Author Topic: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium (Read 36668 times)

drew · « **Reply #60 on:** January 22, 2017, 02:10:46 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

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"?

Stubborn,

It is as if sedevacantists interpret the second “and” conjunction in the dogma to effectively mean “or,” and the narrative before the infallible dogma that references “never-failing faith” of Peter as if this were a personal gift of God to all popes which it is not. It would explain how they arrive at holding the pope as the rule of faith which in practice means that whatever he says is either directly infallible through the pope’s personal “never-failing faith” or indirectly infallible through their version of the indefectibility of the Church even when they are not found in scripture or tradition.

The pope is then no longer the servant of revealed truth but becomes the revealer. It is a bizarre new religion that believes in an empty office that never can and never will be filled. And since, “The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church," they belong to a church that cannot be Catholic because it does not possess a necessary attribute. It is a church that will never be “ruled and governed.” They have no pope, and they have no way to ever get one because they will never have any government because the government is dependent upon the pope and not vice verse.

They cannot point to any historical example for their situation because there has never been a historical example where there existed no possibility for choosing a pope. Some of the more extreme sedevacantists have even arrived at an invisible church which is really ironic because many began as Catholic converts by rejecting the Protestant concept of an invisible Church only to end up where they started.

Your point in a previous post is important and well made. Sedevacantists demand a degree of obedience to the pope which they themselves never made. If they applied in practice the same demands of obedience they impose upon others they could never have become sedevacantists in the first place. Their blind unconditional obedience that they demand of others to the pope, that can only be given to God, would have made them typical Indultists.

Have you ever asked a Sedevacantist exactly where and when the pope lost the office? You’ll never get the same answer twice. Probably not even from the same person.

Drew

Stubborn · « **Reply #61 on:** January 23, 2017, 04:54:02 AM »

Drew, you made many good points - excellent post!

Quote from: drew

The pope is then no longer the servant of revealed truth but becomes the revealer. It is a bizarre new religion that believes in an empty office that never can and never will be filled.

I think most sedevacantists take it even further than this, because to them, he is not merely the revealer, oh no, he is much more than that because whatever he says, no matter what he says, is made an infallible truth upon his utterance - the same is said as regards the hierarchy misnamed; "the magisterium." This takes him from being the Revealer to being the Instituter - but this Instituter is somehow, something less than God yet is, as you say, still their rule of faith.

They also imagine that when the hierarchy all teach the same things, no matter what the teachings are, those current hierarchical teachings, by virtue of present unanimity, have met the requirement for protection from error by the Holy Ghost and as such, those teachings are infallible. To most (all?) sedevacantists, this insane formula is de fide.

If they actually had any faith whatsoever in this belief which they argue is de fide, (which incidentally, this same belief is shared by the conciliarists), then they are bound to "submit" to them, but since they know those teachings are wrong, and they know the hierarchy is wrong, instead of realizing their belief cannot be right, and instead of searching for the truth of the matter, they cling to their belief at the expense of the entire hierarchy, particularly the pope.

Quote from: drew

Have you ever asked a Sedevacantist exactly where and when the pope lost the office? You’ll never get the same answer twice. Probably not even from the same person.

I can rarely get sedevacantists to answer clear questions with clear answers. Dozens of times I've asked sedevacantists why they personally, even need a pope at all - having received only one honest answer in like 2 years convinced me there is a lot of pride involved.

My theory about all of this is that, like the conciliarists who "blindly obey" the pope, the sedevacantists embrace those false teachings which originate from some of those "well respected" 20th century theologians who teach that even in his non-infallible teachings, a pope cannot harm the faithful.

I believe these erroneous teachings of those "well respected" 20th century theologians were accepted as authentic "Church teachings" and were, as +ABL has said, "infiltrated into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the Church" in the late 19th and through the 20th century.

I don't know how to prove such a theory but if correct, it offers a sound explanation as to why, in the 1960s, multitudes not only freely abandoned the only faith they ever knew and knew it to be absolutely true and wholly necessary, it also explains why they "stuck with the pope" and went along with the pope into the NO - of their own free will.

MMagdala · « **Reply #62 on:** January 23, 2017, 08:18:41 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: drew

The pope is then no longer the servant of revealed truth but becomes the revealer. It is a bizarre new religion that believes in an empty office that never can and never will be filled.

I think most sedevacantists take it even further than this, because to them, he is not merely the revealer, oh no, he is much more than that because whatever he says, no matter what he says, is made an infallible truth upon his utterance - the same is said as regards the hierarchy misnamed; "the magisterium." This takes him from being the Revealer to being the Instituter - but this Instituter is somehow, something less than God yet is, as you say, still their rule of faith.

Re: My bolded. Stubborn, that's not possible, unless a new kind of being is the reference point (which could only be an unapproved novel theology created in the 20th or 21st century). The Revealer, as you know, is the same Divine Person -- Our Lord Jesus Christ -- Who was also the Instituter. The Pope is not an in-between being. Only the Divine Person, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, instituted the true Church and is the Author of Revelation.

A Vicar has a limited role, one subordinate to the Revealer and Instituter. The Vicar is a man, a fallible man with no divine or quasi-divine status ontologically.

In her integrity, the Church is Christ's bride and is protected by His guarantee of The Holy Ghost. But that integrity is not always and everywhere, in all circuмstances, extended to the pope as a man. The pope is not mechanically passive to the action of the Holy Ghost, either. The wisdom of the Holy Spirit is not forced or automatic but depends upon a yielding, cooperative subject.

Stubborn · « **Reply #63 on:** January 23, 2017, 11:06:06 AM »

I agree, the comments I made was going off of........

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.

MMagdala · « **Reply #64 on:** January 23, 2017, 10:01:16 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

I agree, the comments I made was going off of........
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.

I know. I was reaffirming your reply, in more expanded form.