all say that V2 was not binding but only requires 'conditional/religious assent' (which, by the way, contradicts the assertion that God will not allow the laity to be led into error if they submit to a general council...the magisterium which CREATED the council said it was not binding and must be interpreted according to tradition). So, again, more contradictions!
..
QuoteQuoteFurthermore, the CE explains that in respect of the general legislative acts of the pope there is never doubt as to the universal extent of the obligation;.
Correct, except V2 did not have any legislative acts! St Thomas defines a law as:
1. a certain dictate of reason
2. for the common good,
3. made by him who has the care of the community
4. and promulgated publicly.
V2 fulfils 2, 3 and 4 but not 1. "Dictate" means 'an order or principle that must be obeyed'. V2 never authoritatively tells any catholic they MUST believe x. It never uses the words like "shall" or "must" or "we command" or "we order", etc. These phrases are a BASIC part of law and if they are not there, then there is no obligation, even if the law is valid.
Example: Your parents have a rule in the house - "Bedtime may begin after dark and usually before midnight." Ok, so what's the obligation? There is none. It's a guideline. Does it say "shall be before midnight"? No, so it's negotiable. Does it say there's a penalty for going to bed before dark? No, there's no penalty. It's a passive, indirect, and subjective law. V2 is filled with this type of language, which is not exact, and therefore, we are obligated to nothing.
This is a great quote, Cantarella. On the one side, straight SVism has been accused of violating the principle that the Church cannot "lose the Apostolic hierarchy", while R&Rism of violating the principle that the Church "can never become corrupt in faith or in morals". Most SVs also state that the Novus Ordo Sacraments are invalid. That's why I believe that some form of CT would address both these issues.The Apostolic hierarchy consists of all Catholic clergy (all who have been received into and have remained in the clerical state and remain in communion with the pope). So as long as there is at least one Catholic bishop, the hierarchy has not defected. No SV that I know of would claim that there are no Catholic bishops in existence. On the other hand there are a lot of traditionalists who think there must be at least one ordinary in existence at all times. Aside from the fact that it is not proven that this belief is true, it has not yet been proven that there isn’t a Catholic ordinary somewhere. So straight SVism is certainly a tenable position.
How does anyone know what the "degree" of a council is?
It seems to me that Vat.II fails 1, 2 and 4, not just 1.In the interest of making a point about the lack of clarity and obligation to obey V2's "decrees which decree nothing", I conceded 2 and 4. But I agree that 2 and 4 are debatable and not 100% certain.
It's going to take a new Council to declare Vat.II "different" from the previous 19, and therefore abrogated.Neil, another great point. I agree that it's not my place to say that V2 is abrogated or invalid. However, as the 'council fathers' and many theologians have admitted in the past 50 years that it IS DIFFERENT than other ecuмenical councils, (as I've shown by many quotes) we don't have to wait for a future council to tell us that our 'religious submission' should have MUCH caution attached to it.
Fr. Hesse explains why Vatican II is Not A Council of the Church
CathInfo readers can listen to the opinion of a canon lawyer and doctor of Thomistic theology or to the opinion of a professional blogger who wants to be one on CathInfo.When I started to research the Crisis about 5 years ago, I watched Fr Hesse's videos (and took copious notes). Unfortunately, I remember thinking after mulling it over that his explanation didn't make sense to me. Something was off. At this point, I don't remember what it was that made me think that (maybe Ladislaus can chime in here to help me recall), but it was clear to me that I could not agree with his ideas.
For those who are not familiar with Fr. Hesse, there are many informative videos on you tube. Highly recommended.
how can this be since both are products of the Magisterium which was made up of St. Peter and the Apostles?
By the way Ladislaus, I am another, along with Pax Vobis, Stubborn, and others, that recognize the important truth that dogma is the proximate rule of faith.
Fr. Hesse explains why Vatican II is Not A Council of the Church
https://youtu.be/xnEQIq4_AKI
I've only watched the first six minutes of the video, but there's a lot of good info in just that much of the video. Father Hesse explains that the first eight Ecuмenical Councils were not called by popes at all - but they were called by Emperors, and that the Pope didn't attend two of them. The second Ecuмenical Council in the year 381 (called by an Emperor, and which the pope did not attend), was not approved until the sixth century.
That is quite irrelevant. The Councils are binding not because the pope convokes them or attends them but because (and when) he ratifies them, even if it is done at much later time, as Constantinople I.
Paul VI already ratified Vatican II Council.
Irrelevant to you, Cantarella, which doesn't mean much to me. I'll take Fr. Hesse's view any day, over that of a layman.
There's more to the video, which I will watch. Father isn't just basing his view on the fact that the first eight councils weren't even called by a pope. There's more to it than that.
Hah, you'll take any view that agrees with your own. You've already demonstrated that time and again. You admit having watched only a few minutes of the video but already "take" his view. Would be funny if about 30 minutes in he denounces flat earthers. Since you take his view over that of a layman, why don't you ask him what he believes about the flat earth, and if he rejects it, you need to follow his lead ... since you should take his view over yours. Hypocrite.
Cantarella is absolutely correct the papal ratification is what defines an Ecuмenical Council.
That's usually a key indicator of those who are not intellectually honest but just have an agenda to promote. They puff up the authority of the sources that happen to agree with them and dismiss the ones that don't ... even if they are inherently of equal weight.
So the authority of Fr. Hesse is equal to that of yourself, a mere layman?
So the authority of Fr. Hesse is equal to that of yourself, a mere layman? You remind me of the laypreachers on EWTN, who spout off their modern theology as if they are an authority with whom we must all agree.
So the authority of Fr. Hesse is equal to that of yourself, a mere layman? You remind me of the laypreachers on EWTN, who spout off their modern theology as if they are an authority with whom we must all agree.
Again, please inquire about what Father Hesse thinks of the Flat Earth position and adjust your opinion accordingly.
But I know you won't. If he were to reject Flat Earth as stupid, you would denounce him immediately as an idiot ... except for that other thing where he agrees with you, then suddenly he's a great "authority", you see.
In fact, are you saying that YOU, Meg, have greater "authority" than these men you claim are POPES. You know better about Religious Liberty and all the other theological matters in Vatican II than the Pope and bishops of the world teaching in an Ecuмenical Council.
Perhaps you are not aware that Fr. Hesse is deceased?I know only very little of Fr. Hesse but will hopefully have time later to watch that video.
We were discussing the issue as to whether or not the Vll Council was a true Council of the Church, or did you forget the subject that we were actually discussing? I think you did. Or you were never interested in the first place.
Father Hesse makes a good case for the Vll not being a Council of the Church. If you want to learn something, I suggest that you watch it.
I do not look to my own self for answers, as you do. I look to Fr. Hesse, who was a traditional canonist, and Archbishop Lefebvre, as well as other clergy and bishops. Who do you look to, who holds your exact sedewhatever position? It seems that only Fr. Chazal actually holds your particular POV. Otherwise, you have to cite other sources that do not hold your specific position, and then you are consigned to interpret any Church teaching with your own unusual POV. You are an authority unto yourself. I have no interest in that for myself.
Perhaps you are not aware that Fr. Hesse is deceased?
I know only very little of Fr. Hesse but will hopefully have time later to watch that video.
Lad being formally Fentonized, looks to Fr. Fenton to maintain the opinion that the magisterium can err but only little isty bitsy errors. However, when the magisterium does what he says they cannot do, i.e. when they teach great big fat errors, well, though that's not possible, it is actually ok too, because as he said: "those who submit to erroneous teachings of the Magisterium are NOT guilty of sin; individual Catholics are not required as their duty of state to be theologians. Sin is on those who issued said false teaching, and they bear the sins of all those whom they in turn have led into sin."
There is your Fentonism and from it, Lad effectively shoots the whole sede argument, possibly the whole crisis argument right in the face, and doesn't even realize it - because if those who submit to the false teachings of the magisterium do not sin by submitting, then why did "the magisterium" ever bother to teach error at all? and what is the purpose of this crisis? and why did Our Lord warn us to beware of false teachings?
Father Hesse makes a good case for the Vll not being a Council of the Church. If you want to learn something, I suggest that you watch it.I just finished watching it - that was a very informative video, I liked the way fr. Hesse compared Ecuмenical Councils to the sacraments, then bought V2 into the mix for the rest of the video - I liked his whole explanation. He hit on a lot of pertinent subjects. Good stuff!
I just finished watching it - that was a very informative video, I liked the way fr. Hesse compared Ecuмenical Councils to the sacraments, then bought V2 into the mix for the rest of the video - I liked his whole explanation. He hit on a lot of pertinent subjects. Good stuff!
Lad being formally Fentonized, ...
I've not herd of Fr. Fenton before this. It would seem that Fr. Fenton believes that the magisterium cannot err in large matters, but even if it does, it's not a big deal, and the faithful are not to be held accountable because it's the fault of those who issued the false teaching (if I understand this correctly). But you're right - since Our Lord warned us to beware of false teachings, then we may indeed be held accountable, especially these days, when we have access to true Church teachings.Fr. Fenton is one of those "well respected" 20th century theologians that I've mentioned in the past. 70 or 80 years ago, he was one of the USA's most well respected of theologians whose teachings (as Lad's post shows) helped otherwise faithful Catholics abandon their true faith altogether and / or embrace the new faith of V2.
Msgr. Fenton on the "negative infallibility" of the Church in Her ordinary teachings:If one is convinced of this - as billions were and as Lad demonstrates still are, then V2 cannot harm anyone and there is no crisis - which makes the whole of sedeism and trads overall, at least a colossal farce.
(The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals, Msgr Joseph Fenton, American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXXI, August, 1949, pp. 136-150)
To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, 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.
Yes, I agree. He gave a good background as to why the Vll Council was not a Council of the Church. He backed it up with good explanations. Even though English is not his first language, he is fairly easy to understand.Yes, great quote! He had so many good points that we could post dozens of his quotes.
I like his explanation at about the 37:00 minute mark. He says:
"There's no reason here to name all of the heresies that have been fought more or less successfully by the Councils, but that was the common intention, ever, and always, for calling a Council.
John XXlll wanted the contrary - 'We shall not condemn anything, we shall not pronounce a dogmas here,' so what actually happens was the same thing that would happen if I approach the altar to celebrate Mass. I tell John, "listen John, I'm gonna do everything that's required to celebrate Mass, but I've absolutely no intention of celebrating Mass. I want to pull a show." Now John would be the only one in that case to know that what happened here is not a Mass. That's how it's possible that something that looks as much as a Council as Vatican ll did, might not have necessarily have been a Council, as if fraud was a new thing.
I don't think there's much to add. We can clearly see that John XXlll as the first pope in the history of the Church had a contradictory intention of calling an Ecuмenical Council, and at the same time, not to condemn errors, and not to define doctrine."
so what actually happens was the same thing that would happen if I approach the altar to celebrate Mass. I tell John, "listen John, I'm gonna do everything that's required to celebrate Mass, but I've absolutely no intention of celebrating Mass. I want to pull a show." Now John would be the only one in that case to know that what happened here is not a Mass. That's how it's possible that something that looks as much as a Council as Vatican ll did, might not have necessarily have been a Council, as if fraud was a new thing.
Fr. Fenton is one of those "well respected" 20th century theologians that I've mentioned in the past. 70 or 80 years ago, he was one of the USA's most well respected of theologians whose teachings (as Lad's post shows) helped otherwise faithful Catholics abandon their true faith altogether and / or embrace the new faith of V2.
If one is convinced of this - as billions were and as Lad demonstrates still are, then V2 cannot harm anyone and there is no crisis - which makes the whole of sedeism and trads overall, at least a colossal farce.
That does seem to make a farce out of sedeism. There's no need to be a sede if all that's required is obedience. I think that Pope Francis would like Fr. Fenton.
You're being incredibly dishonest as usual, Stubborn. You know full well that I disagree with Fenton on a number of key issues (soteriology and ecclesiology in particular); you've been on those threads. I quote Fenton simply because he has a very articulate and Catholic explanation regarding the non-infallible Magisterium. I am not a slavish Fenton follower. In fact, I came to my views of ecclesiology after having read not only the Church Fathers but a wide array of theologians regarding ecclesiology. I was straight R&R before I knew any better. Then I came to the conclusion that I would have been burned at the stake for these views had I lived at the time of St. Robert Bellarmine. That happened to a number of young men who went to Traditional seminary. Once they started studying Traditional Catholic dogmatic theology, especially the theology regarding the Church and the Magisterium, they found that the R&R position was simply not consistent with this.I was thinking you would say I was Wathenized lol - but the truth of the matter is that Fr. Fenton's false teachings are repeated over and over on the forums - not just this one. Many don't even realize they are his teachings they are spouting - and personally, I like to think he taught those errors in good faith since it would have been very easy to agree with him back in the days of the preconciliar Church, but after +50 years of the repercussions of V2, it is a little surprising that people still cannot see he was so terribly wrong.
I could turn around and talk about you and Meg having become Hesse-ized as well. Puerile ad hominems neither accomplish nor prove anything.