Author Topic: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium (Read 37064 times)

Stubborn · « **Reply #55 on:** January 20, 2017, 04:34:40 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

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?

Stubborn · « **Reply #56 on:** January 20, 2017, 05:02:37 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven

See this here is the heart of the matter I guess with you. Up until VII, the Church officially taught that you must obey and adhere to ALL teachings of the Magisterium. Then VII came along and taught the exact opposite of what the Church always taught.
This created three possible situations. The N.O. believe that there really isn't any heresy and that the clear contradictions need to be understood according to tradition (as if this were possible.

Yes, I believe this is true.

Quote from: An even Seven

Stubborn and those like him, had to concoct a theory (heresy,schism) where now the Church can actually be defective and lead souls to hell, against every known teaching of the Church on the subject. Stubborn has lost essentially, all faith in the Church. He and those like him won't accept Church Teaching and Judge the Church. They think they are the ones who can say when and how they will obey Her.

It is disheartening to know that sedevacantists believe Catholic teaching is heresy.

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?

Yes indeed, somehow sedevacantists have convinced themselves that if the pope says it, it must be true, and if a lie, he is not the pope! Again, what happened to their idea of papal infallibility?

Quote from: An even Seven

The SV believes the Magisterium is inerrant (Church Teaching), that a person is not Catholic who has publically committed apostasy or heresy (Church Teaching) and that the Church is indefectible (Church Teaching). Thereby, those who created VII could not have been Catholic and those who obey and expect it's teachings to be obeyed are not Catholic. It's the only logical explanation if one wants to be faithful to the Church.

Most (not all) sedevacantists actually do not know what they believe, all they know with certainty is that the pope is not the pope, that's it - this is their foundational doctrine - whatever else they believe in that regard wholly revolves around this man made doctrine instead of around the doctrines of the Church - which is why most (not all) sedevacantists believe error to be truth and truth to be error.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #57 on:** January 20, 2017, 09:19:20 AM »

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Stubborn · « **Reply #58 on:** January 20, 2017, 09:42:17 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
It is disheartening to know that sedevacantists believe Catholic teaching is heresy.

Name a teaching that pertains to SV that SV's consider heresy.

Once a Catholic, always a Catholic.

Quote from: An even Seven

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"

There, I fixed it for you.

To answer my own question, NO, V1 does not say "if the pope says something is infallible, then it's infallible" - but if that was what they taught, then sedevacantists have even less than zero faith in their own idea of infallibility. All the pope would need to do is say "that's Divine Revelation" and poof, whatever he wanted to make infallible, would be infallible - as if the pope is God.

Crazy.

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
Yes indeed, somehow sedevacantists have convinced themselves that if the pope says it, it must be true, and if a lie, he is not the pope! Again, what happened to their idea of papal infallibility?

You are the one who says this. How could a real Pope not be the Pope? You say your deceptive and erroneous one liners and think people buy it. LOL

You just (wrongly) answered above that "it most certainly does". I'm afraid in your confusion that you are deceiving yourself.

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
whatever else they believe in that regard wholly revolves around this man made doctrine instead of around the doctrines of the Church - which is why most (not all) sedevacantists believe error to be truth and truth to be error.

Which Catholic Teaching, the one that says that public heretics are not in the Church, or the one that a public heretic cannot be elected to the Papacy?
Or your teaching that public heretics can be in the Church and on top of that be Pope. HAHA

The quote from V1 you keep posting so you can mangle it's meaning to suit sedevacantism.

Stubborn · « **Reply #59 on:** January 20, 2017, 10:31:53 AM »

Quote from: An even Seven

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"?