Quote from: Stubborn

Your quote from V1 is erroneous since it does not say nor imply and is impossible to conclude from your quote that  "the magisterium can never err". What you quoted is telling us is when the magisterium, that is, teachings of the Church, are infallible, binding under pain of mortal sin, which I made bold for you.

I was just adding this to the list of quotes about the infallibility of the Magisterium. Since you are reading Church teaching again here are the quotes that prove the Magisterium cannot err.

Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri (#18), Dec. 31, 1929: “… God Himself made the Church a sharer in the divine magisterium and by His divine benefit unable to be mistaken.”


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

Pope Gregory XVI, Commissum Divinitus (# 4), May 17, 1835: “… 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 Leo XIII, Caritatis Studium (#6) July 25, 1898: The Magisterium “could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, and that with the consenting judgment  of the holy fathers who certainly were accustomed to hold as having no part of Catholic communion and as banished from the Church whoever had departed in even the least way from the doctrine proposed by the authentic magisterium.”[/u]

No argument from me on any of these - it is impossible to conclude sedevacantism from these quotes.

Pax Vobis said:
True, a heresy can sever a man from the Church.  But...only AFTER the CHURCH has declared the man excommunicated, after DUE PROCESS.

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794:
“47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” – false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.

I'm not a canon lawyer, so I don't understand how all this stuff works.  I see your point and i'm not sure how to answer.  But, I will say, it requires distinguishment.  1) if a Bishop is truly a heretic, and they are 'ipso facto' excommunicated, then they are cut off from the church and the sacraments.  Spiritually, it happens immediately.  Yet, if they are not removed from their office by the pope, or forced out by the laity, do they still not retain their position, in a real sense?  Spiritually, they receive their penalty immediately but temporally, it requires due process.

2) same example as above, just substitute the pope.

My point is, in all likelihood, the above examples are what we are dealing with today.  Spiritually, many of the clerics are heretics.  Many of their own choosing.  Some have been deceived by false teachings as far back as when they went to parachocial schools and seminaries.  Some do not wish to be heretics but are in error nevertheless.  

Yet, concentrating only on those who are knowingly heretics, they still hold their offices, do they not?  As in the days of Arianism, when 95% of the catholic world was in error, did the heretics keep their offices and continue to spread errors?  Yes.

So, practically speaking, what can a layman do in such circuмstances?  Should not the Church step in and remove these heretics?  Yes.  Has she?  No.  Is there precedence for the laity physically forcing out a heretic bishop?  Yes.  Is that advisable today?  Maybe.  Aside from that, do we have any other recourse?  Not really.  If the Church won't act, what can we do about it?  

This is the main issue that divides us.  You say that if I continue to recognize him as a pope/bishop, then I somehow am condoning his errors.  

I say, I'm not condoning anything, I'm just recognizing that he still has his office IN A TEMPORAL SENSE.  I don't condone what he believes or promotes.  In fact, I basically ignore him.  If he tells me to do something and it's not a sin, I'll follow it.  But, when he promotes an error, since he doesn't REQUIRE me to follow it, how it is wrong to ignore it?

In the same way, I wish that the Chuch would remove those who are out-and-out heretics.  But She has not.  Can I remove them?  Maybe but not likely.  Can I obey them?  Yes, if they give me a valid order.  Otherwise, just keep living your faith.  They haven't forbid us from doing that.  They haven't ordered us to stop, they haven't ordered us to accept error.  

These men have lost their offices spiritually but not physically.  We must distinguish on this point.  How do we deal with this?  I think it's a gray area.  If the Church has a concrete 'what to do in an emergency 'plan, I'm an unaware of it.  If it exists, we wouldn't be having these debates.  Since it doesn't exist, we are left to figure it out.  The above is my reasoning and I don't see how it's wrong.  I wait for the Church to figure it out, for Christ to straighten it out, as the Apostles waited in the upper room after Christ died on the cross.

Pax Vobis said:
Define 'magisterium'.  There are two different kinds.  The universal (which is "what has always been taught") and the ordinary (which is the current ecclesiastical authorities).  The ordinary is ONLY infallible if it AGREES with "what has always been taught".

An even seven:
The Magisterium can never err. I challenge you to find a Church Teaching that uses any adjective whatsoever to describe the Magisterium, which says it can err. If we find an error in any source whatsoever, we know that it is not of the Magisterium.

Again, you fail to distinguish.  You should have said:  "The UNIVERSAL magisterium can never err."

NORMALLY, the ordinary agrees with the universal, (as in, NORMALLY the church leaders teach the full faith), that's why it's referred to as the 'ordinary and universal magisterium' but, they are distinct - universal (constant, consistent teachings) and ordinary (current churchmen's teachings).  The ordinary magisterium is fallible.  Look it up on google; plenty of articles on this.  

Pax Vobis said:
The point is, if the ordinary, fallible magisterium veers off the doctrinal path, if any catholic knows his faith, he'll see it happen.  If something differs, then it's wrong.  The understanding of the magisterium is not rocket science.

An even seven:
If the Magisterium were to “veer off the doctrinal path”, then the Church would defect. We know that this is not possible because Jesus Himself granted it immunity from Error. What you are describing, the “if something differs”, is not of the Magisterium. It’s not rocket science.

No, per the above distinction, the ordinary magisterium is fallible.  The ordinary magisterium is simply your local bishop and the current pope.  They are catholics just like us.  They have no special spiritual understanding of doctrine and no infused wisdom.  They have years of learning at a seminary school and they have the graces of their vocation - that's the only difference between them and us.  They are men just like us.  They can lose their souls just like us.  Infallibility only belongs to the pope, when he chooses to use it; and when he does, we'll all know it because it is a formal declaration.  

The pope is not infallible when he gives interviews to news reporters, nor when he has tea with heads of state, nor during papal audiences, or papal speeches, or when he writes encylicals, or issues papal bulls, or even when he confirms councils.  He is only infallible when he follows the 4 specific REQUIREMENTS laid out by Vatican I.

Pax Vobis said:
One must be subject to the Pope in all things, save sin.  The novelties of V2 are not catholic, therefore they are rejected.  V2 does not follow the universal magisterium, therefore it's rejected.  V2 does not deal with dogma, or infallibility, or church law.  It never claimed to.  Anyone that follows the church leaders into error does so at their own volition.  No one in Rome is forcing them into error.

An even seven:
If the VII “popes” were true Popes, then the universal Magisterium surely failed and is defect. There is ample proof that Paul VI and John XXIII definitely intended it to be infallible and commanded all those subject to them that VII is to be religiously observed by all; not just those who feel like it.

The universal/solemn/extraordinary magisterium has not been changed.  It cannot change.  No V2 popes have issued any infallible statements.  Paul VI and John XXIII never intended to use their infallibility.  How do I know this?  Because they didn't follow the guidelines of Vatican I.  Nowhere have they started any speech or docuмent with "We declare, say and define that...by our apostolic authority...etc"  (this is just one requirement.  See Vatican 1 for more requirements)

So using the Truth that these babies become Catholic by Baptism, they must cease to be Catholic after having rejected the Faith. What’s the difference between the baby baptized to Catholic parents and the one Baptized to Protestant parents? You are right that Baptism is the Sacrament of Faith. This faith is implicit in all validly Baptized persons before the age of reason.

Baptized babies do not have the faith but are Catholic by their baptism - if they die in infancy they go to heaven as a Catholic, by virtue of their baptism.

Adults differ in that they chose their fate. If raised a Catholic but then die in mortal sin, the Catholic will go to hell. There will be another Catholic in hell.

If raised a Catholic yet apostatize or otherwise lose their faith preaching or embracing heresy, unless by official public decree the pope or bishop declare  otherwise, they can and must get to confession to be absolved, they are always encouraged and implored by the Church to repent, to get to confession.

The Church warns and implores them of this necessity, and getting to the sacrament of penance is what they must do if they want to be forgiven - again, this sacrament is only permitted and available to Catholics. There simply is no other way for our sins to be forgiven, including the sin of heresy.  

The Church does not implore Lutherans or Southern Baptists or Jєωs to get to confession, that road is closed to them because though (presumably) baptized, they never had the Catholic faith and as such are not Catholic and as such again are not permitted to receive the sacrament of penance until they first convert.  

Quote from: Stubborn

Please link to or quote me where I said that the magisterium can err.

"The Magisterium" = "the Church teaching". They are one and the same.

When you use the term "Magisterium can err", you are saying the Church can err in Her teachings, which of itself is not only false, it is also false to accuse me of  such a thing.

The Hierarchy is not "the magisterium", the hierarchy are humans who can and have erred by their false teachings, but the hierarchy is not "the magisterium".

First, the hierarchy is not the Magisterium, you are correct. The Magisterium is always linked to the Pope because he is the only person granted infallibility by Our Lord.

The Universal Ordinary Magisterium, that is, the constant (since the time of the Apostles) and common (universal) teachings of the Church, are infallible. These teachings are always linked to the solemnly proclaimed, infallible teachings of popes (not the pope personally) in that the two must agree, they can never deviate, or contradict, or have different meanings. Often the popes reference and/or echo the UOM in their teachings that though infallible, are not solemn pronouncements.

These days, when there is blatant deviation and contradiction, that does not equate to the pope losing his office, that equates to a blatant deviation and contradiction or even outright heresy, but not of the solemn papal pronouncements, the conciliar popes haven't made any - Deo Gratias for the doctrine of infallibility which, through our faith in the doctrine, we are certain the Holy Ghost prevented them from doing such a thing!

These days, the blatant deviation, contradiction and heretical Ordinary - or as per the OP, Authentic Magisterium is everywhere - that is, the blatantly heretical teachings of the living hierarchy.

These are the teachings not divinely protected from error, which people imagine are (or should be) infallible because they've been fooled into this wrong thinking - which explains why so many people went along with the whole conciliar mess. It also explains why there even are sedevacantists, who've likewise been fooled, perhaps to a greater extent in many cases.  

Second, you are correct that the Magisterium cannot err. This would be false. Which is why I have exposed your heresy on the subject since we’ve been arguing this topic. ALSO, it is not false to accuse you of this because you have said that the Magisterium CAN err.

Thank you for pointing out my error. I admit I made a mistake saying the word "magisterium" instead of "hierarchy" in all those quotes, I should have clarified rather than just roll along with you on that - that's one mistake I hope to not make from now on. Hopefully my reply above is self explanatory in this regard.

For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: "He who heareth you, heareth me." [Luke 10:16]; and usually what is set forth and inculcated in the Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine.

An Even Seven,
You are still wrong when you say "the magisterium cannot err."  This is a simple answer to a complex question.  There are different types of magisteriums.

The quote above proves it.  The word "usually" denotes the idea that the ordinary magisterium (i.e. current hierarchy/pope) "usually" teaches the faith or "usually" deals with doctrine.  However, "usually" does not mean "always".  Therefore, we can conclude that there are exceptions.

If you want to read about the different levels of infallibility and different types of magisteriums, see the following articles.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/magisterium.htm

http://catholicism.org/the-three-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html

https://www.olrl.org/misc/magisterium.shtml

Quote

These days, when there is blatant deviation and contradiction, that does not equate to the pope losing his office, that equates to a blatant deviation and contradiction or even outright heresy, but not of the solemn papal pronouncements, the conciliar popes haven't made any - Deo Gratias for the doctrine of infallibility which, through our faith in the doctrine, we are certain the Holy Ghost prevented them from doing such a thing!
I have two questions for you.

First, please read this:
Vatican I:
8.Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed 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 and universal magisterium.


1. From the quote above, If the Pope says that something is a part of Divine Revelation or has it's roots in it, would you say that "something" is infallible and part of the Magisterium and must be believed?

Not if he is not a Pope but an enemy of God. (pretender)  For God can not deceive nor be deceived.

As I said.......

If it were as you are alluding to, we would necessarily be bound to the man, not the truth.....

V1 goes through and defines what that "something" is that's infallible and part of the Magisterium and must be believed. But Myrna, presumably speaking for all sedevacantists, is saying to forget what V1 taught because it is the pope who determines what's infallible and part of the Magisterium and must be believed.

But if that were the truth, then Scripture and tradition and teachings of the UOM are irrelevant if the pope says so - which makes the whole sedevacantist position an exercise in insanity.

Stubborn never changes although he believe the pope can change what God has revealed through His Church.  Stubborn is still adding words and thoughts to posters who he disagrees with.  He is like the fake news we hear about so much today.

That is why he calls himself Stubborn.  

Happy New Year Stubborn!

No, that's not why I call myself Stubborn, but happy new year to you too Myrna!

Sedevacantism is actually quite the mess. The biggest mess is the messed up idea of papal infallibility most of the world holds and sedevacantists wholly embrace. On top of that, the sedevacantists repeatedly demonstrate a complete and total lack of faith in their own idea of infallibility. I mean they have zero faith in this messed up idea of infallibility. Let me explain........

Consider that if the directives of the pope are infallible, then the sedevacantists, if they had a shred of faith in their idea of what infallibility is, should blindly submit to whatever the pope says since whatever he wants us to do comes directly from God and binds us to believe it.

But sedevacantists, seeing that his teachings and directives are wrong, instead of saying the pope is in error, that he is wrong, which in and of itself effectively proves their idea of infallibility is messed up, and instead of them realizing their idea of infallibility is messed up, they continue to say that since a pope cannot be wrong, yet the conciliar popes are wrong, then he is not the pope.

What happened to their idea of papal infallibility?

I just wanted to add that the "usually" that you think applies to the magisterium is actually referring to the Encyclical which usually already pertains to doctrine. Pius XII says that just because the Encyclical is not an exercise of the Supreme power of the Magisterium does not mean it doesn't require assent of faith.

I agree.  But, since you seemed to equate an encyclical with the magisterium, which you equate to infallibility, that was my argument.  I see below you clarified this.

The Magisterium is accompanied by many different adjectives (eg. living, authentic, ordinary, universal), every single time a Pope or Council has taught about it, it says that it is inerrant, infallible, instituted by Christ. It does not matter how it is described, it is always infallible.

This is not correct.  There are different levels of the magisterium.  I don't have any theologian manuals handy but I've read many articles on the topic.  The pope's infallibility, outside of 'ex cathedra' statements (which, mind you, is the only part of infalliblity directly explained by Vatican 1) is open for debate.  Many theologians have discussed the different 'levels of assent' which a catholic must give to writings or sermons from the pope, when a dogmatic decree is not involved.  This is ESPECIALLY the case when we have a pope whose catholicity is shaky at best.

Next, you may be confused as to who the Magisterium comprises of. If any teaching is to be believed as Divinely Revealed by the whole Church, the Pope must be involved in some way. This does not mean that the Pope can never err in his private judgment.
Which brings me to you using my quote from Pius XII to try to prove me wrong. You are proving nothing by saying (I think this is what you are saying) that not everything in an encyclical is infallible. True. But matters concerning the faith in said encyclicals are part of the ordinary magisterium which the Pope intends to teach us. Your disagreement is not with me, it's with the plain words of Pius XII and

Quote

requires assent because it pertains to the Faith.

There are different levels of assent, as there are different levels of authority pertaining to the Pope's office.  It's not as simplistic as you make it out to be.

Quote from: Stubborn

The quote from V1 does not say that "if the pope says such and such are part of divine revelation, we are bound to believe that such and such must be believed" does it?

Really? It most certainly does. Unless you believe the Magisterium is linked to someone other than the Pope. I'd be interested to see who you think can teach Magisterially, infallibly.
"8.Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed 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 and universal magisterium"

This is just too far out to let go.

V1 identifies for us, "all those THINGS" that we are bound to believe:
"all those things 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 and universal magisterium.

V1 in no way, shape or form says that "if the pope says something is Divinely Revealed, then that's infallible."

V1 in no way, shape or form says that "if the hierarchy all teach the same thing, then it's infallible."

These above ideas are blatant corruptions of what the Church teaches and teaches clearly, yet these ideas are used by sedevacantists in order to somehow conclude their own erroneous idea of infallibility - of which they have zero faith in. It's madness.

V1 clearly does say that whether they are teachings of the OUM OR solemn papal pronouncements, those teachings which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture AND tradition AND are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed - all these THINGS are to be believed because all these THINGS are infallible.

Is the pope a "thing"?