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.
When the pope/bishops at V2 got together, that is an act of the 'ordinary fallible' or 'merely authentic' magisterium (i.e. currect hierarchy only). If they issue solemn statements (which they did not) then that's easy to understand. If they issue non-solemn statements, then such statements are judged according to HISTORY and if they agree with "what has always been taught". See quote below from the sspx article:
the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium (current hierarchy), whether of the Universal Church (an ecuмenical council like V2) or that of the See of Rome (the pope himself, non-solemnly, as he did in Humanae Vitae) , is not that of a judgment, not that of an act to be considered in isolation, as if it could itself provide all the light necessary for it to be clearly seen. It is that of the guarantee bestowed on a doctrine by the simultaneous or continuous convergence of a plurality of affirmations or explanations, none of which could bring positive certitude if it were taken by itself alone. Certitude can be expected only from the whole complex, but all the parts concur in making up that whole (Pope or Church? op. cit., p.18Summary: The ordinary magisterium's infallibility, whether by council or by the pope himself, is not based on judgements, nor does it act in isolation (this is assuming that the council or the pope does NOT issue solemn statements. If they did, then such statement wouldn't be 'ordinary' anymore but 'solemn/extraordinary'). It's infallibility is guaranteed if it simultaneously and continuously agrees with multiple affirmations/explanations, none of which are certain if taken alone. Certitude can only be expected only from the whole complex (i.e. agreeing consistently with "2,000 years of hierarchies"), which it makes up a part.
--In the case of the [Ordinary] universal Magisterium, this whole complex is that of the concordant teaching of the bishops in communion with Rome; in the case of the Ordinary pontifical Magisterium [i.e., the pope alone - Ed.], it is the continuity of teaching of the successors of Peter: in other words, it is the "tradition of the Church of Rome," to which Msgr. Gasser appealed at Vatican I (Collana Lacensis, col.404).Summary: The ordinary universal magisterium is the WHOLE complex of concordant (i.e. in agreement, consistent) teaching of the bishops with rome. In the case of the pope himself, it is the continuity of his teaching with all the popes. It is the "Traditions" of the Church of rome. (i.e. "What has always been taught")
---
What if the 'ordinary magisterium' (i.e. current hierarchy) contradicts previous catholic truths? How are we to view this problem?
Fr. Joseph de SainteMarie, O.C.D., wrote, concerning the contradiction between Pope Pius VI's
Auctorem Fidei, which condemns concelebration, and Pope Paul VI's
Instructio, which encourages it:
Has it ever been known for the Magisterium to intervene against a declaration of the Magisterium? In his mind [i.e., ofJoseph Kleiner - Ed.] the reply must be in the negative: No, for the sake of the infallibility of the Magisterium (Joseph Kleiner was a modernist who argued that Paul VI did not contradict Pius VI). This infallibility does imply, of course, that the Church cannot contradict herself, but only under a condition which our author has forgotten, namely, that she engages the fullness of her infallibility in such an act; or, in the case of the Ordinary Magisterium (and we must take great care not to minimize the latter's authority), provided that it conforms to what the Infallible Magisterium teaches, either in its solemn acts or in its constant teaching. (Infallibility only occurs when it is solemn or it agrees with "what has always been taught". Nothing in our religion is new) If these conditions are not respected, there is nothing impossible about one "intervention" of the Magisterium being in contradiction with another (V2 did not fulfill these conditions, therefore its errors are not problematic from an infallible/indefectible standpoint; they are only problematic because they confuse the laity). There is nothing to trouble one's faith here, for infallibility is not involved; but people's Catholic sensibilities are right to be scandalized at it, for such facts reveal a profound disorder in the exercise of the Magisterium (V2 was certainly a profound disorder). To deny the existence of these facts (i.e. to deny that the use of infallibility has rules and can be examined) in the name of an erroneous understanding of the Church's infallibility, and to deny it a priori, is to fly in the face of the demands of theology, of history, and of the most elementary common sense.
Topic: The Heretical Pope Fallacy (Read 61421 times)