If you do, then how on God's green earth can you possibly say that V2 was an act of the magisterium?

... I can't believe that I just read this.

He DOESN'T say that V2 was an act of the Magisterium.

... I can't believe that I just read this.

He DOESN'T say that V2 was an act of the Magisterium.

My bad BD, sorry - it was the sededontknowist who said it:

Ladislaus said: Yeah, that's the thing ... V2 at the very least is an act of the OUM .

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).

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

Why must you make things up? - Is it in order to have the hope of saving your sededoubtism?

For the information of others, each of the definitions on that previously posted link are copied and pasted from actual authoritative Catholic teachings, they are not my own invention. I think I did add a few words here and there, words like "and" and "it", only for the sake of clarity.


The Magisterium is the Church authoritatively teaching all those truths contained in the Deposit of Faith.

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't

Infallibility 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).

Infallible teachings are all those teachings contained in the Deposit of Faith, which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and tradition and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her Ordinary Magisterium and Universal Magisterium.

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

Indefectibility is the fact that the Church in its faith and morals and its infallible interpretation will remain unchangeable until the end of time. It is that attribute of the Church by which it will remain until the end of time essentially the same as it was established by Christ.

sededoubtism -- you haven't the foggiest idea about my position and couldn't even articulate it back to me if you tried

I already summed up this novel idea.

So how can "V2 at the very least, be an act of the UOM" and NOT be infallible?

... 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.

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:
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.18

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.

Your view leads to quasi-modernism in that you are proposing that when the hierachy teaches in unison, then what they say goes, regardless of the past.  If this were so, then the modernists would be correct when they say that the catholics faith must be "updated" for the modern man - as if truth can change?  No, as our Faith is rooted in Scripture and Tradition (which cannot change) so the hierarchy is rooted in these truths and they cannot proclaim something new, which differs from "what has always been taught".
The gray area are those ideas and speculations which have not yet been judged by the Church - for example:  Limbo, or BOD.  If V2 had come out with some 'teaching' on these things, then your Fenton quote would apply, because since these were never defined before, then we do not yet have 'consistent' teachings on these things.  But V2 proposed 3 major errors THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN DECLARED ANATHEMA (and multiple times).  So we already know that these errors are wrong and MUST be rejected.  We have multiple, multiple saints, doctors, councils and popes that have declared V2's errors as wrong.  The fact that V2 issued its 'teachings' non-solemnly shows they knew they could not do so solemnly, because of the fact of indefectibility.

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 (define 'directives'.  V2 gave no directives because there is nothing binding) given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience (again, V2 requires no obedience from any catholic in any manner.  V2 clergymen have said it only requires our 'religious assent' which is assuming that they can 'connect the dots' and explain how V2 is consistent with Tradition, which they've yet to do). Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives (show me where they are?) of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands (show me a V2 command) 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. 

Commentary continued:
Fenton's comments do not apply to V2 because
1) it issued no doctrinal directives
2) it issued no disciplinary directives
3) it issued no official teachings or commands to the church militant.

In the 70s and 80s it was argued that the 'new mass' was a disciplinary directive and that we MUST attend because the "old mass" was revoked and replaced.  We know now, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this was a lie and a scare tactic to get trads to bend to the will of an unholy authority.  Benedict cleared all this up in his "motu" when he said that Quo Primum was never abrogated, thus the old rite was always allowed.

Further, these views do not in any way contradict Fr Chazal's views.  One can believe that V2 was not infallible, and still hold they are heretical, because they are heretical not because they OFFICIALLY taught error, but because they believe the error that they unofficially and fallibly proposed.  Thus, as Fr Chazal said, they are 'impounded' and we must separate ourselves from them.  But their personal heresies and their PERSONAL DEFECTION from the Faith did not obligate anyone to follow them, and did not constitute a CHURCH DEFECTION.  And a strict, legal reading of V2 proves this.

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.

Can you take a test, hand it in and then tell the teacher: "Oh boy, did I ace that test.  It was amazing.  An A+ for sure."  The teacher will think:  who cares what you think/say - it depends what you wrote on the paper!

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.