CathInfo.com

This is the Problem with this whole way of thinking. Where is actual Church Teaching to prove that the Pope can lose his office materially, or that we can consider a public or manifest heretic as part of the Church or even more, that we can consider him the Pope?

Where is there Church teaching that says we can't?

Pax, why don't you think about this with the Teachings of the Church in mind?

Show me the clear-cut, practical, canon law procedures to use in our emergency situation.  They do not exist.  This has been my point all along - we all agree on the principles of catholicism (at least, mostly) in this matter, but there is no positively certain way to handle the mess we are in.  How does a priest, Bishop or Pope get from A to B (i.e. in his office to out of his office) when the Church does not act to do so?  There is NOTHING which tells us laity to do anything.  So, as the Apostles waited in the Upper Room until Christ rose again (surely, they waited at the advice of Our Lady) then, we simple catholics, we can DO NOTHING to fix the mess in Rome and the world, should wait for Our Lady of Fatima who said 'My Immaculate Heart will triumph'.  As much as you and I would like to "do something", we have not the authority or the blueprint to do so.
 

Why not respond to the what I showed you above? If Paul VI was a Pope, then Dignitatis Humanae was taught ex cathedra.

There is nothing in Vatican 2 that is taught ex cathedra.  It's not even close.

Paul VI starts every docuмent like this:
"SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY"
Which, by the way, was the exact language used by the Popes from other ecuмenical councils.

Irrelevant.  This language does not meet the ex cathedra requirements.  The "fathers of the sacred council" have nothing to do with infallibility.

He ends every docuмent in VII like this:
"Each and all these matters which are set forth in this Declaration have been favorably voted on by the Fathers of the Council. And We, by the apostolic authority given Us by Christ and in union with the Fathers, approve, decree and establish them in the Holy Spirit and command that they be promulgated for the glory of God."

This constitutes solemn language.

Ok, it's solemn language, but it's not the solemn language required by Vatican I for infallibility.  All he did was "establish" that it's a council docuмent and that it be promulgated (i.e. issued legally) as part of the closing of the council.  This is solemn, legal language; not infallibility language.

Let me contrast the above language by the infallible decree of Pius XII in "Munificentissimus Deus" for Our Lady's Assumption.

44. For which reason, after we have poured forth prayers of supplication again and again to God, and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth, for the glory of Almighty God who has lavished his special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the increase of the glory of that same august Mother, and for the joy and exultation of the entire Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.

46. In order that this, our definition of the bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary into heaven may be brought to the attention of the universal Church, we desire that this, our Apostolic Letter, should stand for perpetual remembrance, commanding that written copies of it, or even printed copies, signed by the hand of any public notary and bearing the seal of a person constituted in ecclesiastical dignity, should be accorded by all men the same reception they would give to this present letter, were it tendered or shown.

47. It is forbidden to any man to change this, our declaration, pronouncement, and definition or, by rash attempt, to oppose and counter it. If any man should presume to make such an attempt, let him know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Now, notice the parts in bold.  This fulfill general requirements of an infallible statement:
1. Apostolic authority
2, Declare a truth to be divinely revealed (i.e. teach) (which deals with faith and morals)
3. Declare a penalty for rejecting it
4. It applies to the entire catholic church

Also notice that this docuмent has 47 points.  Every single sentence which is previous to pt 44 (and even the few above which aren't bolded) are not infallible.  The reasons which explain the purpose of the infallible statement are not infallible (i.e. pts 1-43, which is 75% of the docuмent), just the actual statement itself.

Why is this important?  Because it puts into perspective Vatican 2, Trent or any other council.  95% of a council, even Trent, is not infallible.  Only the specific, infallible statements are.  Since Vatican 2 has no infallible statements, therefore it's not infallible.  It's that simple.

I'll leave you with a quote from Pope Benedict, whom, while you may disagree that he was the pope, gave a comment which is true nonetheless:

The Pope is not an oracle, he is infallible on the rarest of occasions, as we know…"

oops

Quote from: An even Seven

Answer this please. Is the following statement true? Do we have to believe as true, what the living, authoritative, and permanent Magisterium says is divinely revealed? Or is Pope Leo in error?

Quote

Pope Leo XIII, "Satis Cognitum", (#9)Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man.

This quotation taken from Satis Cognitum is sufficient in itself without further contextual framing to destroy the arguments of sedevacantism, and yet, here it is be offered by a sedevacantist as evidence in support of his position.  Pope Leo is not in error but the sedevacantist understanding of this quotation most certainly is .  

This quote describes an attribute of Christ’s Church.  There is in Christ’s Church a “living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium…. strengthened by the Spirit of truth.”  The church that sedevacantists belong to does not have this attribute and has no way of ever recovering it or correcting the problem.  This fact should give every sedevacantist a sobering slap in the face.  They belong to a church that cannot be the Church founded by Jesus Christ.  They have arrived at a dead end and they need to retrace their steps.  

Sedevacantists misunderstand this passage because they do not understand the Magisterium of the Church, and this is primarily because they make the pope the rule of faith rather than dogma.   In this quote Pope Leo is referring to the infallible Magisterium of the Church. This is clearly seen because he says, “If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man.”  The quote is referring to “its teachings.”  It is not the pope’s teachings.  The “its” refers to the Church’ teachings that is taken from the “deposit of divine revelation” which has already been entrusted to the Church.  “He who heareth you heareth Me” refers only to this infallible Magisterium of the Church because God cannot possibly be the “author of error in man.”  

The attributes of the Church are Authority, Infallibility, and Indefectibility.  These three attributes directly correspond to the three functions of the Church identified by St. Pius X in Pascendi, that is: to rule, to teach, and to worship.  The pope is the person authorized to engage these attributes.  He possesses these attributes only accidentally for when he leaves the office by death or resignation, they do not leave with him.   The attribute of Infallibility to teach without the possibility of error is called the Magisterium.  It is engaged either in an extra-ordinary mode, or in an ordinary and universal mode.  In either case when it is engaged it becomes everywhere, for all time, and for all people, without exception, the infallible teaching of God’s truth.  

The word “magisterium” is not used univocally.  There is another sense in which the word is applied that refers to the teaching of churchmen by their grace of state.  This teaching is not infallible and cannot be followed unconditionally.  It must be accepted with a prudent and conditional assent because it is the teaching of men.  When that human teaching is from the pope it is called the authentic ordinary magisterium.  The difference between the Magisterium of the Church grounded upon the attribute of Infallibility which Christ endowed his Church and the teaching magisterium of churchmen based upon their grace of state is one of KIND and not one of DEGREE.  Why do most sedevacantists confuse these two distinct usages of the same term?  It is because they make the pope the rule of faith.

The teaching of Vatican II is the teaching of churchmen.  Pope John XXIII who opened the council, Pope Paul VI who closed the council, and theological note published by the council unequivocally state that no infallible authority was engaged at the council.  It is at most an extra-ordinary engagement of the most ordinary magisterium in the history of the Church.  Every novelty taught by Vatican II is purely the teaching of churchmen by their grace of state.  The strongest binding of its teachings is “religious observance” which was imposed by Pope Paul VI.  “Religious” obedience is that which is owed to the pope teaching by his grace of state.  It is always and everywhere a conditional obedience proximally governed by the virtue of Religion.  No one can be obedient to anyone, including the pope, in violation of the virtue of Religion without sin. When the pope engages the infallible Magisterium of the Church, the teaching is dogma which constitutes the “formal objects of divine and Catholic faith.”

Quote from: Pope Paul VI

“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” Pope Paul VI, General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L'Osservatore Romano January 21, 1966

Sedevacantists make the teaching of men the teaching of God when they overthrow dogma as the rule of faith and replace it by making the pope the rule of faith.  Then “religious” submission to whatever the pope say or does is given the same authority that by nature belongs only to dogma, God’s revealed truth.  That is clearly what they do when they demand that faithful Catholics must obediently submit to teachings that either directly or indirectly oppose the “deposit of divine revelation” on the authority of the authentic magisterium of the pope.

Also, for the record, in Pope Pius XII’s Humani Generis when he teaches that obedience is owed to the “ordinary magisterium” in the sense that “he who heareth you heareth Me,” the pope is actually referring to the ordinary and universal Magisterium.  This is evident in that every single example given without exception in the encyclical where this obedience is commanded is the universal teaching of the Church from her “deposit of divine revelation” and is contrasted with modern novelties.  The word, “novel” or its cognates occurs six times in the encyclical and is always severely censored.  

The only cure for this is to return to the proper understanding of the nature of Dogma as Dogma.  This is why Fr. Leonard Feeney is so important.  The very foundation of his theology is to treat Dogma as the formal object of divine and Catholic faith, to treat it as the true irreformable revelation of God who can neither deceive nor be deceived.  Those who follow his enemies and reject Dogma as the formal object of divine and Catholic faith by reducing it to theological maxims and meaningless man-made formulas are open every error possible.  Sedevacantism is just one example.

Drew

Here it is. You keep repeating yourself and have not replied to this post which answered your question. Who is the one ignoring replies?