Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Kephapaulos on January 06, 2017, 01:30:48 AM

Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Kephapaulos on January 06, 2017, 01:30:48 AM
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/ordinary.htm

I am especially interested about what the sedevacantists wouls have to say about this article.







Clear Ideas on the Ordinary Magisterium

This excellent article, which was originally printed in the January 2002 issue of the SI SI NO NO, masterfully addresses this crucial issue head-on.


Fr. Le Floch, superior of the French Seminary in Rome, announced in 1926:

    "The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the Pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility."

One of his students was none other than the future, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

What worries Catholics most in the current crisis in the Church is precisely the "problem of the Pope." We need very clear ideas on this question. We must avoid shipwreck to the right and to the left, either by the spirit of rebellion or, on the other hand, by an inappropriate and servile obedience. The serious error which is behind many current disasters is the belief that the "Authentic Magisterium" is nothing other than the "Ordinary Magisterium."

    The "Authentic Magisterium" cannot be so simply identified with the Ordinary Magisterium. In fact, the Ordinary Magisterium can be infallible and non-infallible, and it is only in this second case that it is called the "Authentic Magisterium." The Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique [hereafter referred to as DTC -Ed.] under the heading of "papal infallibility" (vol. VII, col. 1699ff) makes the following distinctions:

there is the "infallible or ex cathedra papal definition in the sense defined by Vatican I" (col.1699);

there is the "infallible papal teaching which flows from the pope’s Ordinary Magisterium" (col.1705);

there is "non-infallible papal teaching" (col.1709).

    Similarly, Salaverri, in his Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.) distinguishes the following:

Extraordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 592ff);

Ordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 645ff);

Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticuм, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility (no.659ff).

    While he always has full and supreme doctrinal authority, the pope does not always exercise it at its highest level that is at the level of infallibility. As the theologians say, he is like a giant who does not always use his full strength. What follows is this:

"It would be incorrect to say that the pope is infallible simply by possessing papal authority," as we read in the Acts of Vatican I (Coll. L ac. 399b). This would be equivalent to saying that the pope’s authority and his infallibility are the same thing.

It is necessary to know "what degree of assent is due to the decrees of the sovereign pontiff when he is teaching at a level which is not that of infallibility, i.e., when he is not exercising the supreme degree of his doctrinal authority" (Salaverri, op.cit., no.659).

Error by Excess and/or By Defect

    Unfortunately this three-fold distinction between the Extraordinary Magisterium, the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, and the authentic non-infallible Magisterium, has fallen into oblivion. This has resulted in two opposite errors in the crisis situation of the Church at the present time: the error by excess of those who extend papal infallibility to all acts of the pope, without distinction; and the error by defect of those who restrict infallibility to definitions that have been uttered ex cathedra.

    The error by excess actually eliminates the Ordinary Non-Infallible or "Authentic" Magisterium and inevitably leads either to Sedevacantism or to servile obedience. The attitude of the people of this second category is, "The pope is always infallible and so we always owe him blind obedience."

    The error by defect eliminates the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. This is precisely the error of the neo-Modernists, who devalue the ordinary papal Magisterium and the "Roman tradition" which they find so inconvenient. They say, "The pope is infallible only in his Extraordinary Magisterium, so we can sweep away 2000 years of ordinary papal Magisterium."

    Both of these errors obscure the precise notion of the Ordinary Magisterium, which includes the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the ordinary, "authentic," non-infallible Magisterium.

Confusion and Controversy

    These two opposing errors are not new. They were denounced even before Vatican II. In 1954, Fr. Labourdette, O.P., wrote:

    "Many persons have retained very naive ideas about what they learned concerning the personal infallibility of the sovereign pontiff in the solemn and abnormal exercise of his power of teaching. For some, every word of the supreme pontiff will in some way partake of the value of an infallible teaching, requiring the absolute assent of theological faith; for others, acts which are not presented with the manifest conditions of a definition ex cathedra will seem to have no greater authority than that of any private teacher (Revue Thomiste LIV, 1954, p.196)!"

    Dom Paul Nau has also written about the confusion that has arisen between the pope’s authority and his infallibility:

    By a strange reversal, while the personal infallibility of the pope in a solemn judgment, so long disputed, was definitely placed beyond all controversy, it is the Ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Church, which seems to have been lost sight of.

    It all happened -as is not unheard of elsewhere in the history of doctrine -as if the very brilliance of the Vatican I definition had cast into shadow the truth hitherto universally recognized; we might almost say, as if the definition of the infallibility of the solemn judgments made these henceforth the unique method by which the sovereign pontiff would put forward the rule of faith [Pope or Church?, Angelus Press, 1998, p.13].

    On the temporary fading of a doctrine from Catholic consciousness, see the entry "dogme" in DTC (vol. IV).

    Dom Nau also mentioned the disastrous consequences which flow from this identification of the pope’s authority and his infallibility:

    No place would be left, intermediate between such private acts and the solemn papal judgments, for a teaching which, while authentic, is not equally guaranteed throughout all its various expressions. If things are looked at from this angle, the very notion of the Ordinary Magisterium becomes, properly speaking, unthinkable [Pope or Church?, p.4].

    Dom Nau considered from where this phenomenon had developed:

    Since 1870 [the year of Vatican I -Ed.], manuals of theology have taken the formulae in which their statements of doctrine have been framed from the actual wording of the Council text. None of these treated in its own right of the ordinary teaching of the pope, which has accordingly, little by little, slipped out of sight and all pontifical teaching has seemed to be reduced solely to solemn definitions ex cathedra. Once attention was entirely directed to these, it became customary to consider the doctrinal interventions of the Holy See solely from the standpoint of the solemn judgment, that of a judgment which ought in itself to bring to the doctrine all the necessary guarantees of certainty (ibid., p.13).

    This is partly true, but we should not forget that liberal theology had already been advertising its reductive agenda. That is why Pius IX, even before Vatican I (1870) felt obliged to warn German theologians that divine faith’s submission "must not be restricted only to those points which have been defined" (Letter to Archbishop of Munich, Dec. 21, 1863).

    The naive ideas entertained by many on the question of papal infallibility after Vatican I played into the hands of the liberal theology. In fact, while the two errors are diametrically opposed, they are at one in equating papal authority and papal infallibility. What is the difference between them? The error by excess, regarding as infallible everything that comes from papal authority, stretches the pope’s infallibility to the extent of his authority. The error by defect, considering only those things authorized that emanate from the ex cathedra infallibility, restricts papal authority to the scope of the infallibility of the pope’s Extraordinary Magisterium. Thus both errors have the same effect, namely, to obscure the very notion of the Ordinary Magisterium and, consequently, the particular nature of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. It is essential for us to rediscover this notion and its nature because they are of the greatest importance in helping us to get our bearings in the time of crisis.

The Ordinary Magisterium in Shadow: Humanae Vitae and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

    The lack of clear ideas on the pope’s Ordinary Magisterium appeared in full with Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, Humanae Vitae, and more recently with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in which Pope John Paul II repeated the Church’s refusal to ordain women.

    When Humanae Vitae came out, various theologians indicated that the notion of ordinary papal Magisterium was obscured. Generally speaking, those who supported the infallibility of Humanae Vitae deduced "the proof [of this infallibility -Ed.] on the basis of the Church’s constant and universal Authentic Magisterium, which has never been abandoned and therefore was already definitive in earlier centuries." In other words, on the basis of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium (E. Lio, Humanae Vitae ed infallibilità, Libreria Ed. Vaticana, p.38). They should have noticed that even the notion of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and its particularity [its constancy and universality -Ed.] had been effaced from the minds not only of the ordinary faithful but also of the theologians. Cardinal Siri commented:

    By presenting only two possible hypotheses for the case in question [the encyclical Humanae Vitae -Ed.], namely, an ex cathedra definition [which was avoided -Ed.] that is, proceeding from the solemn Magisterium, and that of the Authentic Magisterium [which does not of itself imply infallibility -Ed.], a grave sophism in enumeration has been committed. It is in fact a serious error, because there is another possible hypothesis, i.e., that of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. It is very strange how certain people are at pains to avoid speaking about this... It is necessary to realize that there is not only a solemn Magisterium and a simply Authentic Magisterium; between these two there is also the Ordinary Magisterium which is endowed with the charism of infallibility (Renovatio, Oct.-Dec., 1968).

    The same "sophism of enumeration" was pointed out 30 years later by Archbishop Bertone, speaking against the opposition to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. On this occasion he explicitly denounced the tendency "to substitute de facto the concept of authority for that of infallibility" (L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 20, 1996).

    In fact, it is not only the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium which has fallen into oblivion, but, since authority and infallibility have been equated, the distinction between Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the ordinary Authentic Magisterium has also been consigned to oblivion. After Vatican I, as Dom Nau wrote,

    Catholics have no longer any reason for hesitating about the authority to be recognized in the dogmatic judgments pronounced by the sovereign pontiff: their infallibility has been solemnly defined in the Constitution Pastor Aeternus... But definitions of this sort are relatively rare. The pontifical docuмents which come most frequently before the Christian today are encyclicals, allocutions, radio messages which usually derive from the Ordinary Magisterium or ordinary teaching of the Church. Unfortunately, this is where confusions remain still possible and do occur, alas! all too often (op. cit. p.3).

    Thus, we will devote ourselves, not to the Extraordinary Magisterium (whose infallibility is generally acknowledged), but to the Ordinary Magisterium. Once we have illustrated the conditions under which it is infallible, it will be clear that outside these conditions we are in the presence of the "authentic" Magisterium to which, in normal times, we should accord due consideration. In abnormal times, however, it would be a fatal error to equate this "authentic" Magisterium with the infallible Magisterium (whether "extraordinary" or "ordinary").

The Point of the Question

    "The infallible guarantee of divine assistance is not limited solely to the acts of the Solemn Magisterium; it also extends to the Ordinary Magisterium, although it does not cover and assure all the latter’s acts in the same way" (Fr. Labourdette, O.P., Revue Thomiste 1950, p.38).

    Thus, the assent due to the Ordinary Magisterium "can range from simple respect right up to a true act of faith." (Archbishop Guerry, La Doctrine Sociale de l’Église, Paris, Bonne Presse 1957, p.172). It is most important, therefore, to know precisely when the Roman pope’s Ordinary Magisterium is endowed with the charism of infallibility.

    Since the pope alone possesses the same infallibility conferred by Jesus Christ upon his Church [i.e., the pope plus the bishops in communion with him, cf. Dz.1839), we must conclude that only the pope, in his Ordinary Magisterium, is infallible in the same degree and under the same conditions as the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church is.

    Thus the truth that is taught must be proposed as already defined, or as what has always been believed or accepted in the Church, or attested by the unanimous and constant agreement of theologians as being a Catholic truth [which is therefore] strictly obligatory for all the faithful (Infaillibilite du Pape, DTC, vol.VII, col.1705).

    This condition was recalled by Cardinal Felici in the context of Humanae Vitae:

    On this problem we must remember that a truth may be sure and certain, and hence it may be obligatory, even without the sanction of an ex cathedra definition. So it is with the encyclical Humanae Vitae, in which the pope, the supreme pontiff of the Church, utters a truth which has been constantly taught by the Church’s Magisterium and which accords with the precepts of Revelation (L’Osservatore Romano, Oct. 19, 1968, p.3).

    No one, in fact, can refuse to believe what has certainly been revealed by God. And it is not only those things that have been defined as such that have certainly been revealed by God; the latter also include whatever has been always and everywhere taught by the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium as having been revealed by God. More recently, Archbishop Bertone reminded us that the Ordinary Pontifical Magisterium can teach a doctrine as definitive [bold emphasis in original] in virtue of the fact that it has been constantly preserved and held by Tradition.

    Such is the case with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis when it repeats the invalidity of the priestly ordination of women, which has always been held by the Church with "unanimity and stability" (L’Osservatore Romano, Dec. 20, 1996).

    Cardinal Siri, still speaking of Humanae Vitae in the issue of the review Renovatio to which we have referred, explains as follows:

    "The question, therefore, must be put objectively thus: given that [Humanae Vitae] is not an act of the Infallible Magisterium and that it therefore does not of itself provide the guarantee of ‘irreformability’ and certitude, would not its substance be nonetheless guaranteed by the Ordinary Magisterium under the conditions under which the Ordinary Magisterium is itself known to be infallible?"

After giving a summary of the Church’s continuous tradition on contraception, from the Didache to the encyclical Casti Connubii of Pope Pius XI, Cardinal Siri concludes:

    "This Encyclical recapitulated the ancient teaching and the habitual teaching of today. This means that we can say that the conditions for the Ordinary irreformable [i.e., infallible -Ed.] Magisterium were met. The period of widespread turbulence is a very recent fact and has nothing to do with the serene possession [of the Magisterium -Ed.] over many centuries (Renovatio, op.cit.)."

    It is an error, therefore, to extend infallibility unconditionally to the whole of the Ordinary Magisterium of the pope, whether he is speaking urbi et orbi or just addressing pilgrims. It is true that the infallibility of the Extraordinary Magisterium is not enough for the Church; the Extraordinary Magisterium is a rare event, whereas "faith needs infallibility and it needs it every day," as Cardinal Siri himself said (Renovatio, op.cit.). But Cardinal Siri is too good a theologian to forget that even the pope’s infallibility has conditions attached to it. If the Ordinary Magisterium is to be infallible, it must be traditional (cf. Salaverri, loc. cit.). If it breaks with Tradition, the Ordinary Magisterium cannot claim any infallibility. Here we see very clearly the very special nature of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, to which we must devote some attention.

The Special Nature of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium

    As we have seen, Cardinal Siri observes that the Humanae Vitae, even if it is not an act of the ex cathedra Magisterium, would still furnish the guarantee of infallibility, not "of itself," but insofar as it recapitulates "the ancient teaching and the habitual teaching of today" (Renovatio, op. cit.). In fact, in contrast to the Extraordinary Magisterium or the Solemn Judgment, the Ordinary Magisterium does not consist in an isolated proposition, pronouncing irrevocably on the Faith and containing its own guarantees of truth, but in a collection of acts which can concur in communicating a teaching.

    This is the normal procedure by which Tradition, in the fullest sense of that term, is handed down;… (Pope or Church?, op. cit. p.10).

    This is precisely why the DTC speaks of "infallible papal teaching which flows from the pope’s Ordinary Magisterium" (loc. cit.). So, while a simple doctrinal presentation [by the pope] can never claim the infallibility of a definition, [this infallibility] nonetheless is rigorously implied when there is a convergence on the same subject in a series of docuмents whose continuity, in itself, excludes all possibility of doubt on the authentic content of the Roman teaching (Dom Nau, Une source doctrinale: Les encycliques, p.75).

    If we fail to take account of this difference, we are obliterating all distinction between the Extraordinary Magisterium and the Ordinary Magisterium:

    "No act of the Ordinary Magisterium as such, taken in isolation, could claim the prerogative which belongs to the supreme judgment. If it did so, it would cease to be the Ordinary Magisterium. An isolated act is infallible only if the supreme Judge engages his whole authority in it so that he cannot go back on it. Such an act cannot be ‘reversible’ without being plainly subject to error. But it is precisely this kind of act, against which there can be no appeal, which constitutes the Solemn [or Extraordinary] Judgment, and which thus differs from the Ordinary Magisterium" (ibid., note 1)."

    It follows that the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, whether of the Universal Church or that of the See of Rome, is not that of a judgment, not that of an act to be considered in isolation, as if it could itself provide all the light necessary for it to be clearly seen. It is that of the guarantee bestowed on a doctrine by the simultaneous or continuous convergence of a plurality of affirmations or explanations, none of which could bring positive certitude if it were taken by itself alone. 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).

    Dom Paul Nau explains further:

    "In the case of the [Ordinary] universal Magisterium, this whole complex is that of the concordant teaching of the bishops in communion with Rome; in the case of the Ordinary pontifical Magisterium [i.e., the pope alone -Ed.], it is the continuity of teaching of the successors of Peter: in other words, it is the ‘tradition of the Church of Rome,’ to which Archbishop Gasser appealed at Vatican I (Collana Lacensis, col.404)."

    About this subject, A.C. Martimort wrote:

    "Bossuet’s error consisted in rejecting the infallibility of the pope’s Extraordinary Magisterium; but he performed the signal service of affirming most clearly the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium [of the pope] and its specific nature, which means that every particular act bears the risk of error... To sum up: according to the Bishop of Meaux, what applies to the series of Roman popes over time is the same as what applies to the episcopal college dispersed across the world (Le Gallicanisme de Bossuet, Paris, 1953, p.558)."

    In fact, we know that the bishops, individually, are not infallible. Yet the totality of bishops, throughout time and space, in their moral unanimity, do enjoy infallibility. So if one wishes to ascertain the Church’s infallible teaching one must not take the teaching of one particular bishop: it is necessary to look at the "common and continuous teaching" of the episcopate united to the pope, which "cannot deviate from the teaching of Jesus Christ" (E. Piacentini, O.F.M. Conv., Infaillible même dans les causes de canonisation? ENMI, Rome 1994, p.37).

    The same thing applies to the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium of the Roman pope on his own: this Ordinary Magisterium is infallible not because each act is uttered by the pope, but because the particular teaching of which the pope’s act consists "is inserted into a totality and a continuity" (Dom P.Nau, Le encycliques, op. cit.), which is that of the "series of Roman popes over time" (Martimort, op. cit.).

    We can understand why, in their Ordinary Magisterium, the Roman popes have always been careful to associate themselves with their "venerable predecessors," often quoting them at length. "The Church speaks by Our mouth," said Pope Pius XI in the Casti Connubii. Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, emphasized that "most of the time what is set forth and taught in the encyclicals is already, for other reasons, part of the patrimony of Catholic doctrine."

    The very particular nature of the pope’s Ordinary Infallible Magisterium was quite clear until Vatican I. While this Council was in session, La Civiltà Cattolica, which published (and still publishes) under the direct control of the Holy See, replied in these words to Fr. Gratry, who had criticized Pope Paul IV’s Bull cuм ex Apostolus:

    "We ask Fr. Gratry, in all serenity, whether he believes that the Bull of Paul IV is an isolated act, so to speak, or an act that is comparable to others of the same kind in the series of Roman popes. If he replies that it is an isolated act, his argument proves nothing, for he himself affirms that the Bull of Paul IV contains no dogmatic definition. If he replies, as he must, that this Bull is, in substance, conformable to countless other similar acts of the Holy See, his argument says far more than he would wish. In other words, he is saying that a long succession of Roman popes have made public and solemn acts of immorality and injustice against the principles of human reason, of impiety towards God, and of apostasy against the Gospel (vol. X, series VII, 1870, p.54)."

    This means, in effect, that an "isolated act" of the pope is infallible only in the context of a "dogmatic definition"; outside dogmatic definitions, i.e., in the Ordinary Magisterium, infallibility is guaranteed by the complex of "countless other similar acts of the Holy See," or of a "long succession" of the successors of Peter.

Practical Application

    Because it declared itself to be non-dogmatic, the charism of infallibility cannot be claimed for the last Council, except insofar as it was re-iterating traditional teaching. Moreover, what is offered as the Ordinary Pontifical Magisterium of the recent popes -apart from certain acts -cannot claim the qualification of the "Ordinary Infallible Magisterium." The pontifical docuмents on the novelties which have troubled and confused the consciences of the faithful manifest no concern whatsoever to adhere to the teaching of "venerable predecessors." They cannot adhere to them because they have broken with them. Look at the footnotes of Dominus Jesus; it’s as if the Magisterium of the preceding popes did not exist. It is clear that when today’s popes contradict the traditional Magisterium of yesterday’s popes, our obedience is due to yesterday’s popes: this is a manifest sign of a period of grave ecclesial crisis, of abnormal times in the life of the Church.

    Finally, it is evident that the New Theology, which is so unscrupulous in contradicting the traditional teaching of the Roman Pontiffs, contradicts the Infallible Pontifical Magisterium; accordingly, a Catholic must in all conscience reject and actively attack it.

The Almost Total Eclipse of the "Authentic" Magisterium

    The Church’s current crisis is not at the level of the Extraordinary or Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. This would be simply impossible. Furthermore, it is not at the level of the Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium because the Council did not wish to be a dogmatic one, and because Pope Paul VI himself indicated what theological "note" it carried: "Ordinary Magisterium; that is, it is clearly authentic" (General Audience of Dec. 1, 1966: Encycliques et discours de Paul VI, Ed. Paoline, 1966, pp.51, 52). Lastly, it is not at the level of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. The turmoil and division in the Catholic world have been provoked by a break with this doctrinal continuity. Such a break is the very opposite of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. Thus Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, or John Paul II’s intervention against women’s ordination in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis caused no dismay to the Church’s obedient sons.

    The present crisis is at the level of what is presented as the simply "authentic" Magisterium, which, as Cardinal Siri reminds us, "does not of itself imply infallibility" (Renovatio, op.cit.). But are we really dealing with the "authentic" Magisterium?

    The author of Iota Unum [available from Angelus Press. Price: $24.95] wrote:

    "Nowadays it is no longer the case that every word of the pope constitutes Magisterium. Now, very frequently, it is no more than the expression of views, ideas and considerations that are to be found disseminated throughout the Church,... and of doctrines that have spread and become dominant in much theology (Eglise et Contre-Église au Concile Vatican II, Second Theological Congress of SI SI NO NO, Jan. 1996)."

    The Magisterium, however, even in its non-infallible form, should always be the teaching of the divine Word, even if uttered with a lesser degree of certitude. Nowadays, it is very often the case that "the Pope does not manifest the divine word entrusted to him," but rather "expresses his personal views" which are those of the New Theology. Here we are faced with a "manifestation of the decadence of the Church’s Ordinary [‘authentic’] Magisterium," a decadence which "is creating a very grave crisis for the Church, because it is the Church’s central point which is suffering from it" (ibid.).

    Can one really speak of the "authentic" Pontifical Magisterium, or would it be more accurate to speak of an almost total eclipse of the Authentic Pontifical Magisterium in the face of an analogous crisis at the level of the episcopal Magisterium?

The Danger of Being Drawn into Error

    Catholic are least prepared to meet the crisis of the Authentic Pontifical Magisterium because of the confusion in their minds regarding the distinction between the pope’s Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and his simply "authentic" Ordinary Magisterium. This problem was pointed out before Vatican II; it has caused and continues to cause Catholics to be drawn into error who wrongly believe that they should give equal assent to the pope’s every word, neglecting the distinctions and precise conditions which we now review.

    "The command to believe firmly and without examination of the matter in hand... can be truly binding only if the authority concerned is infallible" (Billot, De Ecclesia, thesis XVII). That is why a firm and unconditional assent is demanded in the case of the Infallible Magisterium (whether Extraordinary or Ordinary).

    As regards those non-infallible doctrinal decisions given by the pope or by the Roman congregations, there is a strict duty of obedience which obliges us to give an internal assent...that is prudent and habitually excludes all reasonable doubt, but this assent is legitimized [not by infallibility, but rather] by the high degree of prudence with which the ecclesiastical authority habitually acts in such circuмstances" (entry "Église" in DTC, vol.IV, col.2209).

    This is why we owe the "authentic" Magisterium not a blind and unconditional assent but a prudent and conditional one:

    Since not everything taught by the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible, we must ask what kind of assent we should give to its various decisions. The Christian is required to give the assent of faith to all the doctrinal and moral truths defined by the Church’s Magisterium. He is not required to give the same assent to teaching imparted by the sovereign pontiff that is not imposed on the whole Christian body as a dogma of faith. In this case it suffices to give that inner and religious assent which we give to legitimate ecclesiastical authority. This is not an absolute assent, because such decrees are not infallible, but only a prudential and conditional assent, since in questions of faith and morals there is a presumption in favor of one’s superior... Such prudential assent does not eliminate the possibility of submitting the doctrine to a further examination, if that seems required by the gravity of the question (Nicolas Jung, Le Magistère de l’Èglise, 1935, pp.153, 154).

    Unfortunately, all these truths have disappeared from Catholic consciousness, just as the notion of the "authentic" Magisterium has. The Catholic world is all the more in danger of being drawn into error, since it nourishes the naive and erroneous conviction that God has never permitted the popes to be mistaken, even in the Ordinary Magisterium (and here no distinctions are drawn), and so imagines that the same assent should always be given to the papal Magisterium -which in no way corresponds to the Church’s teaching.

Infallibility and the "Grace of State"

    Our discussion of the "grace of state" of the sovereign pontiff proceeds in the context of the Authentic Magisterium. When the pope engages his infallibility, he enjoys a divine assistance that is entirely special, over and above the grace of state. Nonetheless, even infallibility does not reduce him to the level of an automaton. In fact:

    The Divine assistance does not relieve the bearer of the infallible doctrinal power of the obligation of taking pains to know the truth, especially by means of the study of the sources of Revelation (Dz 1836).

    That is why, in his Infallible Magisterium, the pope enjoys:

the positive assistance of the Holy Spirit so that he can attain the truth, and

the negative assistance which preserves him from error. Ultimately, in a case where a pope, by negligence or ill will, were to fail in his duty of seeking out the truth by the appropriate means, infallibility guarantees that God, through a purely negative assistance, would prevent the proclamation ex cathedra of an error.

    This guarantee does not exist in the case of the Authentic Magisterium because it does not enjoy the charism of infallibility. That is why everything is entrusted to the grace of state alone, which impels the pope to act with that "high degree of prudence" which, normally, shines forth from the Authentic Magisterium of the successors of Peter. If, however, a pope were to fail to attain this, no divine promise guarantees God will intervene and stop him.

    In such a case, indeed, the Catholic world would run the risk of being drawn into error. But it would not be because the pope lacked infallibility; under the due conditions, he would enjoy infallibility just like his predecessors. Nor would it be because he was deprived of the grace of state, but rather that he had not laid hold of that grace. The risk of this is all the greater since the principles we are here setting forth have fallen into oblivion.

    When the Catholic world had a clear grasp of these principles the danger of being drawn into error was far less. In the history of the Church, we find it was the justified resistance of cardinals, Catholic universities, Catholic princes, religious, and simple faithful which blocked the faux pas of a number of popes, such as Popes John XXII and Sixtus V, concerning whom Saint Robert Bellarmine wrote to Clement VIII:

    "Your Holiness knows the danger to which Sixtus V exposed himself and all the Church, when he undertook to correct Holy Scripture according to the lights of his own personal knowledge. Truly, I do not know whether the Church has ever been subject to a more grave danger (entry Jesuites: travaux sur les Saintes Ecritures in F. Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible, vol.III, cols.1407-1408)."

    This danger was identified and rejected by the Catholic world. In reality, those who attribute infallibility always to the pope are doing a service neither to themselves, nor to the Church, nor to the pope himself, as the present times are plainly showing us. A pope’s faux pas are a severe trial for the entire Catholic world.

Normal Times and Abnormal Times

    In normal times the faithful can rely on the "authentic" Pontifical Magisterium with the same confidence with which they rely on the Infallible Magisterium. In normal times, it would be a very grave error to fail to take due account of even the simply "authentic" Magisterium of the Roman pope. This is because if everyone were permitted, in the presence of an act of the teaching authority, to suspend his assent or even to doubt or positively reject it on the grounds that it did not imply an infallible definition, it would result in the ecclesiastical Magisterium becoming practically illusory in concrete terms, because the ecclesiastical Magisterium is only relatively rarely expressed in definitions of this kind (DTC, vol. III, col.1110).

    It must not be forgotten (as it has been forgotten nowadays) that the security of the Authentic Magisterium is not linked to infallibility, but to the "high degree of prudence" with which the successors of Peter "habitually" proceed, and to the "habitual" care they take never to swerve from the explicit and tacit teaching of their predecessors. Once this prudence and care are missing, we are no longer in normal times. In such a situation it would be a fatal error to equate the Authentic Magisterium of the Roman pontiff with his Infallible Magisterium (Ordinary or Extraordinary). These abnormal times are rare, thanks be to God, but they are not impossible. If we are not to be drawn into error, we urgently need to remember that the assent due to the non-infallible Magisterium is

    "...that of inward assent, not as of faith, but as of prudence, the refusal of which could not escape the mark of temerity, unless the doctrine rejected was an actual novelty or involved a manifest discordance between the pontifical affirmation and the doctrine which had hitherto been taught (Dom P.Nau, Pope or Church?, op. cit. p.29)."

    Dom Nau makes it clear that this prudential assent does not apply in the case of a teaching that is "already traditional," which would belong to the sphere of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. However, in the case of a teaching which is not "already traditional," the reservation which interests us does apply: "unless the doctrine rejected... involved a manifest discordance between the pontifical affirmation and the doctrine which had hitherto been taught." Such a situation would legitimize the doctrine’s rejection and would imply no "mark of temerity." Is this kind of "discordance" an impossible hypothesis? Dom Nau, whose attachment to the papacy was without doubt, wrote:

    "This is not a case which can be excluded a priori since it does not concern a formal definition. But, as Bossuet himself says, ‘It is so extraordinary that it does not happen more than twice or thrice in a thousand years’ (Pope or Church?, p.29)."

    In such a case, refusing one’s assent does not only not manifest temerity: it is a positive duty. The "discordance" with "doctrine which had hitherto been taught" dispenses the Catholic from all obligation to obedience on this point:

    The general principle is that one owes obedience to the orders of a superior unless, in a particular case, the order appears manifestly unjust. Similarly, a Catholic is bound to adhere interiorly to the teachings of legitimate authority until it becomes evident to him that a particular assertion is erroneous (DTC, vol.III, col.1110).

    In the case we are examining, evidence of error is provided where an act of the Authentic Magisterium is discordant with the Extraordinary or Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, i.e., discordant with the traditional doctrine, to which the Catholic conscience is bound for eternity.

Faith Does Not Require the Abdication of Logic

    In conclusion we shall excerpt the text of a theologian, whose passing is much to be regretted, who had a very clear grasp of the doctrine we are recalling here, and who knew well that it had been brought into confusion by the New Theologians. In arguing against Joseph Kleiner on the manifest contradiction between Pope Pius VI’s Auctorem Fidei, which condemns concelebration, and Pope Paul VI’s Instructio, which encourages it, Fr. Joseph de Sainte-Marie, O.C.D., wrote:

    Has it ever been known for the Magisterium to intervene against a declaration of the Magisterium? In his mind [i.e., of Joseph Kleiner -Ed.] the reply must be in the negative: No, for the sake of the infallibility of the Magisterium. This infallibility does imply, of course, that the Church cannot contradict herself, but only under a condition which our author has forgotten, namely, that she engages the fullness of her infallibility in such an act; or, in the case of the Ordinary Magisterium (and we must take great care not to minimize the latter’s authority), provided that it conforms to what the Infallible Magisterium teaches, either in its solemn acts or in its constant teaching. If these conditions are not respected, there is nothing impossible about one ‘intervention’ of the Magisterium being in contradiction with another. There is nothing to trouble one’s faith here, for infallibility is not involved; but people’s Catholic sensibilities are right to be scandalized at it, for such facts reveal a profound disorder in the exercise of the Magisterium. To deny the existence of these facts in the name of an erroneous understanding of the Church’s infallibility, and to deny it a priori, is to fly in the face of the demands of theology, of history, and of the most elementary common sense.

    The facts are there. They cannot be denied. We have given an example of them, and others could be given. It will suffice to recall... the Institutio Generalis, which introduces the Novus Ordo Missae, particularly its celebrated Article 7. There the dogmas of the Eucharist and the priesthood were presented in such ambiguous terms, and so obviously orientated towards Protestantism -to say no more -that they had to be rectified. This Institutio, however, constituted an ‘intervention by the Magisterium.’ Should it be accepted on that account, when it was going in a direction manifestly contrary to that of the Council of Trent, in which the Church had engaged her infallibility? If we were to follow the approach urged by Joseph Kleiner and so many others, the answer would be: ‘Yes.’ But to do this we would have to swallow the contradiction by denying that there is a contradiction -which is in itself contradictory. This would be a real abdication of the intellect, and it would leave us defenseless in the face of a principle of authority that would be totally outside the control of truth. Such an attitude is not in conformity with what the Magisterium itself requires of the faithful... Faith demands the submission of the intellect in the face of the Mystery that transcends it, not its abdication when confronted with the demands of intellectual coherence which pertain to its sphere of competence; judgment is a virtue of the intellect. That is why, when a contradiction is evident, as in the two cases we have just cited, the believer’s duty (and, even more, the duty of the theologian) is to address the Magisterium and ask for the said contradiction to be removed (L’Eucharistie, salut du monde, Paris , ed.du Cèdre, 1981, p.56ff).

    To this, nothing need be added, except perhaps to invite readers to pray to the Divine Mercy, through the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to remove, as soon as possible, this exceedingly severe trial from the Catholic world.  Hirpinus

CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS

Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 06, 2017, 05:53:23 AM
Quote from: Kephapaulos

I am especially interested about what the sedevacantists would have to say about this article.


Fr. Le Floch, superior of the French Seminary in Rome, announced in 1926:

    "The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the Pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility." .....


Unfortunately, all these truths have disappeared from Catholic consciousness, just as the notion of the "authentic" Magisterium has. The Catholic world is all the more in danger of being drawn into error, since it nourishes the naive and erroneous conviction that God has never permitted the popes to be mistaken, even in the Ordinary Magisterium (and here no distinctions are drawn), and so imagines that the same assent should always be given to the papal Magisterium -which in no way corresponds to the Church’s teaching.


I have to still read the rest but this is an excellent article! Thanks for posting this!
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: MarylandTrad on January 06, 2017, 10:02:09 AM
Vatican I speaks of the "ordinary and universal magisterium" when talking about things that have to be believed with divine and Catholic faith. Some sedevacantists try and get around the "universal" part by saying that a teaching does not have to be universal in time, but only in space, for it to be infallible. Hence they say that if all the bishops in the world are teaching a certain doctrine, then that doctrine must be infallible even if it is a new doctrine that wasn't taught universally in times past. I think that there is bad will on the part of the sedevacantist apologists. There are countless quotes from saints who say that in times of confusion, look to tradition (universality in time and space). None of the saints say that in times of confusion look only to what is currently being taught universally in space. That would make no sense. Tradition (universality in time and space) must be the standard.

St. Vincent of Lerins’ famous dictum in the Commonitorium: “quod semper, quod ubique, et quod ab omnibus… et in eodem sensu.” Universality in time and space.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 07, 2017, 06:15:20 AM
Quote from: An even Seven

It would be against the Church's Dogma of indefectibility that a Pope could set up Universal Customs and Practices that are heretical and
soul-destroying thus making it something that it's not.


This is easily refuted, first, since the conciliar popes have already pretty much done whatever they've been able to do in this respect, but the Church has not been destroyed by their doing so, nor can it ever be destroyed by their doing so.

Second, the people destroy their own souls, no one else on earth is capable of doing that for them. Remember, prior to the revolution, everyone had the same faith, the only Catholics on earth were "trads" - they were everywhere and their numbers were increasing every day all over the world, billions of trads went to 100s of thousands of reverent TLM's celebrated in beautiful Churches all over the world every hour around the clock.

That was when trad priests and bishops were the only priests and bishops, they were in hospitals, in the confessionals and on the battle fields ready to administer the true sacraments, and on and on I could go - they had the faith, the true Catholic faith - so what happened? They knew better, indeed, if anyone could be expected to know better, it must be those who were reared in the true faith prior to V2.

No one held a gun to anyone's head, this revolution was the most successful revolution in the history of the world, more amazing is the fact that not even one single drop of blood was spilled as the enemy took over the fort - didn't need to spill blood this time - why? because instead of guns, the enemy used false obedience, lies and slander as their weapons in this revolution.

Those who had the true faith, those who knew *only* the true faith for their whole lives, finally got what they *really* wanted - they willingly got off the narrow path to heaven for a religion that offered them the wide road to heaven, and they will answer for this before God - do you honestly think it will do them any good at all when they try to plead it's not their fault? That they were fooled? That the pope is to blame? That their parent's are to blame, it's their fault? Or the schools' fault, or the catechisms' fault?

Nope, no excuses - we stand before God naked, alone and accused - and those lethargic faithful that were raised to know better and who helped usher in this mess will not be able to blame even any "Universal Customs and Practices that are heretical and soul-destroying" for them abandoning the faith of their own free will.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 08, 2017, 09:31:16 AM
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: An even Seven

It would be against the Church's Dogma of indefectibility that a Pope could set up Universal Customs and Practices that are heretical and soul-destroying thus making it something that it's not.


This is easily refuted


So go ahead and refute it. What you wrote doesn't even come close.
Your heretical opinions have already been shown to be non-Catholic in other threads. Especially in The Second Vatican Council  (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=41878&min=0&num=10) thread.


Thank you AES! Anymore, if I don't get blanketed as being heretical from a sedevacantist in one of the forums, I figure I'm not communicating clearly enough, so thanks. Being called heretical is the only way I know that the  sedevacantists read at least some of what I post.

You are right, I got off on another tangent - my apologies. You are right again that the acts of the conciliar popes are heretical, but those who lost their faith or otherwise embrace those heresies, destroy their own souls of their own free will - we are the only ones that can ever destroy our souls - Deo Gratias for that I say!

When we die, all men will be judged in terms of whether they were Catholic or not, if they were not Catholic they will be condemned because they did not receive the doctrine of Christ, they received rather the doctrine of a man, concerning Christ or concerning something else.

Sedevacantists received a doctrine concerning "something else", which is sedevacantism, which is a doctrine of a man, not a doctrine of Christ. For the sake of your eternity, you had best realize this and know you are playing with eternal fire - for no reason at all. It is not our place to determine the status of the pope. Those who think otherwise do not know the meaning of infallibility nor the limits of the pope's office.  

As the OP says: "The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the Pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility."

Sedevacantists have convinced themselves that popes cannot do the things which the conciliar popes have actually done - the reason for this is in italics directly above.  
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 09, 2017, 04:36:35 AM
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Stubborn

 those who lost their faith or otherwise embrace those heresies, destroy their own souls of their own free will - we are the only ones that can ever destroy our souls - Deo Gratias for that I say!

When we die, all men will be judged in terms of whether they were Catholic or not, if they were not Catholic they will be condemned because they did not receive the doctrine of Christ, they received rather the doctrine of a man, concerning Christ or concerning something else.


Stubborn, it's not my intention to get into another 20+ page debate of just me and you going back and forth. We already did that.

I do however want to address this obsession you have with pointing out that only each individual will be responsible for their own damnation, as if any Catholic would disagree with this. Yet you bring it up a lot.

When someone uses terms such as "soul-destroying" etc...in reference to the teachings and practices and docuмents of the VII "church", they are not implying that the teachings and practices themselves are literally going to throw souls into hell. An abstract idea cannot do something like that. The point of calling these teachings and practices "soul-destroying" is to point out the damage that will be done by someone adhering to and believing in said teachings. It takes an act of will to believe in these teachings and engage in the practices. Someone may not grasp the errors in them, but they erode one's belief in Catholic teaching. What a person believes very much determines their ultimate destination in eternity. Thus they are "soul-destroying" etc... because people choose to believe in them. For people who choose not to believe or practice such things, they have no effect.


Well then, see, we agree on this ha ha! The reason that you say my opinions  are non-Catholic heresies will likely remain a mystery.

The reason I bring it up a lot is because most (all?) sedevacantists wrongly insist that we are bound submit to the pope even when he wants us to do something that offends God, as if we are bound to abandon all reason, stop thinking entirely and give our minds over to the pope's wishes lest we fail in our bound duty to submit to him, even if submitting to him means losing the faith and falling into heresy if that's what he wants.

If that were the case then yes, we could blame the pope at our particular Judgement - and end up in hell anyway, but since such beliefs are wrong, and since there are many sedevacantists out there who say that they believe it actually is truth, I strive to remind them what the truth of the matter is.

Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 09, 2017, 07:02:28 AM
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Stubborn

The reason I bring it up a lot is because most (all?) sedevacantists wrongly insist that we are bound submit to the pope even when he wants us to do something that offends God, as if we are bound to abandon all reason, stop thinking entirely and give our minds over to the pope's wishes lest we fail in our bound duty to submit to him, even if submitting to him means losing the faith and falling into heresy if that's what he wants.

If that were the case then yes, we could blame the pope at our particular Judgement - and end up in hell anyway, but since such beliefs are wrong, and since there are many sedevacantists out there who say that they believe it actually is truth, I strive to remind them what the truth of the matter is.



The difference is your inability to distinguish between a mortal sin (murder, adultery, etc..) and Heresy. While heresy is a mortal sin, it has the added extra Divine penalty of immediately removing oneself from the Catholic Church.


I distinguish just fine because I distinguish according to the Catholic Church's teachings in the matter. The issue is not me, after all, I am not guilty of creating this crisis. The issue is, (as if this were even possible) that unless the pope is officially proclaimed to have lost his office for the entire world to know (instead of a relatively minuscule number of sedevacantists), then no matter what he does, he is the pope, just as Pope St. Pius X and XII decreed.  

I am continually amazed how sedevacantists who yearn for a "true" pope to obey, blatantly disobey teachings of "true" popes. No one has yet to explain why they all do this.  


Quote from: An even Seven

The Pope logically could not teach or command something heretical to be imposed in the Church because then that Pope would not be Pope at all. If a Pope commanded us to murder the truly innocent, that's a horrible scenario in which we would be bound to disobey the Pope. The distinction is a true Pope being sinful or making private errors that have no force on the Catholic population (eg. Honorius) versus a man who purports to be Pope mandating an invalid "mass" and promulgating a heretical "council" (Paul VI).
If you truly believe that a Catholic must be subject to the Pope in matters of faith and discipline, then your position is erroneous.


Then your issue is with the OP, because you are disagreeing with the OP - and this also goes back to what I first posted.

The people were never bound to submit to the wishes of the pope in his errors. Look at it this way, you don't go along with those errors - why do you suppose most everyone else does?

Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 09, 2017, 10:28:47 AM
Quote
It would be against the Church's Dogma of indefectibility that a Pope could set up Universal Customs and Practices that are heretical and
 soul-destroying thus making it something that it's not.

Does current church law FORCE anyone to attend the novus ordo?  No.
Does church law FORCE anyone to accept V2?  No.
FORCE anyone to receive communion in the hand?  No.
FORCE anyone to eat meat on fridays?  No.
Use planned parenthood?  Go to mass on Sat night?  Get an annulment?
No, no and no.

There is nothing in the 'conciliar' church that forces anyone to sin.  Nothing which changes church doctrine.  Nothing which changes the Truth.

Now, does current church law make 'allowances, permissions, excuses, etc, etc' so that people can violate the 'spirit' of the law?  Yes.

Does chuch officials promote, encourage, condone and advertise an "easy" way for Catholics to "live their faith"?  Yes.  Is such an "easy" way a path to damnation?  Yes.  But Church teaching does not change; only the CHURCHMEN change.

Christ warned us of wolves in sheep's clothing.  Wolves do not violate the indefectibility of the Church; they only prove it's necessity.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 09, 2017, 10:29:48 AM
Quote
It would be against the Church's Dogma of indefectibility that a Pope could set up Universal Customs and Practices that are heretical and
 soul-destroying thus making it something that it's not.

Does current church law FORCE anyone to attend the novus ordo?  No.
Does church law FORCE anyone to accept V2?  No.
FORCE anyone to receive communion in the hand?  No.
FORCE anyone to eat meat on fridays?  No.
Use planned parenthood?  Go to mass on Sat night?  Get an annulment?
No, no and no.

There is nothing in the 'conciliar' church that forces anyone to sin.  Nothing which changes church doctrine.  Nothing which changes the Truth.

Now, does current church law make 'allowances, permissions, excuses, etc, etc' so that people can violate the 'spirit' of the law?  Yes.  Is anyone FORCED to violate the 'spirit' of the law?  No.

Does chuch officials promote, encourage, condone and advertise an "easy" way for Catholics to "live their faith"?  Yes.  Is such an "easy" way a path to damnation?  Yes.  Is anyone FORCED to take the "easy" way?  No.  Church teaching does not change; only the CHURCHMEN change.

Christ warned us of wolves in sheep's clothing.  Wolves do not violate the indefectibility of the Church; they only prove its necessity.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 10, 2017, 04:53:04 AM
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Stubborn
I distinguish just fine because I distinguish according to the Catholic Church's teachings in the matter.

Fine. Tell me the difference between the penalties for committing a mortal sin, and the penalties for Heresy.


The difference is that the Church, because the sin is public, has attached the censure of excommunication to the sin of heresy. This means the heretic, while still having the obligations of practicing the Catholic faith i.e. still has to go to Mass on Sundays for example, but has lost the benefits of a Catholic i.e. cannot receive communion, cannot be Godparent, etc. - in short, the excommunicant is banned from participating in the community of the faithful due to his public sin.    

You cannot impose this censure upon anyone, nor can I - in the case of the pope, no one can impose this censure upon him. If sedevacantists ever realize this, they will need to find another distraction to occupy their time with.



Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
The issue is not me, after all, I am not guilty of creating this crisis. The issue is, (as if this were even possible) that unless the pope is officially proclaimed to have lost his office for the entire world to know (instead of a relatively minuscule number of sedevacantists), then no matter what he does, he is the pope, just as Pope St. Pius X and XII decreed.
 
I didn't say you created the crisis.
Please cite a teaching that says that a Pope can retain his Office if he has become a public heretic. Please cite a teaching that says a public heretic can attain the Office of the Papacy (what has happened since JXXIII). Remember to cite a teaching that has those words, because I can cite teachings to the opposite that have those words.


Far as I know, there are no teachings worded like that.
 
Although the dogma does state that it is altogether necessary that every human creature "be subject to the pope", not that "we must submit to the pope even when he wants us to do something that offends God" - as most sedevacantists foolishly insist.

The dogma teaches that we must be subject to the pope for our hope of salvation - sedevacantists add the exception; "unless you don't believe he is the pope" - they then make their exception to the dogma, dogma itself while insisting they're doing no such thing. How is it possible to argue the sedevacantist opinion at all when the sedevacantists hold such a position as that?

We cannot be subject to him if we opine he is not the pope - but per the dogma, we must be subject to him if we want to get to heaven. This is my main reason to believe he is the pope - I cannot get to heaven unless I am his subject. You and the sedevacantists are wholly content to have figured out how to get to heaven without being subject to him, the rest of us haven't figured out how you're able to do that, when it's something we know we cannot do.



Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
The people were never bound to submit to the wishes of the pope in his errors. Look at it this way, you don't go along with those errors - why do you suppose most everyone else does?

First, these are not just private errors. Setting up an evil anti-mass and solemnly promulgating a heretical council are very much public. So is practicing these things and furthering these doctrines.
Second, the Pope is the unifying factor of faith in the Catholic Church. To be subject to him, affirms that he has the True faith and a Catholic is in communion with him.
So whether someone calls him a heretic or staunch defender of truth doesn't matter. If you call him pope you are in Catholic Communion with him no matter what you say.


You just don't get it.
There is nothing to stop a pope from setting up an evil mass and etc.

Per the OP, you, like so many who were taught the same error, do not understand what infallibility is - because you were taught that it is something which it is not.
 
All you need to do is believe reality, believe your own eyes and you will begin to see the truth of the matter. Per the dogma, no one gets to heaven unless they are the popes' subject. Period. There is no way around this no matter what you think because they did not leave any provisos whatsoever.

 

Quote from: An even Seven

A couple of questions.
1. Is Francis a member of the Catholic Church?
2. Does he profess the true Faith?


No and no. That is my opinion and I'm sure that is also your opinion and likely is the opinion of everyone here at CI and likely 99.9% of the trad population on earth.

We can all together or individually jump up and down about it, stomp our feet, docuмent in triplicate each of his errors to serve as indisputable proof, have video evidence, take it to the Vatican, show it to the entire hierarchy, post it all on youtube, facebook, twitter and broadcast it on every TV, internet and radio channel on earth 24 hours a day for 10 years - and he would still be the pope. All everyone would have accomplished is a colossal waste of time while risking losing their soul in the process - for no reason at all.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 10, 2017, 06:02:15 AM
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: An even Seven

Fine. Tell me the difference between the penalties for committing a mortal sin, and the penalties for Heresy.

The difference is that the Church, because the sin is public, has attached the censure of excommunication to the sin of heresy. This means the heretic, while still having the obligations of practicing the Catholic faith i.e. still has to go to Mass on Sundays for example, but has lost the benefits of a Catholic i.e. cannot receive communion, cannot be Godparent, etc. - in short, the excommunicant is banned from participating in the community of the faithful due to his public sin.    

Wrong. You didn't answer the question. The penalty for mortal sin is the loss of sanctifying grace while still remaining Catholic. The penalty for Heresy, along with the loss of sanctifying grace, is the immediate and without further declaration, excommunication and removal from the Church in which the Catholic ceases to be Catholic.

Then why do you keep declaring it when the penalty happens without it?


Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
You cannot impose this censure upon anyone, nor can I - in the case of the pope, no one can impose this censure upon him.

You are right but neither you nor I need too. ANY person that no longer professes the true faith has ceased to be a member of the Church and cannot be Pope.

As long as you believe that, it must be true. All you need to do is prove he no longer occupies the chair and everyone will believe it.


Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: An even Seven
I didn't say you created the crisis.
Please cite a teaching that says that a Pope can retain his Office if he has become a public heretic. Please cite a teaching that says a public heretic can attain the Office of the Papacy (what has happened since JXXIII). Remember to cite a teaching that has those words, because I can cite teachings to the opposite that have those words.

Far as I know, there are no teachings worded like that
.
Exactly. Yet there are teachings by Popes saying that any man who is a heretic, who is elevated to the Office of the Papacy, would not be the Pope.
Many saints explicitly teach that a Pope who becomes a heretic ceases to be Pope.


All you need to do is get one of the pope's superiors to make the pronunciation and impose the censure and everyone will believe it.


Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
The dogma teaches that we must be subject to the pope for our hope of salvation - sedevacantists add the exception; "unless you don't believe he is the pope" - they then make their exception to the dogma, dogma itself while insisting they're doing no such thing. How is it possible to argue the sedevacantist opinion at all when the sedevacantists hold such a position as that?

Please explain how you are entirely subject to the Pope.


Paraphrasing St. Thomas More's last words -  I am the pope's good subject, but God's first.

Nothing complicated at all.




Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
We cannot be subject to him if we opine he is not the pope - but per the dogma, we must be subject to him if we want to get to heaven. This is my main reason to believe he is the pope - I cannot get to heaven unless I am his subject. You and the sedevacantists are wholly content to have figured out how to get to heaven without being subject to him, the rest of us haven't figured out how you're able to do that, when it's something we know we cannot do.

How would you get to heaven if you had died between the death of PPiusXI and the election of PPiusXII? There was no Pope living for you to be subject to. As soon as you figure out how to be subject to the Pope during that interregnum then you can answer your own question.


Ah, but that is not asking an honest question. The question is - how would you get to heaven when you are not the pope's subject?



Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
You just don't get it.
There is nothing to stop a pope from setting up an evil mass and etc.

What is the definition of the gates of hell? How is the Church indefectible?
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: An even Seven

A couple of questions.
1. Is Francis a member of the Catholic Church?
2. Does he profess the true Faith?

No and no. That is my opinion and I'm sure that is also your opinion and likely is the opinion of everyone here at CI and likely 99.9% of the trad population on earth.

We can all together or individually jump up and down about it, stomp our feet, docuмent in triplicate each of his errors to serve as indisputable proof, have video evidence, take it to the Vatican, show it to the entire hierarchy, post it all on youtube, facebook, twitter and broadcast it on every TV, internet and radio channel on earth 24 hours a day for 10 years - and he would still be the pope. All everyone would have accomplished is a colossal waste of time while risking losing their soul in the process - for no reason at all.


So your belief in a nutshell is, a person who is neither a member of the Church nor professes the true faith is the Pope. I truly hope that one day you will open your eyes and see how demonic this opinion is. How deceived you are. If you truly believe he is Pope then you have most definitely judged the Pope. SV's merely say that Francis can't be Pope while fully believing in Catholic Dogma that when there is a Pope, we are subject to him. You claim that a non-Catholic is the Pope and that you are subject to him, A NON-CATHOLIC.


Well then, please go ahead and answer what all the above human efforts could accomplish. And please, do not use Catholic teachings to vindicate sedevacantism, I will not acknowledge them. Always remember, sedevacantism is a doctrine of man, not a doctrine of the Church - the Church has never taught sedevacantism.

If you will please use only teachings from sedevacantist popes and saints, I will not miss a word.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 10, 2017, 09:38:56 AM
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Stubborn

Well then, please go ahead and answer what all the above human efforts could accomplish. And please, do not use Catholic teachings to vindicate sedevacantism, I will not acknowledge them. Always remember, sedevacantism is a doctrine of man, not a doctrine of the Church - the Church has never taught sedevacantism.

If you will please use only teachings from sedevacantist popes and saints, I will not miss a word.

My previous post is filled with enough facts that you cannot refute. Too many unanswered questions. You are so hypocritical to say that SV's cannot use Catholic Teachings to vindicate SVism (i.e. that a heretic can't be Catholic) when you constantly use Catholic teachings to try to prove EENS. They are on par with each other. Can you name any other person who taught that a person cannot cease to be Catholic once he is one, besides Wathen?
BTW, when you said that you will not accept Catholic Teaching to prove a point, this is very obvious and diabolical. Meditate on that one for a while.


Ha!
Why not just completely obliterate what I said to suit what you have to say?

You certainly must know that you can no more use Catholic teaching to vindicate sedevacantism than Protestants can use the bible to vindicate Protestantism, but that's exactly what sedevacantists keep trying to do. Debating the understanding of the dogma EENS is not debating the understanding of the dogma of sedevacantism.

Again, the Catholic Church has never taught sedevacantism because it is a doctrine of man, not a doctrine of Christ. As such, you are attempting to use Catholic teaching to justify a doctrine of man.  

Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 10, 2017, 10:56:39 AM
Quote
PV said:
Does current church law FORCE anyone to attend the novus ordo?  No.
 Does church law FORCE anyone to accept V2?  No.
 FORCE anyone to receive communion in the hand?  No.
 FORCE anyone to eat meat on fridays?  No.
 Use planned parenthood?  Go to mass on Sat night?  Get an annulment?
 No, no and no.

And even seven said:
 The Catholic Church would never and has never done, promulgate, teach or allow these things. They are harmful whether forced or not. That's one of the reasons why we know it's not the real Church.


During the time of Arianism, was the Church not the real Church?  It is said that almost the entire world was infected with Arianism (except St Athanasius).  The Cardinals, Bishops, priests, etc believed in error, promoted it, condoned it, etc.  Even the Pope was not as direct as he could be.  The true heretics would say one thing and do another.  Preach the truth and then turn around and undermine it.  This is why arianism was formally condemned multiple times in a short span of 60 years - because the error kept evolving.

This time period is VERY consistent with ours.  It was a doctrinal nightmare, filled with error, half-truths and heretics.  Yet, the Church has never declared that the arian time period was sedevecant, or that the Church wasn't the Church, or that there were mass vacancies in the cardinal, bishop or priestly offices.

How do you explain this?
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 11, 2017, 04:14:40 AM
Quote from: An even Seven

Sedevacantism is not a Dogma. Catholics who become heretics do not stay Catholic is of divine law.
"Once a Catholic, always a Catholic" is a doctrine of man; that man's name was Fr. Wathen.


You confuse the prot heresy; "once saved always saved", which is a doctrine of man, with the Catholic truth; "once a Catholic always a Catholic".

At some point, you must be honest with yourself and admit that sedevacantism is not a teaching of the Catholic Church, that it really and actually is the teaching of a man.  

Do not keep fooling yourself, your salvation is *not* dependent upon the status of the pope. Your salvation is wholly dependent upon you persevering in the Catholic faith and dying in sanctifying grace, without mortal sin on your soul. You can do this, we can and are all expected to persevere, regardless of the status of the pope, regardless of whether he be a fraud or a living saint.

You can be subject to the pope and you must be subject to him regardless of your opinion of his status - no one gave you the right to declare yourself not subject to him no matter what your opinion of his status is.

The dogma states quite completely; Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Madmen changed that dogma into a dangerous doctrine, a doctrine of man, by adding the proviso at the end; ".....be subject to the Roman Pontiff, unless you don't believe he is the pope".

This addition is what the sedevacantists add, while they insist they are doing no such thing. Their reasoning is that the pope is not the pope - as if they actually know this, as if their opinion has been dogmatically defined or a divinely revealed truth - instead of their opinion. Sedevacantists have the highest regard for their own opinion that I know of.

I understand that as a rule, sedevacantists do not differentiate between, "being subject to the pope" and "blindly submitting to the pope", but if you strive to understand the difference, you will discover that as usual, it was with exacting reason that the Holy Ghost used the word "subject" instead of "submit". To use "submit" would not even be Catholic. Hopefully you'll at least think about it.

 
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 11, 2017, 06:43:15 AM
Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
You confuse the prot heresy; "once saved always saved", which is a doctrine of man, with the Catholic truth; "once a Catholic always a Catholic".

Please cite the source of this elusive "once a Catholic, always a Catholic" "doctrine".

I thought the prot heresy comparison should suffice, since this "truth" is not at all elusive to Catholics, it is by virtue of their baptism which marks their souls with an indelible character, identifying them as a Catholic forever. Or are you claiming there are no Catholics in hell now? Where is that "doctrine"?



Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
You can be subject to the pope and you must be subject to him regardless of your opinion of his status

Please tell me what it means to be subject to the Pope and where you get your opinion from.


It means that for our hope of salvation, we must be the pope's subject, but always God's first. Most (all?) sedevacantists leave the part out about being subject to God first, doing this serves only one purpose - as fuel for their "must blindly submit" ideas, but those ideas only work - and work well, only so long as they leave God out of the formula entirely.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 11, 2017, 12:26:16 PM
Quote
You MUST have Catholic faith to be CATHOLIC.

I agree totally.  What I disagree with is the APPLICATION of this principle.

My point on Arianism (and any other doctrinally tumultuous time in Church history, like the Protestant revolt), is that (to my knowledge) the Church has never declared 'there were mass vacancies' in the cardinal, bishop or priestly offices.  Why not?  Because it really doesn't matter.

My point is this:  Nowhere in the history of the Church (even when there were 3 competing 'popes') has the Church said, inferred, or implied that a Catholic is BOUND in DUTY to MAKE A DETERMINATION or DECLARATION on who is or isn't pope.  

Nor is any catholic BOUND to sign any declaration on who they are/aren't following in regards to their Bishop/Pope.

Nor has there EVER been any teaching or theological theory that any Catholic is IN COMMUNION WITH an erroneous/heretical bishop/pope unless they formally declare their disapproval of them.

So, why in our day and age, does such an theoretical and illogical ERROR such as 'being in communion with' so-and-so bad bishop/pope find such a following?

What does 'in communion with' even mean?

If such a formal declaration is necessary, who decides what is formal and what isn't?  Who decides if such a declaration is sufficient or not?  Where in canon law, church history, the roman ritual, church law, can such an answer be found?  Name one theologian who taught such a thing?

Answer:  There is nothing in Church history to suggest anything of the sort.  The principles of sedevacantism are catholic.  The purpose of them is to teach the faithful to avoid bad clergy and their errors.  The problem is the APPLICATION of these principles, whereby certain groups are trying to FORCE catholics to make determinations which they are unqualified to do, and which are unnecessary.

Who is or isn't a heretic is a distraction when it's erroneously made into a 'litmus test' of catholicism; keeping the Faith is the ultimate goal and ultimate litmus test.  This can be accomplished regardless of one's opinion on the pope.

Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: drew on January 11, 2017, 07:32:14 PM
Quote from: Pax Vobis
Quote
You MUST have Catholic faith to be CATHOLIC.

I agree totally.  What I disagree with is the APPLICATION of this principle.

My point on Arianism (and any other doctrinally tumultuous time in Church history, like the Protestant revolt), is that (to my knowledge) the Church has never declared 'there were mass vacancies' in the cardinal, bishop or priestly offices.  Why not?  Because it really doesn't matter.

My point is this:  Nowhere in the history of the Church (even when there were 3 competing 'popes') has the Church said, inferred, or implied that a Catholic is BOUND in DUTY to MAKE A DETERMINATION or DECLARATION on who is or isn't pope.  

Nor is any catholic BOUND to sign any declaration on who they are/aren't following in regards to their Bishop/Pope.

Nor has there EVER been any teaching or theological theory that any Catholic is IN COMMUNION WITH an erroneous/heretical bishop/pope unless they formally declare their disapproval of them.

So, why in our day and age, does such an theoretical and illogical ERROR such as 'being in communion with' so-and-so bad bishop/pope find such a following?

What does 'in communion with' even mean?

If such a formal declaration is necessary, who decides what is formal and what isn't?  Who decides if such a declaration is sufficient or not?  Where in canon law, church history, the roman ritual, church law, can such an answer be found?  Name one theologian who taught such a thing?

Answer:  There is nothing in Church history to suggest anything of the sort.  The principles of sedevacantism are catholic.  The purpose of them is to teach the faithful to avoid bad clergy and their errors.  The problem is the APPLICATION of these principles, whereby certain groups are trying to FORCE catholics to make determinations which they are unqualified to do, and which are unnecessary.

Who is or isn't a heretic is a distraction when it's erroneously made into a 'litmus test' of catholicism; keeping the Faith is the ultimate goal and ultimate litmus test.  This can be accomplished regardless of one's opinion on the pope.



I think you have a very good post here.  Sedevacantists have drawn logical but unnecessary conclusions from good principles.

I do not know any sedevacantist organizations, excepting Michael Dimond, that believes in dogma qua dogma.  They all believe that dogma does not have to be taken literally.  Everyone holds that the 1949 Holy Office Letter sent to Cardinal Cushing in Boston censoring Fr. Feeney is a "magisterial" docuмent that must be accepted by every Catholic.  This docuмent overturned every dogma touching upon what is necessary as a necessity of means for salvation.  These sedevacantist organizations all hold that the good-willed Muslim, Jєω, Hindu, Protestant, etc., etc. can be in a state of grace and obtain salvation.  So why should they worry about Francis or anyone else?  All that is necessary for salvation is the 'desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes' which cannot even be denied to the "good-willed" modernist.  

The Letter presupposed the principle that there exists a distinction (or rather, disjunction) between dogma and the words used to express it.  The dogma is one thing, a divine truth, but the words that are used to define the truth are only a human approximation of that truth which necessarily must be continually revised and purged of human accretions to develop greater purity of expression.  This is the modernists principle of dogmatic evolution.  It was the first principle declared by Pope John XXIII at the opening bell of Vatican II as overriding theme of the Council.  It was quoted by Benedict XVI as the first principle of his "hermeneutic of reform," and Msgr. Thomas Rosica recently said in an address in New York that it is the first principle of Francis' theology and that which he holds in common with every one of his conciliar predecessors.  Unfortunately, excepting Michael Dimond, it is a first principle shared by all sedevacantists.  Rejecting the literal meaning of dogma, they have no grounds calling anyone a heretic.

Those who reject dogma replace it with the person of the pope who becomes the rule of faith.  And since no one knows what the pope believes, the rule of faith becomes whatever the pope does.  This means the pope must be free of even material heresy.  This is the common ground shared between most sedevacantists and conservative Catholics.  The conservative believes the pope is the rule of faith concludes everything he does must be acceptable and the sedevacantist concludes that he cannot be pope.  For faithful Catholics, the rule of faith is dogma.  

But aside for this, sedevacantists are parked on a dead-end street.  They hold that they are (or have) the only legitimate priests and bishops in the entire Church and yet, their Church does not have a pope.  They agree that the Church founded by Jesus Christ was and is constituted by a supreme pastor, the pope, and yet they have none and have no plans of ever getting one.  They should not discuss the question with anyone until they have their own council and elect their own pope.  The very term, "sedevacantist," is really a declaration in itself of manifest error.  They are sedevacantists because they cannot produce a pope which is a necessary attribute of the Church founded by Jesus Christ.  There have been many who have recognized this defect and have tried to produce their own pope but the results have in every instance been ridiculous.  There have more than a dozen claimants to the papacy since the 1970s but none of them have more than a handful of followers.  Does anyone think that they will ever get one that would be acceptable to a plurality of them?  They cannot even agree among themselves as to the legitimacy of each other's orders.  

Those that are bashful about electing a pope expect that God will directly intervene miraculously filling the office, or that we are in the end-times and there will be no more popes.  Either answer is painfully insufficient.  If they have the authority to declare the office empty then they have the authority and obligation to fill it.  Ultimately, the position is a theological conclusion of despair.  

I communicated with Michael Diamond indirectly several years ago.  I said to his representative that we can continue the discussion of sedevacantism when two things occur: one, he gets a pope, and secondly, when a conciliar pope engages the attribute of infallibility of the Church to bind the Catholic conscience to doctrinal and/or moral error.  Neither has happened.  And the fact that the conciliar popes, despite having complete control of the Church's administration, have never infallibly bound doctrinal or moral error upon the Church is prima facie evidence that they are at least legally holding the office because God has prevented them from binding error.  What is more to the point, they know it and have gone to extreme ends to give the impression of the legitimate exercise of papal authority, such as seen in Francis' recent synodial process to make his attack on sacramental marriage appear as the result of a collegial consensus.

There is no precedence for heretics losing their office by a declaration of the faithful in the old or new testament.  Caiaphas was heretic who denied the resurrection of the body and only accepted the Pentateuch as divinely inspired scripture.  He sat on the "chair of Moses" and the faithful were directed to obey him in the legitimate exercise of his office but that did not require the man born blind to obey him in opposition to revealed Truth.  

The attribute of indefectibility and exactly how it is preserved in the Church is open to theological speculation.  No matter what the conciliarists have done regarding doctrine, morals, worship or discipline, their errors have never been accepted by the universal Church.  I raised eight children and none of them ever attended a Novus Ordo service.  I have over 35 grandchildren and none of them have ever attended a Novus Ordo service.  I know many other faithful Catholics who can say the same thing.  This is the evidence of indefectibility.  The true faith and worship have never been entirely absent for those willing to look for it.

Lastly, this thread is titled, "The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium." The article from Si Si No No quotes Fr. Salaverri, in his Sacrae Theologiae Summa saying, "Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticuм, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility."  I believe that it was Fr. Salaverri who actually coined the term.  The "authentic magisterium" or "authorized magisterium" only means that the persons acting actually is the person who holds the office.  Anything a legitimate pope does is an act of the "authentic magisterium."  The reason the term is very important is because it was incorporated Lumen Gentium and from there into the 1989 Profession of Faith as the third added proposition.  Those taking this profession vow unqualified obedience to the "authentic magisterium" without any qualifications whatsoever.  This obedience is enforced by canon law which imposes a "just penalty."  A vow of unqualified obedience can only be made to God alone.

Drew
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: drew on January 11, 2017, 08:42:52 PM
Quote from: GJC
Quote from: drew
And since no one knows what the pope believes,


I stopped reading after this...



What one believes is a matter of the internal forum.  You only know what someone believes by what they do, by their external acts, that can be perceived unless they tell you or God gives you the extraordinary grace of reading the state of souls.

Nearly every group of sedevacantists deny the literal meaning of dogma.  That is a sorry fact.  So for them, it is not and cannot be the rule of faith.  For them the rule of faith by default becomes the pope and that rule of faith is grounded in what the pope does, by his external acts.

The biggest problem with this is it is not true.  The next biggest problem for sedevacantists is that they have no pope, they have no rule of faith and they have no plans of ever getting one.

It is a dead end.
 
Drew

 
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Cantarella on January 11, 2017, 10:43:48 PM
Quote from: Drew
I do not know any sedevacantist organizations, excepting Michael Dimond, that believes in dogma qua dogma.  They all believe that dogma does not have to be taken literally.  Everyone holds that the 1949 Holy Office Letter sent to Cardinal Cushing in Boston censoring Fr. Feeney is a "magisterial" docuмent that must be accepted by every Catholic.  This docuмent overturned every dogma touching upon what is necessary as a necessity of means for salvation.  These sedevacantist organizations all hold that the good-willed Muslim, Jєω, Hindu, Protestant, etc., etc. can be in a state of grace and obtain salvation.  So why should they worry about Francis or anyone else?  All that is necessary for salvation is the 'desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes' which cannot even be denied to the "good-willed" modernist. 


^^^^ True.

And this absurdity completely baffles my mind! It does not make any sense, whatsoever.

Quote
But aside for this, sedevacantists are parked on a dead-end street.  They hold that they are (or have) the only legitimate priests and bishops in the entire Church and yet, their Church does not have a pope.  They agree that the Church founded by Jesus Christ was and is constituted by a supreme pastor, the pope, and yet they have none and have no plans of ever getting one.  They should not discuss the question with anyone until they have their own council and elect their own pope.  The very term, "sedevacantist," is really a declaration in itself of manifest error.  They are sedevacantists because they cannot produce a pope which is a necessary attribute of the Church founded by Jesus Christ.  There have been many who have recognized this defect and have tried to produce their own pope but the results have in every instance been ridiculous.  There have more than a dozen claimants to the papacy since the 1970s but none of them have more than a handful of followers.  Does anyone think that they will ever get one that would be acceptable to a plurality of them?  They cannot even agree among themselves as to the legitimacy of each other's orders. 

Those that are bashful about electing a pope expect that God will directly intervene miraculously filling the office, or that we are in the end-times and there will be no more popes.  Either answer is painfully insufficient.  If they have the authority to declare the office empty then they have the authority and obligation to fill it.  Ultimately, the position is a theological conclusion of despair. 


I agree that this is the case for the strict sedevacantist; but may be not so, for the adherents of the Thesis of Des Lauries (Cassiciacuм, sedeprivationism) which the strict sedevacantists actually reject. In this Thesis, the cardinals and bishops (even the conciliar ones) still retain the power to legitimately elect a new Pontiff, once they return to the public and integral profession of the Faith. They still retain office. Therefore, the hierarchy is still there and electing of a Pope through legitimate means (not an illegitimate conclave) would be possible. Unfortunately, as it stands today, and this is quite incomprehensible to me, I do not know of any sedeprivationist priest of bishop who does not fall into the error of dissolving the EESN dogma (as you just described in your excellent post above), just as much as their conciliar counterparts.

But then again, so does the SSPX.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 12, 2017, 05:06:03 AM
Quote from: GJC
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
You confuse the prot heresy; "once saved always saved", which is a doctrine of man, with the Catholic truth; "once a Catholic always a Catholic".

Please cite the source of this elusive "once a Catholic, always a Catholic" "doctrine".

I thought the prot heresy comparison should suffice, since this "truth" is not at all elusive to Catholics, it is by virtue of their baptism which marks their souls with an indelible character, identifying them as a Catholic forever. Or are you claiming there are no Catholics in hell now? Where is that "doctrine"?



Sorry my friend you just don't get, and your problem is with God, Pope Leo XIII, and St Augustine.

Are there Catholics in hell? Yes.... fornicators, thieves, liars....etc and there are apostates and heretics who forfeit the name Catholic because of their grievous crime.

You unfortunately continue to subscribe to the erroneous modernist saying "once a Catholic always a Catholic.



It's not my problem, it's the sedevacantists' problem. Once a Catholic always a Catholic is true by virtue of baptism. We are marked for eternity with an indelible character on our souls which identifies us as one of the Church's Militant, this character is what identifies us as a Catholic. Good or evil, apostate heretic, saint or sinner, we keep that mark identifying us as Catholics forever, it can never be erased.

Sedevacantists cannot accept this because it devastates their opinion that the pope is not Catholic therefore not the pope. It therefore is the sedevacantists who make it  erroneous in order to foolishly maintain their opinion - as if their salvation is wholly dependent upon their opinion of popes' status.    

 
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 12, 2017, 05:40:18 AM
Quote from: An even Seven

I don't why you think that I believe there are no Catholics in hell. Catholics in mortal sin believe as the Church does. They can simply go to confession. Heretics are not in the Church and cannot go to confession without first reconciling with the Church and abjuring their heresy.

This is a lie in most instances as you must agree to there having been countless souls who've left the faith, apostatized, became heretics, murderers, etc., then returned without any abjuration at all. They simply went to confession, which is something only Catholics can - and the Church teaches - must do.  

Your opinion above is most certainly not true if the heretic is in danger of death, and it's a flat out lie for those whom the Church has not officially imposed the censure upon, but even for those whom the censure was officially imposed:
Quote from: Trent
Nevertheless, for fear lest any may perish on this account, it has always been very piously observed in the said Church of God, that there be no reservation at the point of death, and that therefore all priests may absolve all penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins and censures whatever: and as, save at that point of death, priests have no power in reserved cases, let this alone be their endeavour, to persuade penitents to repair to superior and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution.




Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: An even Seven

Please tell me what it means to be subject to the Pope and where you get your opinion from.


It means that for our hope of salvation, we must be the pope's subject, but always God's first. Most (all?) sedevacantists leave the part out about being subject to God first, doing this serves only one purpose - as fuel for their "must blindly submit" ideas, but those ideas only work - and work well, only so long as they leave God out of the formula entirely.

So....being subject to the Pope means we must be the Pope's subject. Wow... that is...amazing.
 :laugh1:

Was not Christ subject to His parents? "And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart. Luke 2:51
Are not subordinates subject to their superiors? Children to their parents? - in all things except sin?

Do you understand what the word "subject" in this context even means? I'm serious, I've come to believe that sedevacantists do not understand what that word even means, they seem to think it means "submit", or "blindly submit", or "mindlessly submit" - is that what you think too?

Do you have any understanding at all of the Catholic principle of being subject to our superiors in all things except sin?
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 12, 2017, 08:28:53 AM
Quote
P V said:
I agree totally.  What I disagree with is the APPLICATION of this principle.

 My point on Arianism (and any other doctrinally tumultuous time in Church history, like the Protestant revolt), is that (to my knowledge) the Church has never declared 'there were mass vacancies' in the cardinal, bishop or priestly offices.  Why not?  Because it really doesn't matter.  

 It does matter. These men when they lose the faith lose jurisdiction. They fall out of communion with the Church. Here is a quote from Pope Celestine I from St. Robert’s “On the Roman Pontiff”:
Pope St. Celestine:
“The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated. For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever.”

If it matters so much, then why hasn't the Church declared that so-and-so lost his office on x day because he said x?  I'm unaware of ANYTIME the Church has ever said such a thing.  Please enlighten me.


Quote
P V said:
My point is this:  Nowhere in the history of the Church (even when there were 3 competing 'popes') has the Church said, inferred, or implied that a Catholic is BOUND in DUTY to MAKE A DETERMINATION or DECLARATION on who is or isn't pope.  

 We are bound to avoid heretics in Sacred Scripture (Titus 3:10). If a man is a heretic and is unanimously elected Pope, that election is null and void (Pope Paul IV). It is because they are not Catholic and they have nothing in common with Catholics. We must always be aware of errors and condemn them when we see them.

You didn't answer the question.  Show me 1) where has the church declared Paul VI to be a heretic?  2) where has the Church authorized anyone but Herself to declare Paul VI a heretic?  3)Where has the Church made it a LAW that I must decide such matters, in the absense of Her decision?

Quote
P V said:
Who is or isn't a heretic is a distraction when it's erroneously made into a 'litmus test' of catholicism; keeping the Faith is the ultimate goal and ultimate litmus test.  This can be accomplished regardless of one's opinion on the pope.
 
I agree that someone else’s faith does not matter to the individual. He must keep the faith regardless if there is a pope or not. What matters is when one starts saying that Catholics are in the same Church as heretics. If a person believes that Bishop/Priest/Pope are/is a heretic and considers them a catholic, then that means they don’t believe in the unity of faith. Every Catholic must have the same faith as the next Catholic. No Catholic can disbelieve in even one Doctrine. If the heretic is Catholic, why not the Protestant who has been validly Baptized?

There are numerous quotes from saints and Scripture that we must never be in communion with people who do not share the same faith.

Define 'in communion with'.  That's a modernist term; it's only been around since vatican2.

Show me one theologian's opinion or example from Church history where a lay catholic was REQUIRED to make a determination on the pope's status when such status had not been declared by the Church.

It doesn't exist.  All that exists are quotes from popes, saints, and theologians who say that 'heretics lose office' or 'unbelievers are not part of the church'.  This is all well and good.  But, practically, it's not mentioned in canon law or anywhere else on HOW TO APPLY these principles.  Therefore, until the CHURCH decides, we have no authority to do so.  If you disagree, show me ONE church docuмent that says otherwise.

Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 12, 2017, 11:54:25 AM
Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Trent
Nevertheless, for fear lest any may perish on this account, it has always been very piously observed in the said Church of God, that there be no reservation at the point of death, and that therefore all priests may absolve all penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins and censures whatever: and as, save at that point of death, priests have no power in reserved cases, let this alone be their endeavour, to persuade penitents to repair to superior and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution.

Trent's teaching applies to Catholics. To be Catholic you must be Baptized and Profess the True Faith. You would know this if you read the quote I gave you which you boldly declared you would not accept (or read my signature). Both of those things must be present if the priest is to give absolution (among the other dispositions for that Sacrament).

Yes, Trent's teaching applies to only Catholics. Your problem is that Trent's teaching does not meet your personal criteria of what a Catholic is.  

I told you why I do not accept using the Church's teachings whenever they are referenced in an effort to vindicate sedevacantism - sedevacantism simply cannot be vindicated by using Catholic teaching any more than Protestantism can be vindicated by using the bible.

You also have yet to provide any teaching at all from any sedevacantist saint, father or pope - which is absolutely necessary in order to vindicate sedevacantism.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: An even Seven


Please tell me what it means to be subject to the Pope and where you get your opinion from.


Was not Christ subject to His parents? "And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them. And his mother kept all these words in her heart. Luke 2:51
Are not subordinates subject to their superiors? Children to their parents? - in all things except sin?

Do you understand what the word "subject" in this context even means? I'm serious, I've come to believe that sedevacantists do not understand what that word even means, they seem to think it means "submit", or "blindly submit", or "mindlessly submit" - is that what you think too?

Do you have any understanding at all of the Catholic principle of being subject to our superiors in all things except sin?


Do you have any understanding at all of the Catholic principle of being subject to our superiors in all things except sin?

Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 12, 2017, 01:27:40 PM
Quote from: GJC
On the contrary, it is with Pope Leo XIII: ""No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic"

This has been pointed out to you a few times now.

Yes, it has been repeated often enough, all you keep doing is misquoting it, along with the other popes and the fathers.

Pope Leo XIII begins.......
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.

Of course this is certainly true, I am of course in complete agreement with this. This has nothing to do with those already Catholic, he is speaking about those "outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church."

The quote from Pope Leo XIII that you posted above is not saying what you want it to say either - please note that the pope is saying it takes more than disbelief in heresies to be Catholic. Certainly I am complete agreement with this as well. Again, he is speaking about those "outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church."

Your post is another shining example of why I ask sedevacantists not to use Catholic teaching to vindicate sedevacantism.

Thank you.

Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: drew on January 12, 2017, 08:25:24 PM
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: drew


The biggest problem with this is it is not true.  The next biggest problem for sedevacantists is that they have no pope, they have no rule of faith and they have no plans of ever getting one.


We have the office which is what Christ instituted through Peter. During every papal interregnum the Church is with out a Pope, the office does not cease to exist. Same as now.

A Catholic's rule of faith is Scripture and Tradition as interpreted, defined and explained by the Church. It exists while there is no Pope reigning at any given time.

It is not a Catholic's job to elect a new Pope. It is our job to keep and proclaim the faith and condemn errors injurious to souls.


Scripture and Tradition are the sources of revelation.  "Scripture and Tradition as interpreted, defined and explained by the Church" is what dogma is.  For Catholics, the rule of faith is dogma.  But anyone who accepts the 1949 Holy Office Letter as a magisterial docuмent has discarded dogma as the rule of faith and replaced it with the pope.  This includes most sedevacantists who conclude for this very reason that every Catholic who does not remove a heretical pope from his office participates in his heresy.  The 1949 Holy Office Letter introduced the belief that there exists a disjunction between dogma and the words by which it is expressed.  This modernist principle is the corner stone of Vatican II and all conciliarist popes.  It is also unfortunately a fundamental belief of most sedevacantists, the SSPX and members of the resistance.  It is absurd to appeal to "scripture and tradition as interpreted, defined and explained by the Church" while rejecting dogma as the rule of faith.  

Every Catholic possesses a right to appeal to the Holy Father for a judgment on any matter concerning the faith,
Quote from: Second Council of Lyons, Denz. 466
The holy Roman Church holds the highest and complete primacy and spiritual power over the universal Catholic Church which she truly and humbly recognizes herself to have received with fullness of power from the Lord Himself in Blessed Peter, the chief or head of the Apostles whose successor is the Roman Pontiff.  And just as to defend the truth of Faith she is held before all other things, so if any questions shall arise regarding faith they ought to be defined by her judgment.  And to her anyone burdened with affairs pertaining to the ecclesiastical world can appeal; and in all cases looking forward to an ecclesiastical examination, recourse can be had to her judgment.

Quote from: First Vatican Council, Denz. 1830
And since the Roman Pontiff is at the head of the universal Church by the divine right of apostolic primacy, We teach and declare also that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical examination recourse can be had to his judgment.

Quote from: Can.  1417
§1. By reason of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, any member of the faithful is free to bring or introduce his or her own contentious or penal case to the Holy See for adjudication in any grade of a trial and at any stage of the litigation.
§2. Recourse brought to the Apostolic See, however, does not suspend the exercise of jurisdiction by a judge who has already begun to adjudicate a case except in the case of an appeal. For this reason, the judge can prosecute a trial even to the definitive sentence unless the Apostolic See has informed the judge that it has called the case to itself.

Therefore, since every Catholic possesses a right of appeal to the Holy Father, those who are able have a grave obligation of duty to fill the office.  The Office of the Papacy cannot willfully be left vacant without grave sin.

You admit that you "have the office."  Then you have the duty to fill it.  It is not your responsibility but the duty of the pope to "proclaim the faith and condemn errors injurious to souls" because he alone can engage the attribute of infallibility that the Church possesses by nature.  If you possess the jurisdictional judicial authority to determine guilt and impose ipso facto penalties then you possess the authority to fill the office.

You are just begging the question.  The "church" you belong to is defective of a necessary attribute without which, it cannot be the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Drew
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 12, 2017, 08:46:26 PM
Quote
Since you believe the Novus Ordo sect is the Catholic Church.

GJC...Look, Drew makes some great points and great distinctions.  And it reminds me to make this point:  The Church and the Truth are independent of men.  The Church was created by God and it is part Divine and part human.  Christ is the ultimate head of the Church, with the pope as His human right-hand man.  The pope is supposed to be a St Peter, not a Christ.  The Cardinals and Bishops are supposed to be St Athanasius' and St Augustine's, not Archangels with super powers.

The point is that the Church and Truth and Dogma are independent of our church leaders.  Many of you on here want to tie the Church to those who hold the offices.  This is not how it works.  Did the Church fail because St Peter denied Christ?  Because Judas committed sacrilege, betrayed Christ and committed ѕυιcιdє?  Because most of the Apostles lost the Faith and left Christ after the Garden of Eden?  No, no and no.

God does not need men to safeguard the Truth.  It's their job to, but if they fail, it doesn't mean they weren't part of the Church, it means they failed.  

THE CHURCH IS NOT DEFINED BY THE MEN WHO HOLD ITS OFFICES!!!!

Repeat that 10x and pray about it.

 
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: drew on January 12, 2017, 08:52:55 PM
Quote from: An even Seven
Vatican I:Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

This is what it means to be subject. Obedience to Church, not only in faith and morals, but in discipline and government.
How exactly are you obedient? You call a "true"(according to you) Pope a heretic and will not attend a "lawful" "mass" promulgated by him.


This follows from making the pope the rule of faith.  It ends up in a perverse overturning of Catholic morality, doctrine, discipline, worship and law.  

You have no idea what it means to "subject."  Obedience is a subsidiary virtue of Justice owed to a superior which is itself directly governed by the virtue of Religion.  It is the virtue of Religion which determines if an act of obedience is meritorious or sinful.  When the pope becomes the rule of faith you end up with the 1989 Profession of Faith that imposes an unqualified obedience to the "authentic magisterium" as an article in a Catholic creed. It is the logic of sedevacantism  

Drew
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 13, 2017, 05:20:36 AM
Quote from: GJC
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: GJC
On the contrary, it is with Pope Leo XIII: ""No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic"

This has been pointed out to you a few times now.

Yes, it has been repeated often enough, all you keep doing is misquoting it, along with the other popes and the fathers.

Pope Leo XIII begins.......
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.

Of course this is certainly true, I am of course in complete agreement with this. This has nothing to do with those already Catholic, he is speaking about those "outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church."

The quote from Pope Leo XIII that you posted above is not saying what you want it to say either - please note that the pope is saying it takes more than disbelief in heresies to be Catholic. Certainly I am complete agreement with this as well. Again, he is speaking about those "outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church."

Your post is another shining example of why I ask sedevacantists not to use Catholic teaching to vindicate sedevacantism.

Thank you.




Also, keep in mind that Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodoret, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. Just simple knowledge of Church history will tell you they were not  rebuking Protestants since the reformation wasn't for another 10-11 centuries.  Could it be Catholics who began to recede from the magisterium this list of heresies were drawn up against?


True, they were not rebuking the prots, they were the "Authoritative Magisterium" of those times, helping build the Church while it was only three or four hundred years old, still in it's infancy at the time. They drew up a long list of heresies "of their times" and warned of others not on their list, because by and large, there were no such thing as "heresies" yet.

In the prior paragraph, pope Leo XIII states:
Quote
Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a tertian portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages.


We see it is the Church who expelled the heretics, the Church made the declaration of heresy, the Church banished them and it was the Church who condemned the heretic authors. Neither you nor I nor every or any sedevacantist is "the Church". It is not within our right to usurp the authority of the Church and make the declaration only the Church can make.

This above point is ignored entirely every time this encyclical is quoted to show the sedevacantists' 'doctrine' that "heretics are not Catholic therefore out of the Church" in their zeal to use Catholic teaching to vindicate sedevacantism.  

Again, the Church has never taught sedevacantism, it is altogether futile to attempt to reference Catholic teaching in order to justify sedevacantism in any way.

It seems to me that if sedevacantists would investigate the Catholic teachings with the understanding that because the Church has never taught sedevacantism, there is no teaching they can possibly use in it's defense, that they would give up the whole idea and simply be the pope's good subject, but God's first.  
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 13, 2017, 05:56:51 AM
Quote from: drew
Quote from: An even Seven
Vatican I:Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

This is what it means to be subject. Obedience to Church, not only in faith and morals, but in discipline and government.
How exactly are you obedient? You call a "true"(according to you) Pope a heretic and will not attend a "lawful" "mass" promulgated by him.


This follows from making the pope the rule of faith.  It ends up in a perverse overturning of Catholic morality, doctrine, discipline, worship and law.  

You have no idea what it means to "subject."  Obedience is a subsidiary virtue of Justice owed to a superior which is itself directly governed by the virtue of Religion.  It is the virtue of Religion which determines if an act of obedience is meritorious or sinful.  When the pope becomes the rule of faith you end up with the 1989 Profession of Faith that imposes an unqualified obedience to the "authentic magisterium" as an article in a Catholic creed. It is the logic of sedevacantism  

Drew


I am pretty sure that sedevacantists do not know or cannot comprehend what "subject" means. They simply cannot differentiate between "subject" and "submit". There is some block they seem to have. This block apparently hinges on making the pope the rule of faith as you said.

Below you can see the sede believes that it is "my claim" and even that it "is absurd" that there is a difference, he sees the two as having the exact same meaning.    

From another forum's sede debate:
Quote from: Sede
Quote from: Stubborn
This is one reason the dogma, by Divine design, does not say we "must submit" and does say we must "be subject to".


These terms are synonymous.  Your claim is absurd.

Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 13, 2017, 10:31:19 AM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: drew
Quote from: An even Seven
Vatican I:Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

This is what it means to be subject. Obedience to Church, not only in faith and morals, but in discipline and government.
How exactly are you obedient? You call a "true"(according to you) Pope a heretic and will not attend a "lawful" "mass" promulgated by him.


This follows from making the pope the rule of faith.  It ends up in a perverse overturning of Catholic morality, doctrine, discipline, worship and law.  

You have no idea what it means to "subject."  Obedience is a subsidiary virtue of Justice owed to a superior which is itself directly governed by the virtue of Religion.  It is the virtue of Religion which determines if an act of obedience is meritorious or sinful.  When the pope becomes the rule of faith you end up with the 1989 Profession of Faith that imposes an unqualified obedience to the "authentic magisterium" as an article in a Catholic creed. It is the logic of sedevacantism Drew


I am pretty sure that sedevacantists do not know or cannot comprehend what "subject" means. They simply cannot differentiate between "subject" and "submit". There is some block they seem to have. This block apparently hinges on making the pope the rule of faith as you said.

Below you can see the sede believes that it is "my claim" and even that it "is absurd" that there is a difference, he sees the two as having the exact same meaning.    

From another forum's sede debate:
Quote from: Sede
Quote from: Stubborn
This is one reason the dogma, by Divine design, does not say we "must submit" and does say we must "be subject to".

These terms are synonymous.  Your claim is absurd.



It cannot be said often enough until it becomes the way everyone instinctively thinks.  I am subject to my husband; my children are subject to me.  I must submit to a lawful command (which presupposes that it is an command of reason for a good end) and my children must submit to me.  When the command of my husband is not lawful or my commands to my children are not lawful, there can be no submission because "we must obey God rather than man."  But the failure to submit to what is not lawful does not in any way alter my being subject to my husband or my children being subject to me.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 15, 2017, 11:41:20 AM
Quote
To say I need a declaration by the Church (that such and such is a heretic) when they clearly deny a Dogma already infallibly defined, means you don't really have 100% confidence in that Dogma.

This is absolutely NOT how the church works.  Canon law defines a process whereby the person is accused of heresy, given a chance to recant, and then formally declared excommunicated, etc.  Even Martin Luther, who made his heresies public, was given a trial and a chance to recant.  There is a reason it's called canon "law"...because law requires a PROCESS.

You are not the church and you cannot deem anyone a FORMAL heretic.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 15, 2017, 12:47:03 PM
Quote from: GJC

All I can decipher from this post is that you do not have total faith in what has already been defined. If anyone denies a Dogma, sacrament.... they are a heretic, or at a minimum an "erring Catholic" and whether they would be culpable (which would be hard to not believe in this age of information)  would be outside the Catholic Church. See Pius XII

To say I need a declaration by the Church (that such and such is a heretic) when they clearly deny a Dogma already infallibly defined, means you don't really have 100% confidence in that Dogma.



I understand you cannot decipher what I said. The thing is, what I said is what the Church said, and what the Church said does not need deciphering, it needs to be understood as it is written.

To say that *you* get to decide the status of the pope because *you* do *not* need a declaration by the Church, does not mean that I lack faith in that Dogma - I would also ask, "which dogma"?

It means that you must think it's a Church teaching that She has given you the right to usurp an authority which, when it comes to the pope, no one on earth even has.    

Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 16, 2017, 05:36:02 AM
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: An even Seven
Trent's teaching applies to Catholics. To be Catholic you must be Baptized and Profess the True Faith. You would know this if you read the quote I gave you which you boldly declared you would not accept (or read my signature). Both of those things must be present if the priest is to give absolution (among the other dispositions for that Sacrament).

Yes, Trent's teaching applies to only Catholics. Your problem is that Trent's teaching does not meet your personal criteria of what a Catholic is.
 
LOL. You have no idea how to argue this because you are wrong. My definition of being a Catholic, which I got from Pius XII is someone who is Baptized and professes the true faith. It just so happens that my criteria is one and the same as the Catholic Church.


I really do not want to spell it all out for you again, all I can say is what Pope Pius XII wrote, is meant to be understood as written. His writings are not the ambiguous, multi-meaning, modernist anti-Catholic confusion put out by the conciliar popes, what he wrote means what it says. Read it that way if you want to understand it at all.

 

Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Stubborn
I told you why I do not accept using the Church's teachings whenever they are referenced in an effort to vindicate sedevacantism - sedevacantism simply cannot be vindicated by using Catholic teaching any more than Protestantism can be vindicated by using the bible.

That’s something you will have to answer for. Your obstinate refusal to hear the Church. We are not arguing SV so good job on the straw man. We are arguing if a Catholic can cease to be Catholic, which the Church definitely declare that a Catholic can cease to be Catholic. These teachings are what you are refusing to believe.


We *are* arguing sedevacantism. Among it's doctrines, preached as if known via Divine Revelation, is "the pope is not Catholic therefore not pope because a non-Catholic cannot be head of that of which he is not a member."

But because the truth of the matter remains "Once a Catholic always a Catholic", it obliterates that particular sedevacantist doctrine and the whole position falls to pieces. There is simply no possible way that the sedevacantists can ever accept this truth, which explains why they absolutely and positively must wholly reject it.



Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Stubborn
Do you have any understanding at all of the Catholic principle of being subject to our superiors in all things except sin?

You are quite deceptive. I already gave you what the Vatican I explanation is. Then I asked what it meant to you. Your answer is to ask me the same question again? I answered it. But, oh yeah…you don’t accept Church teaching… I forgot. It’s hard to argue against a person who claims to be Catholic, like yourself, yet refuses to believe everything the Church teaches. Sad.


Ok, so instead of admitting you do not understand the difference between "subject" and "submit", you do the typical thing and accuse me of not believing Church teaching - as if by giving it the sede twist, you do, or do now lol.  

BTW, the First Vatican Council's decree does not answer the question I asked you.
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Stubborn

Do you have any understanding at all of the Catholic principle of being subject to our superiors in all things except sin?


Vatican I:Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience[/u], and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.[/b]


Do you understand what; "and true obedience" means? - this as opposed to "and blind obedience", which is what you are apparently claiming it means.
 
I'm not even sure why you posted that decree in reply to my question since it has nothing to do with my question at all.

Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 16, 2017, 07:24:44 AM
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Stubborn
I really do not want to spell it all out for you again, all I can say is what Pope Pius XII wrote, is meant to be understood as written. His writings are not the ambiguous, multi-meaning, modernist anti-Catholic confusion put out by the conciliar popes, what he wrote means what it says. Read it that way if you want to understand it at all.

He did mean it as it is written. Only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith. If one has the ability to think, one can deduce that one cannot be a member of the Church if one is not Baptized and does not profess the true faith. Very un-ambiguous. If one does not profess the true faith, one is not a member of the Church.
You cannot get around this.

Yes, you keep quoting that part, but you'd do better to concentrate on the the sentence that follows, which you conveniently keep neglecting: ....and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

You are not a legitimate authority - just fyi.



Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Stubborn
We *are* arguing sedevacantism. Among it's doctrines, preached as if known via Divine Revelation, is "the pope is not Catholic therefore not pope because a non-Catholic cannot be head of that of which he is not a member."

Sedevacantism is the idea that there are spaces of time where there is no Pope reigning.
What we are discussing is whether a Catholic can cease to become Catholic through heresy (i.e. diverting from the true faith). Which a Catholic can surely cease to be Catholic.

Again, you did not finish it off, I finished it off in bold for you........ "Sedevacantism is the idea that there are spaces of time where there is no Pope reigning while there is a pope reigning.

All I'm doing is being real.



Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Stubborn
But because the truth of the matter remains "Once a Catholic always a Catholic", it obliterates that particular sedevacantist doctrine and the whole position falls to pieces. There is simply no possible way that the sedevacantists can ever accept this truth, which explains why they absolutely and positively must wholly reject it.

You cannot win a debate by merely stating that you are correct. You have no evidence (Church teaching) on your side.

I have Church teaching on my side, but you reject the teaching because you have to -  in order to maintain your sedevacantism.  



Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Stubborn
Ok, so instead of admitting you do not understand the difference between "subject" and "submit", you do the typical thing and accuse me of not believing Church teaching - as if by giving it the sede twist, you do, or do now lol.
 
Submit- to accept or yield to the Authority of the Church.
Subject- to be under the control or jurisdiction of the Church.
These are my definitions of the terms. What are yours?

The pope is not "The Church". You still cannot admit that you do not know the difference so you replace "the pope" with "the Church".

As Drew already correctly stated, this is what happens when you make the pope the rule of faith.

Do you honestly need me to supply you a definition of being subject to our superiors in all things except sin?



Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Stubborn
Do you understand what; "and true obedience" means? - this as opposed to "and blind obedience", which is what you are apparently claiming it means.

True obedience means complying with the Church laws and submitting to the Church's authority. If one truly believes that the Church's Magisterium is free from error, then one could never say that She can universally promote erroneous laws and teachings.


The Church's present magisterium is full of error thanks mainly (but not entirely) to "the fifth column" as Fr. Wathen calls it. There is nothing complicated about this at all.



Quote from: An even Seven

Reflect on this please! From Denzinger:
PIUS IX
Naturalism, Communism, Socialism *

[From the Encyclical, "Quanta cura,'' Dec. 8, 1864]
1698 ... And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who "not enduring sound doctrine" [2 Tim. 4:3], contend that "without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its rights and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals." There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church.

Sec. VII. Errors Concerning Natural and Christian Ethics
1763 63. It is lawful to withhold obedience to legitimate rulers, indeed even to rebel (1, 2, 5, 20).


Ok, so you are apparently making me guess again at the reason for posting this so I'll take a stab at it.

I'm not the one *not* enduring sound doctrine, nor has the judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See object been for the general good of the Church, rather they have been for Her destruction. Even you don't deny this.

And yes, it goes against the error of withholding obedience against the Church's legitimate rulers, but does so because our obedience to God always comes first. Two wrongs do not make a right. We cannot obey the legitimate rulers as long as they want us to displease God, which is to say as long as they want us to sin - because our obedience to God always comes first. There is nothing complicated about this.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: drew on January 16, 2017, 08:38:10 AM
Quote from: An even Seven
Submit- to accept or yield to the Authority of the Church.
Subject- to be under the control or jurisdiction of the Church.
These are my definitions of the terms. What are yours?
Quote from: Stubborn
Do you understand what; "and true obedience" means? - this as opposed to "and blind obedience", which is what you are apparently claiming it means.

True obedience means complying with the Church laws and submitting to the Church's authority. If one truly believes that the Church's Magisterium is free from error, then one could never say that She can universally promote erroneous laws and teachings.

Reflect on this please! From Denzinger:
PIUS IX
Naturalism, Communism, Socialism *

[From the Encyclical, "Quanta cura,'' Dec. 8, 1864]
1698 ... And, we cannot pass over in silence the boldness of those who "not enduring sound doctrine" [2 Tim. 4:3], contend that "without sin and with no loss of Catholic profession, one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its rights and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals." There is no one who does not see and understand clearly and openly how opposed this is to the Catholic dogma of the plenary power divinely bestowed on the Roman Pontiff by Christ the Lord Himself of feeding, ruling, and governing the universal Church.

Sec. VII. Errors Concerning Natural and Christian Ethics
1763 63. It is lawful to withhold obedience to legitimate rulers, indeed even to rebel (1, 2, 5, 20).



“Reflect upon this please.”  Your post would be correct if the pope was the rule of faith.  He is not.  This is a serious error.

Obedience is owed to those to whom we are subject.  We are first subject to God.  This is the only obedience that is unconditional.  All others to whom we are subject, we are subject to them for God’s sake, and all acts of obedience to those to whom we are subject for God’s sake are always conditional.  They are conditional to that obedience that is unconditionally owed to God.  As St. Peter, the first pope infallibly said, “We ought to obey God rather than man.”

Therefore every act of obedience to man, no matter the man’s office or grace of state, is conditional and proximally governed by the virtue of Religion, whereby, under the virtue of Justice we first “render to God the things that are God’s.”  No pope possesses the authority to command what is in violation to the virtue of Religion, which includes nearly everything from Vatican II to this day.  Every act of obedience that violates the virtue of Religion is a sin.

Very few examples exist of the infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church being engaged since John XXIII.  Examples are John Paul II’s declaration on the impossibility of women admitted to Holy Orders and Paul VI prohibition of artificial contraception.  There are no examples of the infallible Extra-ordinary Magisterium being engaged.  When it is a question of infallibility, that is, the attribute of infallibility which God has endowed His Church, is engaged it is God declaring the truth through his vicar and obedience is unconditionally rendered to God who declares His truth.  But that is not what we are faced with.  What we are talking about is obedience to the pope by virtue of his grace of state engaging the fallible authentic ordinary magisterium.  This prudent and conditional obedience is entirely governed by the virtue of Religion.

But for those who make the pope the rule of faith, all dogma is subject to his personal interpretation and never reaches its term as a definitive declaration of truth.  The pope as the rule of faith has its formal imposition upon the Church in the 1949 Holy Office Letter which after affirming the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church  then said that this dogma was subject to however the Church (i.e.: the pope) wanted to interpret it.  It then took every dogma concerning salvation and interpreted them in a non-literal sense.  When the Letter was done, anyone who wanted to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes was a member of the Church, in the state of grace, and able to obtain salvation.  This teaching became the first principle in the new ecclesiology of Vatican II, the justification for Ecuмenism, the ground for Rahner’s Anonymous Christian, and eventually the Prayer Meeting at Assisi.

Your quote provided above refers to the question if “one can withhold assent and obedience to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to relate to the general good of the Church and its rights and discipline, provided it does not touch dogmas of faith or morals.”  This is addressing merely disciplinary questions. The problem is that Vatican II and its worldly spirit entirely “touch (upon) dogmas of faith and morals.”  Herein lays another problem with those who make the pope the rule of faith which includes the great majority of sedevacantists.  Matters that “touch upon dogmas of faith or morals” are treated as questions of mere discipline when they most certainly are not.

Divine worship is considered by SSPX, SSPV, the Resistance, etc., etc., as a subject of mere Church discipline governed by the independent will of the legislator.  Their objections are not with the pope changing the Mass but rather how he changed it.  None of these have appealed to the dogmas of the Church addressing the standing of immemorial ecclesiastical traditions which clearly deny that any pope has the legitimate authority to create a Novus Ordo of worship.  

In this respect there is no real difference between Conservative Catholics who say the pope is the rule of faith, therefore we must accept the Novus Ordo, and Sedevacantists who say the same thing therefore, they conclude the pope cannot be the pope.  Those faithful Catholics who hold dogma as the rule of faith reject the Novus Ordo because it is a direct violation of Catholic dogma.  Furthermore, it is harmful to the faith and the pope has no authority to harm the faith.  

Every Church father treating upon the parable of the cockle says that the cockle refers to heresy sown in the Church by her enemies.  The cockle is not wheat although by a miracle of grace it may so become.  The cockle is left and permitted to grow with the wheat until the harvest.  This is not always so.  In the judgment of Christ’s vicar, when the cockle is held to be more harmful to the wheat it can be and has been removed before the harvest.  St. Pius X in his condemnation of the heresy of Modernism identified it as a heresy within the bosom of the Church and very few of these heretics were uprooted before Vatican II.  Sedevacantist do not want to “suffer both to grow until the harvest.”  It is the “Lord of the harvest” or His vicar who will remove this cockle at its proper time.

Drew

Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 16, 2017, 02:31:39 PM
Quote from: GJC
Quote from: drew
Every Church father treating upon the parable of the cockle says that the cockle refers to heresy sown in the Church by her enemies.  The cockle is not wheat although by a miracle of grace it may so become.  The cockle is left and permitted to grow with the wheat until the harvest.  This is not always so.  In the judgment of Christ’s vicar, when the cockle is held to be more harmful to the wheat it can be and has been removed before the harvest.  St. Pius X in his condemnation of the heresy of Modernism identified it as a heresy within the bosom of the Church and very few of these heretics were uprooted before Vatican II.  Sedevacantist do not want to “suffer both to grow until the harvest.”  It is the “Lord of the harvest” or His vicar who will remove this cockle at its proper time.

Drew



FALSE!!! I will leave you a except from a sermon of St Augustine (Donatism) on this very topic to illustrate the point: "The words of our Lord are clear and explicit; for, when asked by His disciples to explain the parable, He said: The field is the world. And the good seed are the children of the kingdom. And the cockle are the children of the wicked one. And the enemy that sowed them, is the devil. But the harvest is the end of the world. And the reapers are the angels (Matt 13:38-39). After these words shall we believe, according to heretics, that the field spoken of is not the world, but only Africa? That the harvest will not take place at the end of the world, but in the present time, and that Donatus, the chief of the heretics, is the reaper? Ah! far from accepting such doctrines against the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself, let us patiently await the harvest which will take place in the whole world. We let the good seed, spread out in the world, grow up until the time appointed by the householder, and we suffer the cockle, oversowed among the good seed and growing up every where, to remain until the time of the harvest. But let us take heed, lest we be deceived by the language of these wicked men who, being as light as chaff, will be cast out of the barn, even before the Householder comes to separate them."

Clearly, in bold we see that heretics, apostates and in this case schismatics will be cast out of the barn (the Catholic Church) EVEN BEFORE the Householder comes to separate them from the world.

It never has been held, as some claim, that heretics are Catholics or in the Catholic Church. PERIOD!


The cockle were never "once Catholic".  
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 16, 2017, 02:47:22 PM
Let's ask this simple question:
At what point does one lose his catholic membership card?  Is it based on his interior thoughts only?  Or is it based on his explicit, public actions/words, etc?  If it's based externally, then what is the point of the coporal work of mercy such as 'admonishing the sinner'?  Or 'instructing the ignorant'?

Does not the Church decide these matters?  Does canon law not have a process whereby a scandalous person is examined and ordered to recant his errors?  Then, if he does not, such error is declared a heresy?

Who gives any cleric or layman the authority to 'fastrack' an error into a formal heresy?  What authority does anyone outside of the Church have of excommunicating anyone?

Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: drew on January 16, 2017, 03:56:42 PM
Quote from: GJC
Quote from: drew
Every Church father treating upon the parable of the cockle says that the cockle refers to heresy sown in the Church by her enemies.  The cockle is not wheat although by a miracle of grace it may so become.  The cockle is left and permitted to grow with the wheat until the harvest.  This is not always so.  In the judgment of Christ’s vicar, when the cockle is held to be more harmful to the wheat it can be and has been removed before the harvest.  St. Pius X in his condemnation of the heresy of Modernism identified it as a heresy within the bosom of the Church and very few of these heretics were uprooted before Vatican II.  Sedevacantist do not want to “suffer both to grow until the harvest.”  It is the “Lord of the harvest” or His vicar who will remove this cockle at its proper time.

Drew



FALSE!!! I will leave you a except from a sermon of St Augustine (Donatism) on this very topic to illustrate the point: "The words of our Lord are clear and explicit; for, when asked by His disciples to explain the parable, He said: The field is the world. And the good seed are the children of the kingdom. And the cockle are the children of the wicked one. And the enemy that sowed them, is the devil. But the harvest is the end of the world. And the reapers are the angels (Matt 13:38-39). After these words shall we believe, according to heretics, that the field spoken of is not the world, but only Africa? That the harvest will not take place at the end of the world, but in the present time, and that Donatus, the chief of the heretics, is the reaper? Ah! far from accepting such doctrines against the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself, let us patiently await the harvest which will take place in the whole world. We let the good seed, spread out in the world, grow up until the time appointed by the householder, and we suffer the cockle, oversowed among the good seed and growing up every where, to remain until the time of the harvest. But let us take heed, lest we be deceived by the language of these wicked men who, being as light as chaff, will be cast out of the barn, even before the Householder comes to separate them."

Clearly, in bold we see that heretics, apostates and in this case schismatics will be cast out of the barn (the Catholic Church) EVEN BEFORE the Householder comes to separate them from the world.

It never has been held, as some claim, that heretics are Catholics or in the Catholic Church. PERIOD!


So what are you disputing?  That the Church Fathers including St. Augustine did not consider heretics as cockle?  I do not know of any example taken from Haydock's Commentary or Lapide's Great Commentary or St. Thomas' Commentary that do not include heretics among the cockle.  Nor do I know any who have said that all heretics must necessarily be uprooted before the harvest.  They have defended the opinion that it is appropriate for the Church authorities to uproot heretics before the harvest if it is considered better for the "wheat."  This is all I have said.  

The heresy of Modernism is a good example of this fact.  Some were confronted and publically charged and eventually some were excommunicated, but the number heretics actually rooted up was very, very small.  Sedevacantists want to make themselves the "Lord of the harverst"   There is no reason why the "Lord of the harvest" cannot make a legitimate pope to replace the one they removed.

I contend that the reason for this is that most sedevacantists hold the pope as rule of faith which is a grave error.  If I am mistaken in this, just say so and I will address whatever other grounds you may have.

Drew
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: drew on January 16, 2017, 09:11:41 PM
Quote from: GJC
Quote from: drew
Quote from: GJC
Quote from: drew
Every Church father treating upon the parable of the cockle says that the cockle refers to heresy sown in the Church by her enemies.  The cockle is not wheat although by a miracle of grace it may so become.  The cockle is left and permitted to grow with the wheat until the harvest.  This is not always so.  In the judgment of Christ’s vicar, when the cockle is held to be more harmful to the wheat it can be and has been removed before the harvest.  St. Pius X in his condemnation of the heresy of Modernism identified it as a heresy within the bosom of the Church and very few of these heretics were uprooted before Vatican II.  Sedevacantist do not want to “suffer both to grow until the harvest.”  It is the “Lord of the harvest” or His vicar who will remove this cockle at its proper time.

Drew



FALSE!!! I will leave you a except from a sermon of St Augustine (Donatism) on this very topic to illustrate the point: "The words of our Lord are clear and explicit; for, when asked by His disciples to explain the parable, He said: The field is the world. And the good seed are the children of the kingdom. And the cockle are the children of the wicked one. And the enemy that sowed them, is the devil. But the harvest is the end of the world. And the reapers are the angels (Matt 13:38-39). After these words shall we believe, according to heretics, that the field spoken of is not the world, but only Africa? That the harvest will not take place at the end of the world, but in the present time, and that Donatus, the chief of the heretics, is the reaper? Ah! far from accepting such doctrines against the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself, let us patiently await the harvest which will take place in the whole world. We let the good seed, spread out in the world, grow up until the time appointed by the householder, and we suffer the cockle, oversowed among the good seed and growing up every where, to remain until the time of the harvest. But let us take heed, lest we be deceived by the language of these wicked men who, being as light as chaff, will be cast out of the barn, even before the Householder comes to separate them."

Clearly, in bold we see that heretics, apostates and in this case schismatics will be cast out of the barn (the Catholic Church) EVEN BEFORE the Householder comes to separate them from the world.

It never has been held, as some claim, that heretics are Catholics or in the Catholic Church. PERIOD!


So what are you disputing?  That the Church Fathers including St. Augustine did not consider heretics as cockle?  I do not know of any example taken from Haydock's Commentary or Lapide's Great Commentary or St. Thomas' Commentary that do not include heretics among the cockle.  Nor do I know any who have said that all heretics must necessarily be uprooted before the harvest.  They have defended the opinion that it is appropriate for the Church authorities to uproot heretics before the harvest if it is considered better for the "wheat."  This is all I have said.  

The heresy of Modernism is a good example of this fact.  Some were confronted and publically charged and eventually some were excommunicated, but the number heretics actually rooted up was very, very small.  Sedevacantists want to make themselves the "Lord of the harverst"   There is no reason why the "Lord of the harvest" cannot make a legitimate pope to replace the one they removed.

I contend that the reason for this is that most sedevacantists hold the pope as rule of faith which is a grave error.  If I am mistaken in this, just say so and I will address whatever other grounds you may have.

Drew


I am disputing the fact  that heretics are not Catholics or in the Church. I get the impression you are pushing this false idea.


The "false idea" is that you have the authority to impose ipso facto penalities and yet, do not have the authority to replace the pope you have deposed.  Even ipso facto penalities require a legal determination of guilt. You apparently hold that the pope is the rule of faith.  You should plainly say so for the record.  

Also, for the record, is an occult heretic outside the Church?  If not, why not?  And if so, how do you know he is outside the Church?  If an occult heretic is not outside the Church, then would you agree that it is not the heresy itself that puts him out of the Church?  Is it then the public nature of the crime that does so?  

Drew
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 17, 2017, 05:47:06 AM
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Stubborn
Yes, you keep quoting that part, but you'd do better to concentrate on the the sentence that follows, which you conveniently keep neglecting: ....and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed."

You are not a legitimate authority - just fyi.

Really???? You bolded the wrong portion. Right before it proves that Catholics can separate themselves from the Body. You are a deceiver.

You deceive yourself because you let your agenda blind you to what that means. Again, read what it says as it is written or you will never understand what he is saying.



Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Stubborn
I have Church teaching on my side, but you reject the teaching because you have to -  in order to maintain your sedevacantism.

PLEASE, please, please, cite your Church teaching then that claims that the Magisterium can err and Once a Catholic always a Catholic. I keep asking for the quotes and you keep avoiding it.

I think it's best if you read the OP as the OP explains it beautifully.



Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Stubborn
The pope is not "The Church". You still cannot admit that you do not know the difference so you replace "the pope" with "the Church".

As Drew already correctly stated, this is what happens when you make the pope the rule of faith.


What does this mean. I want you to explain it to me. The rule of Faith is Dogma. The Papacy is the symbol of unity and unity doesn't cease to exist when there is not a Pope in office.

The dogma decrees that we must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, not to the papacy. There is a pope in office, he is a terrible, heretical pope like all the conciliar popes have been, so if you take the blinders off, you will see there actually is a pope in office, which you must be subject to or you will never make it to heaven - THAT is the dogma.

Perhaps if you or I made the dogma, we would have left in the proviso that we must be subject to him unless we don't believe he is pope, but we don't make the Divine Laws, we're the peons who are bound to follow them.

So the best way to discern the difference between "being subject to" and "must submit to", is to use the dogma itself, which itself alone, is infallible.

We must, are bound to, have got to and absolutely have no choice in the matter if we want to get to heaven - we must wholly and meticulously submit to what the infallible dogma says, because if we don't, we lose all hope for our own salvation. This means that whoever does not submit to the dogma, they will end up spending their eternity suffering in hell.  

The dogma says we must be subject to the pope. We must submit ourselves unconditionally to this dogma, this Revealed Truth for our hope of salvation is what we must submit to unconditionally, not the pope.

Another example:
Quote from: Pope Paul VI
Source (https://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/apost_constitutions/docuмents/hf_p-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum.html)
....We wish that these Our decrees and prescriptions may be firm and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, to the extent necessary, the apostolic constitutions and ordinances issued by Our predecessors, and other prescriptions, even those deserving particular mention and derogation.


It was the people's responsibility to deny the wishes of pope Paul VI, not submit to his wish as they did - but they wrongly thought as you think, that they were bound to submit to the pope, regardless of what he wants. We must and can deny his wishes when he wants us to do anything that displeases God as the new "mass" certainly does. Our denying his wishes in no way affects his status as pope.

Unlike Quo Primum, there were no censures or penalties attached to his wish - what were people thinking? Why did they submit? Yes the pope erred in this wish, and he has been judged for the scandal - woe to him, but had the people denied his scandalous wish as is expected of good subjects, the devil would have had to come up with another plan. But because they all thought as you think, that his authority equals blind submission to him as if he is Christ or the Church  himself, they were fooled into taking the wide road they were offered and like him, will be judged for it.



Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Stubborn
The Church's present magisterium is full of error thanks mainly (but not entirely) to "the fifth column" as Fr. Wathen calls it. There is nothing complicated about this at all.


This is straight up heresy. The Magisterium cannot err. Again, cite a Church teaching that says it can. And while you are looking and coming up empty handed, start to really look at the issue and be honest.

See the OP, it explains it way better than I can.

The hierarchy is erring all over the place for the last 50 years at least, the teachings of conciliarists are either tainted with or are fully modernist. Either way, because of the errors and outright heresies taught, there is no denying the hierarchy is preaching error because the things taught contradict the OUM.    



Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Stubborn
Ok, so you are apparently making me guess again at the reason for posting this so I'll take a stab at it.

I'm not the one *not* enduring sound doctrine, nor has the judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See object been for the general good of the Church, rather they have been for Her destruction. Even you don't deny this.


The Church cannot attempt to destroy Herself. I believe that the VII sect definitely promulgates things that are destructive for souls. This is why it cannot be the Catholic Church.

The conciliar church is not the Catholic Church, I know you do not agree with the fifth column described by Fr. Wathen, which agrees with Pope Pius X's Pascendi, but it's right there, big as day.



Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Stubborn
And yes, it goes against the error of withholding obedience against the Church's legitimate rulers, but does so because our obedience to God always comes first. Two wrongs do not make a right. We cannot obey the legitimate rulers as long as they want us to displease God, which is to say as long as they want us to sin - because our obedience to God always comes first. There is nothing complicated about this.


If they are the Church's legitimate rulers, one cannot withhold obedience to them in matters pertaining to the faith. I have listed the Church's teaching about this on this thread.

We owe no obedience to even saintly rulers if they want us to do something that displeases God. It is because they have been promoting the heretical new faith that we avoid them and their teachings entirely. Even a saintly hierarchy cannot bind us to heresy - and they have not tried to bind us to anything Catholic anyway - that's just not what they, as conciliarists, do.

Sedevacantists get stuck here. They apparently believe that saintly rulers are in some way prevented and protected from spreading error, as if the ones in positions of authority are granted personal infallibility by virtue of their office. But if that were true, then they are either hypocrites for claiming the loss of office due to heresy, or they have no faith whatsoever in their own idea of infallibility.

No, good priests, bishops etc. can become heretical priests, bishops etc. while in and retaining their office. The people are expected to remain faithful to God, not submit to the heretical wishes of their superiors - even if "we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel....."



Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 17, 2017, 06:59:54 AM
An even Seven, you have embraced sedevacantism which obviously is a doctrine of man, same as Protestantism is a doctrine of man. Everything you read you make revolve around this doctrine which you've wholly embraced.

Best thing you can do is to find a sedevacantist pope or sedevacantist father or even a sedevacantist saint and quote them to vindicate your sedevacantism, but please, stop quoting from Catholic popes, fathers and saints - they do not teach sedevacantism, nor can one logically conclude sedevacantism from any of their teachings.



Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 17, 2017, 11:15:22 AM
An Even Seven, your failure to distinguish causes you to err.

Quote
Stubborn's errors- "Once a Catholic Always a Catholic"

 Church Teaching:
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”

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

Quote
Stubborn's errors- The Magisterium can err and be evil.

 Church Teaching:
Pope Leo XIII, Caritatis Studium (#6) July 25, 1898: The Magisterium “could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.”

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".

Pt 2:  We already have EVERY doctrine we NEED to be saved.  THERE ARE NO NEW DOCTRINES; THERE ARE NO NEW ARTICLES OF FAITH; THERE ARE NO NEW CATHOLIC TEACHINGS.  There are only refinements, reiterations and clarifications of doctrine.

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.

Quote
Stubborn's errors- We only need to be subject to the Roman Pontiff when he is defining Dogma.

 Church Teaching:
Pope Pius IX, "Quanta Cura" (#5) December 8, 1864:Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals." But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.

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.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 17, 2017, 12:42:43 PM
Quote from: An even Seven


1) Stubborn's errors- "Once a Catholic Always a Catholic"

2) Stubborn's errors- The Magisterium can err and be evil.

3) Stubborn's errors- We only need to be subject to the Roman Pontiff when he is defining Dogma.

1) Any Catholic who ended up apostatizing or became a heretic can receive the sacrament of penance whereby the censure of excommunication is removed and the sin is forgiven. One who is not Catholic cannot receive the sacraments. This Catholic teaching is all you need to accept. This is how we understand once a Catholic always a Catholic.

Yes, there are times when by an official papal decree, only the pope or bishop can remove the censure - yet even under those circuмstances, if the heretic is in danger of death, that heretic can have any priest absolve him in the sacrament of penance or extreme unction. Again, one who is not Catholic cannot receive the sacraments.

But whatever the circuмstance, no one has sentenced any pope with the censure of excommunication for heresy or any other sin - and YOU saying heretics are not Catholics is like doing a rain dance for rain - it means nothing, absolutely nothing to everyone.  


2) The Hierarchy can, has and continues to err - and from my perspective, every single one of them are evil. But you're using "the magisterium" in a context which makes no sense.

"The Magisterium" is nothing other than the Church teaching us, that is what the Church does. The Church was established by Christ to teach us how to get to heaven. So you need to replace "The Magisterium" with "The Hierarchy", then it's not only true, it actually makes sense when you say that I say: "The Hierarchy can err and be evil."


3) We need to be subject to the pope and obey him as the pope in all those religious matters under his authority always - UNLESS he should command something which is sinful. Pax Vobis spells it right out in plain English.........  
Quote from: Pax Vobis

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.

Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 18, 2017, 05:53:01 AM
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Pax Vobis
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.


Please see  Pope Pius VI's foot note for #47 below:

XLVII. Similarly, one that says to be necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, that the excommunication with regard to the suspension, should precede a personal examination, and that therefore, the so-called ipso facto judgments have no other force than a serious threat without any actual effect;






Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: Pax Vobis
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".

Vatican Council Sess. 3 Ch. 3: 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.
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.


Your quote from V1 is also 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.

FYI, "her ordinary and universal magisterium" is the same as saying: "Church teachings that have been taught always and everywhere since the time of the Apostles." These are infallible.

And etc. ad nausem. Stop attempting to use Catholic teaching to vindicate sedevacantism - it can't be done.

Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 18, 2017, 06:26:04 AM
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Pax Vobis
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.


Please see  Pope Pius VI's foot note for #47 below:

XLVII. Similarly, one that says to be necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, that the excommunication with regard to the suspension, should precede a personal examination, and that therefore, the so-called ipso facto judgments have no other force than a serious threat without any actual effect;


Sorry about that. Posting while working I simply posted the same thing as you and while rushing, messed up the whole thing in the process.

This does not mean the pope is not the pope due to his supposed ipso facto excommunication. It simply means that ipso facto excommunication is indeed a serious censure per #46 which precedes this condemnation - which is why #47 begins with "Similarly".

XLVI: The proposition asserting that "the effect of excommunication is merely exterior, because by its nature it merely excludes from exterior communion with the Church"; as if excommunication were not a spiritual punishment, binding in heaven, obligating souls,—false, dangerous, etc.

All the excommunicated person needs to do to obtain removal from the censure and forgiveness - matters not whether the person is the pope or a pauper -  is go to confession where the censure is first lifted, then the penitent is absolved.

Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 18, 2017, 06:30:08 AM
Quote from: An even Seven
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.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 18, 2017, 07:14:57 AM
Quote from: An even Seven

Can a person, validly Baptized (a Catholic at this point), brought up in the Protestant Church, who has passed the age of reason, accepts Protestantism, rejects Catholicism, come to a Priest and just receive confession?


Obviously, the answer is, No.

It is necessary to be "Once Catholic" in order to be "always Catholic", obviously there are people baptized who have never had the faith, as is the case in your question above. It is as Trent teaches so beautifully that reception of the sacrament without the faith is not enough: "....baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified".  


From your other post:
Quote from: An even Seven

Not trying to prove SV from these quotes. I am refuting you heretical opinion that the Magisterium can err.


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".
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 18, 2017, 10:47:15 AM
Quote
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.

Quote
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.  

Quote
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.

Quote
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)
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 19, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
Quote from: Pax Vobis
Quote
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.


Yes, you understand it correctly.

Heresy is a sin, it is a mortal sin. Those guilty of this sin are ipso facto excommunicated, they have excommunicated themselves by the very fact of their sin of heresy.

Excommunication does not mean no longer being a member of the Church, all of their Catholic obligations remain, but some of the privileges are lost - they cannot receive communion because they are in mortal sin - but that's true of every Catholic who has mortal sin on their soul, not just the "ipso facto excommunicated" people. This is what the magisterial quotes are saying, but read with the mind of the sede instead with the mind of the Church, the sede's read into them a completely different doctrine.  

In order to be absolved from excommunication, one must go to confession the same as every other Catholic, which is a sacrament that is only available to Catholics - and confession is most often used, not by holy, saintly Catholics, but by miserable Catholic sinners - no?


From Who Shall Ascend?
Quote from: Fr. Wathen

It may surprise lay readers to learn that in the traditional formula of absolution in the Sacrament of Penance there is a general absolution from the censures of the Church. This means, of course, that everyone who has received a censure, and everyone who is "under a censure," is a Catholic, since he goes to confession to seek its removal. (Not surprisingly, all mention of censures has been dropped in the Conciliar "Rite of Reconciliation.") Thus:

"May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you: and I, by His authority, absolve you from every bond of excommunication, (suspension), and interdict, in so far as I am able and you are needful. Next, I absolve you from your sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."
(The word suspensionis {suspension} is used only for clerics. A cleric may be suspended without being excommunicated; but, should he incur excommunication, he is suspended also.)

(a) Interdiction: the removal of all faculties of the clergy of a place, or group of people (such as the priests of a religious community), so that the Mass and Sacraments are denied to them, except under certain specified conditions.  Interdiction is imposed either because all (or apparently all) who suffer it are involved to some degree in a grave sin, or it is imposed as a desperate measure on the faithful of a place because of the persistent, scandalous, and obstructive sins of those in authority over them, either civil or religious. In the latter case, the interdiction deprives the people of the Mass and the Sacraments, in order to provoke them to exert moral pressure on their superiors.

(b) Suspension: the prohibition of the right to exercise one's priestly (or episcopal) orders.

(c) Excommunication: exclusion from the communal life of the Church.


It is really as simple as all that - nothing complicated at all. It really only starts getting complicated when the sedevacantists misquote Church teaching to support sedevacantism.

Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 19, 2017, 06:02:49 AM
Quote from: An even Seven

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: An even Seven
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.  



Quote from: An even Seven

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.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 19, 2017, 07:52:44 AM
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Stubborn
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?


Knowing better since the crisis, no, I know better than to simply believe him on anything. There were many who actually did know better and never did blindly believe - and with the grace of God could still be persevering in the faith today.

If it were as you are alluding to, we would necessarily be bound to the man, not the truth. This would mean we were under no obligation to use the brains and conscience God gave us to discern, according to V1's criteria what we are bound to believe, rather we would be bound to believe everything the pope said, based on nothing other than who said it. We are not permitted to be mindless and simply blindly obey anyone, not even the pope - that'd be a trip to hell on rails waiting to happen.

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?

That quote from V1 is telling us, relying on our own mind and our own use of reason, how we are to identify infallible teachings - and V1 is also telling us that teachings meeting those particular criteria are the teachings which we are bound to believe.

V1 is telling us that "all those things" which you did not underline, are infallible - all those teachings found in Scripture and "things" in tradition and those teachings of the UOM (not the living hierarchy) which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as infallible (divinely revealed).

V1 binds us to "all those things" you did not underline to be believed, it matters not whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium. Note that it does not matter the source, this is because the thing that matters is the truth, it is the truth that binds us, not the pope, the pope does not bind us, not the hierarchy, the hierarchy does not bind us to believe either. We are bound by the truth itself to believe the truth or we'll end up in hell - and V1 is telling us what the truth is and how to identify the truth which we are bound to believe.

The effect of this teaching is double because by identifying those things which are infallible, we know that all those things which fall outside of V1's criteria is entirely fallible.


Quote from: An even Seven

2. Is there heresy in the VII docuмent Dignitatis Humanae on Religious Liberty?


I've never read it, I have no need and don't have to and prefer avoiding read it entirely as I have, but my guess is that I would find heresy in a short time if I ever did read it.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 19, 2017, 09:06:41 AM
Quote
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

Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: MyrnaM on January 19, 2017, 05:14:01 PM
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.

Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 19, 2017, 07:17:46 PM
Quote from: MyrnaM
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.......
Quote from: Stubborn

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.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: MyrnaM on January 19, 2017, 07:45:38 PM
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!
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn 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?

Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn 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.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Pax Vobis 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.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn 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.

Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn 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"?  

Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: drew 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
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn 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.
 
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: MMagdala 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.  
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn 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.



Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: MMagdala 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.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 24, 2017, 08:55:24 AM
Quote from: MMagdala
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.


Yes, as usual you made great points!

I would also like to point out that there is virtually no difference between the belief of sedevacantists and the conciliarists as far as they both share the same erroneous idea of what infallibility is.

The obvious difference is that the conciliarists demonstrate their faith in their idea of infallibility and blindly "follow the pope", while the sedevacantists demonstrate their utter lack of faith in their very same idea and conclude that since the popes have erred, they cannot be pope.
   
They both share the Masonic inspired idea of blind obedience.
 
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 24, 2017, 09:00:18 AM
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Pax Vobis

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.


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 (the Church) 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.


Once again, this is another out of context quote and once again, you are reminded  that there is no Church teaching that vindicates sedevacantism, so quoting Catholic teachings toward that end remains futile.

The conciliar church is not the Catholic Church.



Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 24, 2017, 10:34:28 AM
I would have to read the whole docuмent of "Satis Cognitum", along with some commentary, to understand the context.  Suffice it to say, there are plenty of theologians who discuss the various levels of infallibility as it pertains to the various ways in which the pope can 'teach'.  This is not a new concept.  

It would be better to read a commentary which strictly explains the magisterium than trying to pick this and that quote which uses the word 'magisterium'.  That is not a good way to do research.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: drew on January 24, 2017, 03:43:49 PM
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
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Matto on January 24, 2017, 06:59:15 PM
Where is infallibility today? Is the CMRI infallible? Is Saint Gertrude the Great infallible? They surely don't believe the Novus Ordo is infallible because they reject it as a false sect. It seems to me the sedevacantists must either claim that sedevacantism is infallible or that there is no more infallibility and the Church has lost that attribute.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: drew on January 24, 2017, 08:53:18 PM
Quote from: GJC
Quote from: drew
It is because they make the pope the rule of faith.


Take your "they make the pope the rule of faith"  put it into your Chesterton pipe and smoke it! Stop with your "novelty" idea already.

I don't care if a person who claims to be a Catholic is wearing a suit and necktie, cassocks or dressed up like a pope, if they BLATANTLY speak against the infallible teachings of the Church, whether it be word, action, or deed they are a heretic and maybe apostate. Now the hope always will be that God give sight to the blind as He has done numerous times or lift the veil off the heart as He as done many times, but until that happens that individual is a heretic, not a Catholic and clearly not a member of the Church.

Credit the fact you don't post the "once a Catholic always a Catholic" novelty, or use terms like Membership card to describe the means of identification members of the Church militant carry, or contemplate that the "cockle" refer only to those who are not Catholic......

Quote
it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.”


it avoided? Do you really believe that? Only the Catholic Church can proclaim Dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.

Now, if Montini  were honest this is how it would have read: since we are modernist heretics as pointed out by the late St Pius X and not Catholics we CANNOT proclaim anything in any manner since we are not endowed with the charism of Christ. Of course if he said that there would be no deception right?

I suggest you quit following Siscoe and Ebbert Salza.

BTW, while you have your pipe out don't look for "sede" vacantism tobacco it does not exist.


Sedevacantists, besides the errors of making the pope the rule of faith overthrowing Dogma from its proper role, they also draw unnecessary conclusions from good principles.

The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ.  Every mortal sin destroys the life of grace in the soul, that is, it ends the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, makes the soul an enemy of God, destroys all merit of every previous good work, and deprives the soul of the right to eternal life.  Every mortal sin formally separates the soul from the friendship of God completely.  It is not possible for a soul to be an enemy of God and remain part of the Mystical Body of Christ.  He is the dead branch on a living vine where the sap of eternal life, of grace, is lost, completely cut off from life.  He remains formally removed from the life of the vine but materially part of the vine.  Every mortal sin formally separates the soul from God, but it does not materially separate the soul from membership in God’s Church.  

The sin of heresy, like every mortal sin, formally removes a Catholic from the life of grace and friendship with God.  But heresy can, but not necessarily, does more.  It can also lead to the material separation of the Catholic from membership in the Church.  If the mortal sin of heresy is an occult sin in the internal forum, it will formally, but cannot materially, remove the sinner from the Church.  If it ipso facto necessarily caused the material removal of an occult heretic from the Church then the Church would not then be visible because no one could ever know who was or who was not a member of the Church.  If the sin of heresy is public and contumacious, then it is a different problem.  But the important point is that it is not the heresy per se that materially removes from the Church but the fact of the public and contumacious manifestation of the crime.  The public and contumacious character of the crime is the efficient cause and not the heresy itself for the material removal of the heretic from the Church.  The instrumental cause is the imposition of the ipso facto penalty after due process determination of guilt.  The final cause is the glory of God and the protection of the faithful from the scandal of heresy.  

In such cases, the Church determines that the sin of public and contumacious heresy is a problem of scandal for faithful Catholics and therefore the Vicar of Christ, the vicar of the “Lord of the harvest,” may determine to materially remove the cockle before the time of the harvest for the sake of the faithful “wheat.”  But this is not always or necessarily done.  For example, very, very few Modernist heretics were ever materially removed from the Church and then, always after due process even though every Modernists heretic was already formally removed from the Church and cut off from the life of grace.  It is important to recognize that ipso facto penalties are only materially imposed by the law itself after due process. It is analogous to mandatory sentences for specific crimes under specific circuмstances.  The penalty is imposed by the law itself but only after the determination of guilt after due process.  Also, the matter of removing a heretic materially from the Church is a matter of human law and has all the limitation of all human laws, that is, it must be an act of reason, by competent authority, for a good end, promoting the common good, not be overly burdensome, etc.  The essential consideration in the determination to material remove a heretic form the Church is the welfare of the faithful “wheat” in the judgment of the Church authority.

Sedevacantists make themselves the “Lord of the harvest.”  They begin by making the pope the rule of faith and then they get rid of the “rule” because of his personal heresy.  The proof that they hold the pope as the rule of faith is seen in their insistence, just like most conservative Catholics, that Vatican II was “infallible” and the every Catholic must be “obedient” to every disciplinary norm of heretical popes that are clearly harmful to the faith.  They, both the conservative Catholics and the Sedevacantists, corrupt the virtue of Religion by inverting the proper hierarchical order making the virtue of Religion subject to the duty of obedience.  This is evidence of the absence of Wisdom which not only requires the recognition of all truths but necessarily will see them in their proper hierarchical order.

Every good-willed Catholic when they reach a dead-end in the road will conclude that they must have made a wrong turn and will begin to retrace their steps.  Sedevacantists are just pacing back and forth on a dead-end road doing nothing more but insisting that they have faithfully followed the map in every detail.  They have no pope for their Church although they recognize that the Church Jesus Christ founded was established on the first pope, St. Peter.  Even worse, they have no plans of every getting a pope.  They cannot even begin to explain how or when a new pope will be created.  The church they belong to is missing an essential attribute of the Catholic Church.  It clearly is not the Catholic Church!  They insist the pope is the rule of faith and therefore whoever belongs to a Church in which has a heretic pope as the head must necessarily participate in his heresy.  This is absurd.  It is as if to say that Jesus Christ, by worshiping at the temple in Jerusalem, participated in the heresy of the high priest, Caiaphas, or that the man born blind owed unconditional obedience to the high priest and therefore he should have refused to acknowledge Jesus as the Christ.

I have not read the book by Siscoe and Salza.  If I am repeating what they have already said, I apologize for wasting anyone's time, but I do not think that is the case.  Their book is favorably approved by the SSPX and conservative Catholic Indultists alike.  That would not be the case if they argued that the principle problem for the great majority of Sedevacantists is the overthrow of Dogma from its proper role as the irreformable "formal object of divine and Catholic faith" replacing the revealed truth of God with the opinions of man.

Drew
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Cantarella on January 24, 2017, 10:48:29 PM
Quote from: Drew
He remains formally removed from the life of the vine but materially part of the vine.  Every mortal sin formally separates the soul from God, but it does not materially separate the soul from membership in God’s Church. 

The sin of heresy, like every mortal sin, formally removes a Catholic from the life of grace and friendship with God.  But heresy can, but not necessarily, does more.  It can also lead to the material separation of the Catholic from membership in the Church.  If the mortal sin of heresy is an occult sin in the internal forum, it will formally, but cannot materially, remove the sinner from the Church.  If it ipso facto necessarily caused the material removal of an occult heretic from the Church then the Church would not then be visible because no one could ever know who was or who was not a member of the Church.  If the sin of heresy is public and contumacious, then it is a different problem.  But the important point is that it is not the heresy per se that materially removes from the Church but the fact of the public and contumacious manifestation of the crime.  The public and contumacious character of the crime is the efficient cause and not the heresy itself for the material removal of the heretic from the Church.  The instrumental cause is the imposition of the ipso facto penalty after due process determination of guilt.  The final cause is the glory of God and the protection of the faithful from the scandal of heresy. 


Just wanted to briefly point out that it is precisely this distinction between formal and material, the basis of the postulation of Des Lauriers. In the Cassiacuм Thesis, there is no formal Pope on account of his evident and public omission to effect the good of the Church. He, therefore, loses his authority. However, he still is pope and occupies his office, but only materially, because he has not been removed yet by the competent authority of the Church by means of a due legal process.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 25, 2017, 03:52:21 AM
Quote from: An even Seven

Quote
Vatican II docuмent, Dignitatis Humanae:
PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD(1.in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians), TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY...9.The things which this Vatican Synod declares concerning the right of man to religious liberty… this doctrine on liberty has its roots in divine Revelation(3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church); with all the more reason, therefore, it is to be preserved sacredly by Christians...12.The Church therefore, faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and the Apostles when it acknowledges the principle of religious liberty as in accord with human dignity and the revelation of God(3.he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church), and when it promotes it…EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS.  WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US(2.in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority) BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY… I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”


Where did you get your Dignitatis Humanae quotes from - the Dimond Fools? Use this (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html) version posted on the Vatican's web site. The DF's, in their zeal to condemn, are notorious for purposely mis-quoting everyone and anyone - DH is no exception.  

Much of what you quoted does not even appear anywhere in the Vatican's DH at all. Also note that there is nothing defined, nothing binding - and also missing are any penalties at all, no condemnations or anathemas - nothing.

There is no way I could stomach reading the whole thing, I only skimmed it, but it's as if the pope wrote a long story that mixes truth with heresy to get the whole idea off his conscience, he did not infallibly define any doctrine, nor is there even any hint or implication whatsoever that that was his intention - far from it the way it drags on and on, alternating saying nothing then something, presumably so as not to sound too harsh or snarky - typical Pauline Speak.

Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 25, 2017, 09:06:28 AM
Quote
Just wanted to briefly point out that it is precisely this distinction between formal and material, the basis of the postulation of Des Lauriers. In the Cassiacuм Thesis, there is no formal Pope on account of his evident and public omission to effect the good of the Church. He, therefore, loses his authority. However, he still is pope and occupies his office, but only materially, because he has not been removed yet by the competent authority of the Church by means of a due legal process.

Great summary, Cantarella!
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Matto on January 25, 2017, 10:35:44 AM
Quote from: An even Seven
Not sure what St. Gertrude the Great is, but unless they are part of the Magisterium then no.

That is the Church of Father Cekada and Bishop Dolan. I mentioned it because I figured it was the most famous sedevacantist Church. I am surprised to find a sedevacantist who has internet access who did not know what Saint Gertrude the Great Church was.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 26, 2017, 08:47:42 AM
Quote
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?

Quote
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.
 
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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:
Quote
The Pope is not an oracle, he is infallible on the rarest of occasions, as we know…"
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 28, 2017, 09:20:44 AM
I'm trying to have a friendly debate and you're assuming I'm deceptive.  This is a waste of my time, then.  Good luck to you.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Matto on January 29, 2017, 10:37:07 AM
oops
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 29, 2017, 12:58:56 PM
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Pax Vobis
I'm trying to have a friendly debate and you're assuming I'm deceptive.  This is a waste of my time, then.  Good luck to you.


A friendly debate in which I present proof and you ignore it? Or don't even respond to it? That not a debate, that's you ignoring truth.

You said that Paul VI statements before each docuмent in VII were irrelevant because they had nothing to do with infallibility. You ignored, deceptively, the point, which is that this statement and specifically "Servant of the Servants of God" satisfies one of the 3 part requisite for ex Cathedra teaching. These exact words were used by other Pope at Dogmatic Councils such as Florence, 5th Lateran, and Vatican.

I am not going to debate someone and let them get away with deception. Nor should you. Since you are done, I would like to leave you with some words from Paul VI.

APOSTOLIC BRIEF "IN SPIRITU SANCTO' FOR THE CLOSING OF THE COUNCIL DECEMBER 8, 1965 (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6closin.htm)
"At last all which regards the holy ecuмenical council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us. Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecuмenical council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.

We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on."


If he's your Pope, then you have to adhere to V II and accept its teachings.









You present "proof" and PV "ignores it"?

You had a reply from drew on page 12 and have yet to reply.

Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on January 29, 2017, 01:12:43 PM
Quote from: drew
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?
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on January 29, 2017, 02:18:02 PM
Quote from: An even Seven

If he's your Pope, then you have to adhere to V II and accept its teachings.


One of the main reasons sedevacantists insist the above is fact, is due in large part to the errors taught (in red) below, which are among the errors that +ABL stated as having "been infiltrated into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the Church..."  These errors have permeated into the minds of the sedevacantists as if they are divinely revealed truths, rather than the confused, albeit possibly calculated ramblings of certain "well respected" 20 century theologians, which is what these teachings actually are.

Quote from: Van Noort

Link (http://www.sedevacantist.com/van_noort_infallibility.html)

Monsignor  G. Van Noort, S.T.D.  (One of the "well respected" 20th century theologians)
THE CHURCH'S INFALLIBILITY
1. Meaning of the Term

The word infallibility itself indicates a necessary immunity from error. When one speaks of the Church's infallibility, one means that the Church can neither deceive nor be deceived in matters of faith and morals, It is a prerogative of the whole Church; but it belongs in one way to those who fulfill the office of teaching and in another way to those who are taught. Hence the distinction between active infallibility, by which the Church's rulers are rendered immune from error when they teach; and passive infallibility, by which all of Christ's faithful are preserved from error in their beliefs.

Passive infallibility depends on and is caused by active infallibility: for the faithful are kept free from error in religious matters only by loyally following their rulers. Consequently, it is limited by the same restrictions as is active infallibility, and it will therefore suffice to treat only the latter. Active infallibility may be defined as follows: the privilege by which the teaching office of the Church, through the assistance of the Holy Spirit, is preserved immune from error when it defines a doctrine of faith or morals.


First, what is meant by "the Church"? In this quote, Van Noort is keeps adding to the mixture, hence confusing the meaning of "The Church".

He mixes Christ, who is "The Church", with the hierarchy, whom he calls "the whole Church" even though they are merely members of "The Church". So the necessary confusion is established right out of the gate. He then adds a third and fourth definition - the "teaching office" and "the taught".  

Using his mixture, the result of "the Church's" infallibility is that "all of Christ's faithful are preserved from error in their beliefs", and we are guaranteed of this, "only by loyally following their rulers" whenever "it ("it", being all inclusive, is conveniently ambiguous) defines a doctrine of faith or morals".

Nowhere does Van Noort make the all important and necessary distinction that solemnly defining a doctrine of faith or morals must include, as V1 decreed, "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..." or it is fallible.

Because Van Noort (and other "well respected" 20th century theologians)  completely ignore the above necessary distinction, people everywhere believe that no matter what a particular doctrine is which has been defined, that it automatically enjoys protection from error, as such, "all of Christ's faithful are preserved from error in their beliefs" and that is how the people are kept "loyally following their rulers" - right into the pit.

Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Pax Vobis on January 30, 2017, 09:14:06 AM
An Even Seven,
You've used that quote more than once as "proof" of various points.  I get the point you're trying to make and i've explained why, in detail, that it requires more distinguishing.  We are going around and around in circles.  

Further, the fact that you engage in name-calling and think I'm deceptive shows me that debating you is pointless because you are overly emotional about this subject, which means that a fact-based debate is impossible.  I wish you well.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: MyrnaM on February 01, 2017, 10:20:10 AM
Quote from: drew

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.”

Drew


If anyone makes the pope the rule of faith it is YOU.

This link might be of help to those who are confused about sedevacantism.  

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/wilhelm_scannell_05.html
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: MyrnaM on February 01, 2017, 11:07:21 AM
Jesus and His Church are ONE!  

Interesting quote of Tertullian "The first reaction to truth is hatred"
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: drew on February 01, 2017, 05:30:33 PM
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: drew
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 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.  


Maybe you could be consistent. Who’s the one that thinks that the Pope is the rule of faith? Just because there is no Pope right now, that means that the Magisterium is dead? The rule of faith (Dogma) continues whether there is a Pope reigning or not. There did not seem to be a way out during the GWS but God provided it. The fact is that there are men claiming to be Pope that are authoritatively teaching heresy. If you consider them Popes then the Church Christ founded couldn’t be more defective.

So I will assume that you believe that Dogma is the rule of faith, and therefore, the typical  sedevacantist position, in nearly every case, that holds that the good Jєω as a Jєω, the good Protestant as a Protestant, the good Muslim as a Muslim, the good Hindu as a Hindu, etc., etc., by virtue of a ‘desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes’ can therefore be in the state of grace, a temple of the Holy Ghost, a secret member of the Church and obtain salvation, is clearly erroneous. This opinion is only possible for those who believe the pope is the rule of faith.  This opinion is held by Dolan, Cekeda, Kelly, Sanborn, the CRMI, etc., etc. In fact, the only sedevacantist that I am aware of who does not hold this opinion is Br. Michael Dimond.  

I would appreciate you clearly stating this fact so it can be set aside because in this post and previous posts you claim to believe in dogma as the rule of faith but repeatedly express opinions to the contrary which I will identify in this reply.  

Quote from: An Even Seven
Quote from: drew
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.”  


It’s quite obvious that the Church is referring to the infallible Magisterium of the Church. As if there were a type that isn’t. Where is the teaching from the Church that there is a type of Magisterium that is not infallible? You have to answer this.

“Quite obvious”?  Let me explain this again.  The word “magisterium” is used equivocally.  It is the noun form derived from the verb meaning “to teach.”  It is the teaching office of the Church.  Its equivocal meaning depends on who is the teacher.  The three attributes of the Church are infallibility, indefectibility, and authority.   They correspond to the three duties of the Church as a religious society as specified by St. Pius X in Pascendi, that is, to teach, to worship, and to govern.  Whenever the churchmen teach by virtue of the Church’s attribute of infallibility the teaching is without possibility of error.  Whenever churchmen teach by their grace of state the possibility of error is always present and therefore, the acceptance of the teaching is always and necessarily conditional.  The former teaching is the Magisterium of God and the later is the magisterium of men by virtue of their grace of state.  The difference between these two understandings is not one of DEGREE, but one of KIND. I indicate the Magisterium of God by using a capital “M.”  

There is a third meaning of the term, “authentic or authorized magisterium” which identifies the person holding the office to which the Magisterium of the Church is exercised.

Quote from: An Even Seven
You say this quote is referring to the Church’s teachings. Who declares what those teachings are? If we are not supposed to use private interpretation for Scripture or we don’t even know what was passed on word of mouth, who tells us what those written teachings (Scripture) mean or who relays what those unwritten teachings are (Tradition) and their place in Divine Revelation? Who is the mouthpiece of Christ that explains what we are to believe?
 
The “mouthpiece of Christ” belongs to the churchmen holding the office to which the Magisterium of the Church is exercised.  The acts of this person are called the “authentic or authorized magisterium.”  When the attribute of infallibility is engaged and the churchmen are teaching by virtue of the Magisterium, it is God who is the teacher, and therefore the teaching is always and everywhere infallible. This Magisterium can be engaged in either an “ordinary and universal” mode or an “extra-ordinary” mode of operation.  
When the churchmen teach by virtue of their grace of state the possibility of error is always present.  Therefore it requires only a “religious assent” of the faithful which is a prudent and conditional assent.

Quote from: An Even Seven
Quote from: drew
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.


When the term Magisterium is used and whatever adjective is used to describe it, it is unable to err. There is no sense or KIND of the Magisterium that is applied to anyone but the Pope. If any teaching is to be considered part of the Magisterium, the Pope is involved, either speaking or writing it directly or giving his explicit consent to it. You must show a Teaching of the Church that says there are teachings from any kind of Magisterium that can err. Whether defining something that must be believed as part of divine revelation or reiterating something that is Dogma, it cannot be fallible. The teachings of church men are NOT part of any KIND of Magisterium. The Pope can err when speaking privately or not intending a teaching to be binding on the whole Church.

 
The opinions expressed in this paragraph are erroneous.  These are conclusions that are only possible if you believe that the pope is the rule of faith.

Whenever the authentic (or authorized) ordinary magisterium is employed there is always a possibility of error because it is the magisterium of churchmen teaching by virtue of their grace of state.  The words, “authentic”, “authorized”, and “ordinary” are adjectives that restrict the meaning of the noun.  For you to say that this teaching is “unable to err” means that you believe the pope is infallible by virtue of his grace of state and therefore must be your “rule of faith.”

There is an article in AER by Fr. Fenton on the teaching authority of encyclicals in which he gives examples of historical errors in the exercise of the authentic ordinary magisterium.  You can access AER articles online. It was discussed in detail in another thread which can be reviewed by searching in CathInfo.

The decree on papal infallibility from Vatican I identifies clearly what criteria must be met for the pope to engage the attribute of infallibility of the Church and exercise the Magisterium of the Church to teach without the possibility of error. The outcome of this teaching is DOGMA which is the formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  It is DOGMA that constitutes the rule of faith for faithful Catholics.    

Quote from: An Even Seven
Quote from: drew
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.”


I already showed that V II said that religious liberty is part of divine revelation and had all the requisites for infallibility. Paul VI solemnly approved all 16 docuмents of V II.

You have not shown anything.  It is an absurdity to claim that churchmen were doing what they publically and repeatedly professed NOT TO BE DOING!  “Religious” obedience is what is owed to the authentic ordinary magisterium of churchmen teaching by their grace of state. Furthermore, it would be a sin to give churchmen teaching by their grace of state an unconditional obedience because unconditional obedience can only be given to GOD.  You are making the pope your rule of faith which is a form of idolatry.

Quote from: An Even Seven
Quote from: drew
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


I’m not sure if you messed up the dates but the LOR couldn’t have pulished what Paul VI said 12 months before he said it. What he said here is irrelevant because he already Solemnly approved V II. What’s interesting is that in the same General Audience, in the following sentence after your quote, he said this: “The Council is a great act of the
magisterium of the Church, and anyone who adheres to the Council is, by that very fact, recognizing and honoring the magisterium of the
Church…”
And this: “…it [the Council] still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual docuмents.”
In his “encyclical”  Ecclesiam Suam he said this: “It is precisely because the Second Vatican Council has the task of dealing once more with the doctrine de Ecclesia (of the Church) and of defining it, that it has been called
the continuation and complement of the First Vatican Council.”

Now that you understand the different usages of “magisterium” you should have no problem understanding what was being said. The “supreme ordinary magisterium” is the teaching of churchmen by their grace of state and that is all that Vatican II was.  This has to be “accepted” with a conditional “religious” obedience, that is, an obedience that admits the possibility of error.

Even if the Council were treated as a “continuation and complement of the First Vatican Council” it makes no difference whatsoever.  Ecuмenical Councils often deal with matters of doctrine, and/or discipline, and/or worship, and/or and general law.  The only things from ecuмenical councils that are infallible are those teaching which are clearly indicated as such.  From Trent, only the dogmatic canons are infallible.  The narratives preceding the canons are not.  That is why the narrative must always be understood in light of the canons and not vice versa as commonly happens with those who do not hold dogma as the rule of faith.  

Quote from: An Even Seven
Quote from: drew
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.


It is precisely because of Dogma that these men cannot be pope.

You began this post comparing the current crisis to GWS. Your comparison with the GWS does not apply.  It is said that all analogies limp but this one can’t even crawl.  The listed sedevacantists in the beginning of this reply all deny the validity of Novus Ordo orders.  They deny that there exists not just a pope, but a curia and ecclesiastical hierarchy throughout the world, excepting them. The attribute of “authority” is always present with God’s Church.  Who then is exercising it?  If a pope is to be found, he must be found among current sedevacantists who have valid orders.  Well, where is he?  “God will provide” is just begging the question?  “God will provide” is the same thing conservative Catholics have argued for years to make the novelties of Vatican II palatable.  Well, how will God provide?  By what mechanism can the problem of sedevacatism be corrected?  What are the possible efficient and instrumental causes for a correction?  The church you belong to does not have a pope and has no way to make one.  It is defective of a necessary attribute of the Church founded by Jesus Christ that will last until the end of time.  It therefore cannot be Christ’s Church.  

The current heretical pope teaches heresy by his own authority. Never has the Church’s attribute of infallibility been engaged by the conciliar “authentic magisterium.”  Those that claim that it has are ignorant of the question. You said, “If you consider them (conciliar popes) Popes then the Church Christ founded couldn’t be more defective.”  To believe that a heretical pope makes the Church “defective” is only possible if you believe that the pope is the rule of faith.  It is bizarre to conclude that a heretical pope makes the Church “defective” but having no pope at all does not!  

I asked a question in an earlier post that has not been answered.  If a pope is a heretic in the internal forum only, does he lose his office?  If so, how do you know, and if not, why not?    

Drew

Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: drew on February 02, 2017, 03:14:56 PM
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: drew
So I will assume that you believe that Dogma is the rule of faith, and therefore, the typical  sedevacantist position, in nearly every case, that holds that the good Jєω as a Jєω, the good Protestant as a Protestant, the good Muslim as a Muslim, the good Hindu as a Hindu, etc., etc., by virtue of a ‘desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes’ can therefore be in the state of grace, a temple of the Holy Ghost, a secret member of the Church and obtain salvation, is clearly erroneous. This opinion is only possible for those who believe the pope is the rule of faith.  This opinion is held by Dolan, Cekeda, Kelly, Sanborn, the CRMI, etc., etc. In fact, the only sedevacantist that I am aware of who does not hold this opinion is Br. Michael Dimond.  

I would appreciate you clearly stating this fact so it can be set aside because in this post and previous posts you claim to believe in dogma as the rule of faith but repeatedly express opinions to the contrary which I will identify in this reply.


I absolutely do not hold the above heresy. There is EENS. One cannot be “in” or a “member” without Baptism. One is not subject to the Pope without Baptism. Etc…  

Good.  It was Fr. Feeney to whom we are indebted for defending the literal meaning of dogma.  Those who follow this heresy, which is nearly every sedevacantist group, the SSPX, etc., believe that Dogma is subject to non-literal theological interpretations.  That is how Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishops Fellay, Kelly, Dolan, Sanborn, et al. all came to believe in the salvation of any pagan, Jєω, Moslem, Hindu, Protestant, etc. by virtue of their “desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes.”   It is also how they fell into the error that Dogma is subject to the free and independent will of the pope, and thus, the pope became the rule of faith.  From this we get conservative Catholics who follow ever error the pope says or does and sedevacantists who remove the pope from the picture entirely.

Quote from: An Even Seven
Quote from: drew
Let me explain this again.  The word “magisterium” is used equivocally.  It is the noun form derived from the verb meaning “to teach.”  It is the teaching office of the Church.  Its equivocal meaning depends on who is the teacher.  The three attributes of the Church are infallibility, indefectibility, and authority.  They correspond to the three duties of the Church as a religious society as specified by St. Pius X in Pascendi, that is, to teach, to worship, and to govern.  Whenever the churchmen teach by virtue of the Church’s attribute of infallibility the teaching is without possibility of error.  Whenever churchmen teach by their grace of state the possibility of error is always present and therefore, the acceptance of the teaching is always and necessarily conditional.  The former teaching is the Magisterium of God and the later is the magisterium of men by virtue of their grace of state.  The difference between these two understandings is not one of DEGREE, but one of KIND. I indicate the Magisterium of God by using a capital “M.”  

There is a third meaning of the term, “authentic or authorized magisterium” which identifies the person holding the office to which the Magisterium of the Church is exercised.


There is no teaching of the Church that says that anybody but the Pope is endowed with the charism of Infallibility. There is NO teaching of the Church that states that there is any KIND of Magisterium that is able to err. The Church has never taught this.
If the Pope teaches something that is considered erroneous, we know that it is not part of the Magisterium. There are numerous quotes from Popes talking about the Magisterium, some use different adjectives to describe its purpose etc. One thing is for sure though, they all affirm that it is unable to err or is infallible.

If the word “magisterium” is taking univocally as you are doing, then the pope must be the rule of faith because everything he says or does must be infallible.  Whenever the popes are speaking of the infallible Magisterium, they are referring to the teaching of the pope when he engages the attribute of infallibility that Jesus Christ endowed His Church.  This power is engaged either in the Extra-ordinary or the Ordinary & Universal modes.  This is always and everywhere infallible because the teacher is GOD.  The fruit of this teaching is called, DOGMA. And DOGMA is the rule of faith for all faithful Catholics.

Let’s examine the quotation you referenced from Pope Leo XIII:
Quote from: Pope Leo XIII
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. (translation taken from Vatican web page.)


The reason the Magisterium (with a capital “M”) is always infallible is because the “teachings” are the direct revelation of God.  Therefore these “teachings should be received as if they were His own” because they are “His own.”  They are “His own” because they were revealed by Him and are “contained in the deposit of divine revelation.”  If there were “false” then “God Himself would be the author of error in man.”  This Magisteium is derived from the Church’s attribute of infallibility and guided in its use by the “Spirit of Truth,” the Holy Ghost, who is the “soul of the Church,” to prevent the human person of the pope from ever erring in its exercise.

Outside of this specific engagement of the attribute of infallibility of the Church, the pope is capable of error.  When he teaches anything, he is teaching by his grace of state.  And due to this grace and exalted nature of his office he deserves our respectful religious submission.  But this submission is always and necessarily conditional.  The teaching of the pope by his grace of state is called his magisterium, written with a small “m.”

You must recognize this distinction.  If you hold that the pope is always engaged with or engaging the attribute of infallibility, he necessarily becomes a divine oracle and the rule of faith.

Quote from: An Even Seven
Quote from: drew
Whenever the authentic (or authorized) ordinary magisterium is employed there is always a possibility of error because it is the magisterium of churchmen teaching by virtue of their grace of state.

Give me a Magisterial source for this comment. There is nothing you can quote from the Church that states the Authentic Magisterium can possibly err.
Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #9:” Therefore, Jesus Christ instituted in the Church a living, authentic, and likewise permanent magisterium, which He strengthened by His own power, taught by the Spirit of Truth, and confirmed by miracles. The precepts of its doctrines He willed and most seriously commanded to be accepted equally with His own. . . . This, then, is without any doubt the office of the Church, to watch over Christian doctrine and to propagate it soundly and without corruption. . . .”

You must first understand the proper usage of the terminology.  The “authentic or sometimes called, the authorized magisterium” refers, not to the teaching but to the teacher.  It is a relatively new theological term and we have discussed it before in detail on this forum.  I think it is fair to say that whatever a pope says or does, if he is indeed the pope, is an act of the “authentic (or authorized) magisterium.”  

Fr. Joseph Fenton attributes the term “authentic (or authorized) magisterium" to the theological writings of the esteemed Fr. Joachim Salaverri who said:

Quote from: Fr. Joachim Salaverri
“An internal and religious assent of the mind is due to the doctrinal decrees of the Holy See which have been authentically approved by the Roman Pontiff.” Fr. Joachim Salaverri, of the Jesuit faculty of theology in the Pontifical Institute of Comillas in Spain, quote taken from article by Fr. Joseph C. Fenton, Infallibility in the Encyclicals, AER, 1953

Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticuм, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility. (no.659ff). Fr. Joachim Salaverri, Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.)


For the record, Fr. Fenton considered Fr. Salaverri and Louis Cardinal Billot, S. J. the foremost theologians of their time.

Fr. Fenton said regarding the “authentic magisterium”:

Quote from: Fr. Joseph Fenton
The fact of the matter is that every doctrine taught by the Holy Father in his capacity as the Vicar of Christ must, by the very constitution of the Church militant of the New Testament, be accepted by the faithful for what it is. If it is an infallible declaration, it is to be accepted with an absolutely firm and irrevocable assent. If it is a non-infallible statement, it must be accepted with a firm but conditional mental assent.
Fr. Joseph C. Fenton, Infallibility in the Encyclicals, AER, 1953


Other theologians before Vatican II were in agreement with Fr. Fenton.

Quote from: Fr. Nicholas Jung
This is why we owe the “authentic” Magisterium not a blind and unconditional assent but a prudent and conditional one: Since not everything taught by the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible, we must ask what kind of assent we should give to its various decisions. The Christian is required to give the assent of faith to all the doctrinal and moral truths defined by the Church's Magisterium. He is not required to give the same assent to teaching imparted by the sovereign pontiff that is not imposed on the whole Christian body as a dogma of faith. In this case it suffices to give that inner and religious assent which we give to legitimate ecclesiastical authority. This is not an absolute assent, because such decrees are not infallible, but only a prudential and conditional assent, since in questions of faith and morals there is a presumption in favor of one's superior....Such prudential assent does not eliminate the possibility of submitting the doctrine to a further examination, if that seems required by the gravity of the question.
Nicolas Jung, Le Magistère de L’Èglise, 1935, pp.153,154


Quote from: Dom Paul Nau
"If we are not to be drawn into error, we urgently need to remember that the assent due to the non-infallible Magisterium is... that of inward assent, not as of faith, but as of prudence, the refusal of which could not escape the mark of temerity, unless the doctrine rejected was an actual novelty or involved a manifest discordance between the pontifical affirmation and the doctrine which had hitherto been taught."
Dom Paul Nau, Pope or Church?, p.29, 1956


These references should make it clear that there exists and non-infallible exercise of the magisterium that must be accepted but only conditionally.

Reagarding the infallible teaching, the “Magisterial source for this comment” is found in First Vatican Council that defines the Dogma of infallibility.  The criteria are clearly set forth which must necessarily be met for the pope to engage the Church’s attribute of infallibility.  Whenever the pope teaches and these criteria are not met, he is teaching be virtue of his grace of state.  When the pope teaches by his grace of state, it is would be the authentic (or authorized) ordinary magisterium.  If the pope is teaching by virtue of the attribute of infallibility which Christ endowed His Church, it is would be the authentic (or authorized) Extra-ordinary Magisterium or the authentic (or authorized) Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

You must distinguish the different usages of the word “magisterium.”  If not, the pope by default must be your rule of faith.

Quote from: An Even Seven
Quote from: drew
The words, “authentic”, “authorized”, and “ordinary” are adjectives that restrict the meaning of the noun.  For you to say that this teaching is “unable to err” means that you believe the pope is infallible by virtue of his grace of state and therefore must be your “rule of faith.”

Again, show where there are any words that restrict the meaning of the word “Magisterium” so as to mean a sense in which it can err.
You can stop now with the ‘pope is your rule of faith’ stuff. I already said that Dogma is rule of faith and I proved so by saying that the Pope is not infallible all the time. He is however, the only person on Earth whom infallibility is granted. Since there are numerous teachings that say the Magisterium cannot err, the only person on Earth whom the teachings of the Magisterium can come from is the Pope. Again, this does not mean that everything the Pope says is infallible or that he exercises it in every word, but when the Magisterium is employed, it is the Pope who employs it.
If you will, instead of just saying I’m wrong, I want you to prove it through the teachings of the Church. You have cited nothing other than a few articles by different people to prove that the Magisterium can err. This only shows how little you people care about the Papacy or the governance of a Pope.

The Magisterium cannot error, that is, when the pope teaches by virtue of the attribute of infallibility Jesus Christ endowed His Church.  When can known when this attribute is engaged by the criteria set forth from Vatican I on papal infallibility.  The problem is that you do not distinguish when this attribute is engaged or not. You do not distinguish between the Magisterium and the pope’s authentic (or authorized) ordinary magisterium which is he teaching by virtue of his grace of state.

Quote from: An Even Seven
Quote from: drew
You have not shown anything.  It is an absurdity to claim that churchmen were doing what they publically and repeatedly professed NOT TO BE DOING!  “Religious” obedience is what is owed to the authentic ordinary magisterium of churchmen teaching by their grace of state. Furthermore, it would be a sin to give churchmen teaching by their grace of state an unconditional obedience because unconditional obedience can only be given to GOD.  You are making the pope your rule of faith which is a form of idolatry.


This only shows your contempt for the Vicar of Christ on Earth. To show obedience to the Church is to show obedience to hierarchy and the Rock upon which it was founded. You are refusing legitimate obedience to the authority of Christ on Earth. If these men were true Popes, you cannot say “I can be obedient in some things, just only those things that I deem important or legitimate”. If the Pope were to solemnly say that every man has the right to be whatever religion they want and then said this is divinely revealed, no Catholic would have the option to disagree with this as this is a matter of Catholic faith. The only logical conclusion is that they cannot be Pope because our rule of faith says that liberty of religion is heresy and contrary to Divine Revelation.

You just said above that, “You can stop now with the ‘pope is your rule of faith’ stuff.” And then in the next paragraph you affirm that the pope is the rule of faith! If the pope is the rule of faith, obedience becomes unconditional, therefore, all Catholics must obey the pope.  Since the pope commands what is unconscionable, therefore, Catholics cannot obey the pope, therefore, he is not the pope.

Why does disobedience to the pope constitute “Contempt for the Vicar of Christ on Earth” while throwing him out of office does not?  You charge is absurd.  I have said it before but it bears  repeating.  Obedience in and of itself is not a virtue.  Unconditional obedience is owed to God alone.  All other acts of obedience are always and necessarily conditional.  Obedience is only a virtue when it is properly regulated by the virtue of Religion. The virtue of Religion is the principle subsidiary virtue under the moral virtue of Justice whereby we “render to God the things that are God’s.”   No one, no one whatsoever, has the authority to command anything in violation of the virtue of Religion. When did the pope, with the same solemnity that Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, define that “every man has a right to whatever religion they want” as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith?  

He did not and neither did Vatican II pretend to be speaking in the person of God.  What you have done, even though you deny it, is make the pope your rule of faith.
     
Quote from: An Even Seven
Quote from: drew
Now that you understand the different usages of “magisterium” you should have no problem understanding what was being said. The “supreme ordinary magisterium” is the teaching of churchmen by their grace of state and that is all that Vatican II was.  This has to be “accepted” with a conditional “religious” obedience, that is, an obedience that admits the possibility of error.


This is a direct contradiction of Pope Pius XII. This quote shows that even matters pertaining to Church Doctrine in the acts of the Pope, the Ordiary Magisterium, require assent and are NOT open to free discussion.
Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis  It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical Letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. 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. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among the theologians.
Therefore, you are required to give assent to your “popes” in all matters concerning Catholic Doctrine.  Obviously the false claimants teach contrary to what has been taught by the Church, but if they were valid, you would not be able to dissent from there teaching. That is called refusing subjection to the Pontiff and is an act of Schism.

This again has already been addressed.  I admit, as I have already admitted, that Pope Pius XII used the term “ordinary magisterium.”  It is unfortunate because he is not talking about the “ordinary magisterium.”  He is addressing the “Ordinary and Universal Magisterium” which, as defined at Vatican I, is always infallible.  We know this because every single example Pope Pius XII provides is the universal teaching of the Church.  I will give one example which should be sufficient to prove my point.

In Mystici Corporis Pius XII teaches that there is an identity between the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church.  He appeals directly to our Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles for this doctrine.  

Quote from: Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis
The doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, was first taught us by the Redeemer Himself. [.....] If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression "the Mystical Body of Christ" - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers.
Pius XII, Mystici Corporis


Therefore, he affirms that it is a doctrine of divine and apostolic tradition.  It is therefore a universal doctrine of the Catholic Church being taught be the ordinary magisterium in an encyclical.  We know be divine and Catholic faith that the ordinary and universal magisterium is infallible.  This infallible doctrine is referred to again in Humani Generis where Pope Pius XII specifically says that some believe that they are not bound to this doctrine.  

Quote from: Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis
Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith.  
Pius XII, Humani Generis


Again, the pope appeals to "sources of Revelation" for this doctrinal teaching.  It is therefore a universal matter of belief always and everywhere among the faithful. This is one of the specific examples that Pius XII references when he quotes our Lord saying, "He who heareth you, heareth Me."  This is NOT simply the ordinary magisterium speaking.  IT is the ordinary and universal which is known by divine and Catholic faith to be infallible.

Every single example given by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis is part of the “Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.”

Quote from: Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis
It is not surprising that novelties of this kind have already borne their deadly fruit in almost all branches of theology. It is now doubted that human reason, without divine revelation and the help of divine grace, can, by arguments drawn from the created universe, prove the existence of a personal God; it is denied that the world had a beginning; it is argued that the creation of the world is necessary, since it proceeds from the necessary liberality of divine love; it is denied that God has eternal and infallible foreknowledge of the free actions of men - all this in contradiction to the decrees of the Vatican Council.[5]

Some also question whether angels are personal beings, and whether matter and spirit differ essentially. Others destroy the gratuity of the supernatural order, since God, they say, cannot create intellectual beings without ordering and calling them to the beatific vision. Nor is this all. Disregarding the Council of Trent, some pervert the very concept of original sin, along with the concept of sin in general as an offense against God, as well as the idea of satisfaction performed for us by Christ. Some even say that the doctrine of transubstantiation, based on an antiquated philosophic notion of substance, should be so modified that the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist be reduced to a kind of symbolism, whereby the consecrated species would be merely efficacious signs of the spiritual presence of Christ and of His intimate union with the faithful members of His Mystical Body.

Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith.


It is to the Universal & Ordinary Magisterium, by divine and Catholic Faith, known to be infallible to which we necessarily owe the unconditional obedience: “He the heareth you, heareth Me” applies without any qualification whatsoever.

Quote from: An Even Seven
Quote from: drew
The only things from ecuмenical councils that are infallible are those teaching which are clearly indicated as such.  From Trent, only the dogmatic canons are infallible.  The narratives preceding the canons are not


This is one of the most disturbing things I’ve read. Where did you get this “teaching” from? Vatican I clearly outlines the requirements for infallibility. Nowhere does it say that it only applies to Canons. If the Pope intends to teach something to the entire Church in virtue of his apostolic authority in matters pertain to faith or morals, it is infallible. There is so much in Trent that meets these requirements. Anyone reading this should be able to see that you are making your own rules concerning infallibility to suit your own needs.

You should not find this “disturbing” at all unless you hold that the pope is the rule of faith. This is such a fundamental truth that essential definitions are not applicable.  It is easier to reframe the question.  Vatican I clearly states the criteria for infallibility.  Everything that does not meet the criteria is open to the possibility of error. The important  word in the Dogma is not “teach,” but “define.” It is when the pope is fulfilling his office as “teacher” he “defines” a doctrine of “faith and morals.” Dogmas, the formal of objects of divine and Catholic faith, are proposed to the faithful in the form of categorical propositions that are always and everywhere universally admit of being only true or false.  They are doctrines formally defined.  That is not the case in the narrative sections of the council texts.  Furthermore, there is nothing in Vatican II that is proposed as a formally defined doctrine on faith and/or morals that is proposed to the faithful as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.

Take this Dogma for example:
 
Quote from: Vatican I
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.


This canon is a dogma, the formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  It is in the form of a categorical proposition that can only be true or false.  The only tools needed for understanding Dogma are definition and grammar.  So what do think about the word, “perpetual”?  What does it mean?  The word is derived from the “from Latin perpetualis, from perpetuus continuing throughout, from perpes, perpet- continuous.” (Oxford)  How many years does it take to break “continuity”? Can you give any secular historical example “perpetual succession” is claimed to have been maintained after a period of sixty years of vacancy?  And even after 60 years there is no possible way for sedevacantists to fill the office?  How are you going to do it and when?
 
Quote from: An Even Seven
Quote from: drew
The church you belong to does not have a pope and has no way to make one.  It is defective of a necessary attribute of the Church founded by Jesus Christ that will last until the end of time.  It therefore cannot be Christ’s Church.


The Church has been without a Pope many times. It also has not been clear who the Pope is at certain points in history. It is not a necessary attribute that there is a Pope reigning at every minute or it would have defected many times. What is necessary is that the Pope be a Catholic and not a heretic because heretics are not in the Church. Your “church” has a heretic for a leader. The Catholic Church is in a period without a Pope. However she gets one is not up to us to decide. How are you going to get a Pope when all of your hierarchy are heretics.

Again, it is a Dogma, a formal object of divine and Catholic faith, that there will always be until the end of time “perpetual successors” in the Chair of Peter.  You have no pope and you have no hope of ever getting one.  It is a necessary attribute of Christ’s Church and it is the clear evidence that the church you belong to in not Catholic.  

It is only “necessary that the Pope be a Catholic and not a heretic” if the pope is the rule of faith.  You deny this repeatedly and then affirm in the next breath.
 
Quote from: An Even Seven
Quote from: drew
To believe that a heretical pope makes the Church “defective” is only possible if you believe that the pope is the rule of faith.  It is bizarre to conclude that a heretical pope makes the Church “defective” but having no pope at all does not!


The Church has said more than once that the gates of hell are heretics. If the Earthly leader of Christ’s Church were a heretic, then the gates of hell have prevailed. Thus, it would defect.
A period without a man occupying the Papacy does not cause defection. If this were true then the Church defected after the death of St. Peter. Your illogic is nauseating.

It was said by Stubborn in an earlier post that sedevacantists are always drawing unnecessary conclusions from good principles.  This is just another example of the same problem except, I even your principles are not any good.  Pope Honorius was declared by an ecuмenical council to have been a heretic and this declaration was approved formally by the pope.  The “gates of hell” did not prevail except in the minds of those who held Honorius to be the rule of faith.  Once again you showing your bad principles.  

Sedevacantism is a theology of despair.  You have no idea the meaning of magisterium, you have no idea how the attribute of indefectibility is preserved, you corrupt the word “perpetual” into a meaning unrecognizable to any common use of language, and you give no evidence of any carefully reasoned argument.  You’re a sloganeer.  You can’t be reasoned out of sedevacantism because you did not reason yourself into it.
   
Quote from: An Even Seven
Quote from: drew
I asked a question in an earlier post that has not been answered.  If a pope is a heretic in the internal forum only, does he lose his office?  If so, how do you know, and if not, why not?

In your hypothetical scenario there would be no way of knowing. If he lost the faith internally but never externally manifested it, in the eyes of the Church he would continue as Pope. As St. Robert says, we can’t read a man’s heart, but if he manifests heresy, we judge him to be a Heretic.
This is moot, since it can be shown that these men never were Pope due to publically manifested heresy before their elections.    

Now answer my question. You keep mentioning that there are kinds of Magisterium that can err and only require a "conditional assent". Where is the Magisterial Teaching for this?

It is not “moot.” It is an acknowledgment on your part that it is not the heresy but the public scandal that removes the heretic pope from office ipso facto.  By what authority do you impose a canonical ipso facto penalty without due process?  Where did you obtain this jurisdiction?  Who made you the “lord of the harvest”?  

Your last question was specifically addressed above in the quotations taken from AER article by Fr. Joseph Fenton.  

Drew
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Clemens Maria on February 02, 2017, 10:36:00 PM
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: drew

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.”

Drew


If anyone makes the pope the rule of faith it is YOU.

This link might be of help to those who are confused about sedevacantism.  

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/wilhelm_scannell_05.html


I take it that Drew is taking exception to the idea that the pope is the sole rule of faith?  In other words, he is accusing sedes of making the pope into a divinity.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The vast majority of sedes will affirm everything in Chapter 5 of W&S.  Thank you Myrna for posting that!  As explained there, "Hence the original promulgation is the remote Rule of Faith, and the continuous promulgation by the Teaching Body is the proximate Rule."  I assume that when Drew says that dogma is the rule of faith that he means that the original promulgation is the rule of faith.  But W&S contradicts that idea.  The rule of faith has a remote aspect as well as a proximate aspect.  So limiting the rule of faith to one or the other of those is wrong.  We have to affirm both.  If you accept that Francis is the Head of the Teaching Body (i.e. the Pope) then Francis is the proximate rule of faith for you and you owe him all the various levels of submission as outlined in W&S Chapter 5.  Obviously as a traditional Catholic that would be a major problem.  So how to resolve it?  Do we throw out centuries of Catholic theology and claim a right to be our own proximate rule of faith, a la Luther?  Or do we follow St. Robert Bellarmine and agree that a manifest heretic cannot possibly be a member of the Church and therefore neither can he possess any authority whatsoever in the Church?  I think the answer is obvious.  In 1988-91 Archbishop Lefebvre still held out some hope that maybe JP2 might reform himself.  But he admitted that there may come a time when we Catholics might have to admit that these post-V2 popes were not true popes.  I think that time has come.

By the way, maybe it makes sense to be R&R now that Francis is heralding Martin Luther as a great figure of Christianity.  Maybe by resisting Francis you are actually affirming his teaching?  As for me, I think I will just stick to the SV thesis based on the teaching of St. Robert.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Clemens Maria on February 02, 2017, 11:00:49 PM
Quote from: drew
It is not “moot.” It is an acknowledgment on your part that it is not the heresy but the public scandal that removes the heretic pope from office ipso facto.  By what authority do you impose a canonical ipso facto penalty without due process?  Where did you obtain this jurisdiction?  Who made you the “lord of the harvest”?  


Drew, do you understand the meaning of ipso facto penalty?  No one imposes it but God.  If that were not so we would be in Stubborn's World where it is impossible for the a pope to actually lose his office.  Gee, I wonder if even a dead pope would lose his office because who has the authority to declare him dead?

"This pope is dead."
"Tisn't!"
"Tis!"

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/4vuW6tQ0218[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/kQFKtI6gn9Y[/youtube]

Anyway, I don't know of any sedes who are claiming authority to depose the pope.  They are not even claiming to make an official declaration that the pope is a heretic.  They are merely saying that it is quite obvious that Jorge Bergoglio is a manifest heretic.  If he isn't a manifest heretic, why are we resisting him?
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Last Tradhican on February 03, 2017, 08:32:05 AM
Quote from: Clemens Maria


Anyway, I don't know of any sedes who are claiming authority to depose the pope.  They are not even claiming to make an official declaration that the pope is a heretic.  They are merely saying that it is quite obvious that Jorge Bergoglio is a manifest heretic. If he isn't a manifest heretic, why are we resisting him?


That's the bottom line.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Pax Vobis on February 03, 2017, 02:42:40 PM
Quote
•"It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions." 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Infallibility


Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: drew on February 03, 2017, 04:40:34 PM
Quote from: Clemens Maria
Quote from: MyrnaM
Quote from: drew

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.”

Drew


If anyone makes the pope the rule of faith it is YOU.

This link might be of help to those who are confused about sedevacantism.  

http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/wilhelm_scannell_05.html


I take it that Drew is taking exception to the idea that the pope is the sole rule of faith?  In other words, he is accusing sedes of making the pope into a divinity.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The vast majority of sedes will affirm everything in Chapter 5 of W&S.  Thank you Myrna for posting that!  As explained there, "Hence the original promulgation is the remote Rule of Faith, and the continuous promulgation by the Teaching Body is the proximate Rule."  I assume that when Drew says that dogma is the rule of faith that he means that the original promulgation is the rule of faith.  But W&S contradicts that idea.  The rule of faith has a remote aspect as well as a proximate aspect.  So limiting the rule of faith to one or the other of those is wrong.  We have to affirm both.  If you accept that Francis is the Head of the Teaching Body (i.e. the Pope) then Francis is the proximate rule of faith for you and you owe him all the various levels of submission as outlined in W&S Chapter 5.  Obviously as a traditional Catholic that would be a major problem.  So how to resolve it?  Do we throw out centuries of Catholic theology and claim a right to be our own proximate rule of faith, a la Luther?  Or do we follow St. Robert Bellarmine and agree that a manifest heretic cannot possibly be a member of the Church and therefore neither can he possess any authority whatsoever in the Church?  I think the answer is obvious.  In 1988-91 Archbishop Lefebvre still held out some hope that maybe JP2 might reform himself.  But he admitted that there may come a time when we Catholics might have to admit that these post-V2 popes were not true popes.  I think that time has come.

By the way, maybe it makes sense to be R&R now that Francis is heralding Martin Luther as a great figure of Christianity.  Maybe by resisting Francis you are actually affirming his teaching?  As for me, I think I will just stick to the SV thesis based on the teaching of St. Robert.

You misunderstand Scheeban's article on the Rule of Faith.

You err in making the pope your rule of faith.  You said,
Quote from: Clemens Maria
"If you accept that Francis is the Head of the Teaching Body (i.e. the Pope) then Francis is the proximate rule of faith for you and you owe him all the various levels of submission as outlined in W&S Chapter 5."
 
This is a grave error in calling the pope the "proximate rule of faith." The honor belongs to Dogma.  The remote Rule of Faith is divine revelation found in scripture and tradition.  The proximate rule of faith is Dogma.  Scheeban does not contradict this but in fact reaffirms it repeatedly.

Dogma is not the teaching of the pope, it is the formal definition by God of God's revelation to His Church exercised through the pope by virtue of the attribute of infallibility God has endowed His Church.  That is why Dogma is the formal object of divine and Catholic faith.

Every sedevacantist group, every one excepting Br. Michael Dimond, makes this same mistake.  It is best exemplified in their belief that the good Jєω as a Jєω, the good Hindu as a Hindu, the good Muslim as a Muslim, the good Protestant as a Protestant, even the good pagan as a pagan can obtain salvation by their "desire to do the will of a god who rewards and punishes."  All of them, excepting Br. Dimond, believe that the Dogmas that affirm what is necessary for salvation, as necessities of means, may be reinterpreted by the pope to be understood by Catholics in a none literal sense.   It was good to see that An Even Seven repudiated this heresy, but what about you?  It is an error grounded upon holding the pope as the rule of faith, and from this error sedevacantism logically follows.  

Quote from: Clemens Maria
Quote from: Drew
It is not “moot.” It is an acknowledgment on your part that it is not the heresy but the public scandal that removes the heretic pope from office ipso facto.  By what authority do you impose a canonical ipso facto penalty without due process?  Where did you obtain this jurisdiction?  Who made you the “lord of the harvest”?
 

Drew, do you understand the meaning of ipso facto penalty?  No one imposes it but God.  If that were not so we would be in Stubborn's World where it is impossible for the a pope to actually lose his office.  Gee, I wonder if even a dead pope would lose his office because who has the authority to declare him dead?

"This pope is dead."
"Tisn't!"
"Tis!

Your reply is not well thought out at all.  Your claim that:
Quote from: Clemens Maria
"No one imposes ipso facto penalities but God"

This is not true, for man also can and does impose ipso facto penalties for crimes of both human and divine law.  This is common even in secular criminal law.  

God always imposes "ipso facto" penalties for every single sin, omission, and negligence.  When a mortal sin is committed in the internal forum, know only to God, the sinner is ipso facto formally removed from the life of grace, he is no longer a temple of the Holy Ghost, no longer has a right to heaven, and if he dies unrepentant, will be lost eternally.  This sinner may still be a material member of the Church.  In fact, there is no mortal sin where God uniformly ipso facto materially ends Church membership and this includes heresy.

The same ipso facto penalty applies to formal heresy in the internal forum, which is a moral sin.  God does not removed a heretic materially ipso facto from the Church.  That is done by men in consequence of the human law of the Church. When a heretic is materially removed from the Church it is not because of the heresy per se but rather because of the scandal to the faithful.  There are numerous examples of Modernist heretics not being materially removed from the Church during and since the time of St. Pius X. When the heretic is materially removed from the Church it is always done as a consequence of the human law of the Church.  Penalties that remove a heretic materially from the Church that are applied ipso facto still require canonical due process determination of guilt.  Martin Luther was formally removed from the Church by God when he committed the mortal sin of heresy.  He was materially removed from the Church by churchmen only after the excommunication following the due process of a formal canonical trial.  

The parable of the Cockle has been previously mentioned.  The commentaries of Lapide, Haydock, and St. Thomas all include heretics among the cockle.  In the parable God keeps the cockle until the harvest.  The arguments on this question concern the right of the Church to remove the heretical cockle before the harvest if in her judgment it is better for the faithful wheat.  None have argued that the Church must always and necessarily materially remove a heretic from the Church.  When it is done, it is done for the welfare of the faithful.

Sedevacantists have made themselves the "lord of the harvest."  The hold the pope as the rule of faith and claim that any faithful associated with him materially is formally contaminated.  This is to believe that Jesus Christ formally sinned by being materially associated with the heretic Caiaphas the high priest by participating in Temple worship.

So Clemens, you belong to a Church that has no pope, and no hope of ever getting one.  The Church founded by Jesus Christ was built upon Peter the first pope and we know by divine and Catholic faith that Peter will have "perpetual successors."  Those that do not regard Dogma as the rule of faith have no problem with taking this Dogma in a non-literal sense.  

Drew  


Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: drew on February 03, 2017, 09:25:42 PM
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: drew
Whenever the popes are speaking of the infallible Magisterium, they are referring to the teaching of the pope when he engages the attribute of infallibility that Jesus Christ endowed His Church

Magisterial Citation please?

This is by definition.  Common knowledge.

Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: drew
 I think it is fair to say that whatever a pope says or does, if he is indeed the pope, is an act of the “authentic (or authorized) magisterium.”

It would not be fair but false. If the Pope errs in something it is not an act of the authentic magisterium because the Magisterium is infallible. Please provide a Magisterial citation that there is any KIND of Magisterium that can err.

I have already provided you with an authoritative quotations by a theologian considered to be the best of his time by Fr. Fenton defining the term "authentic magisterium" which is a relatively new theological term.  I have already provided you with authoritative theologians regarding the possibility of error in the authentic ordinary magisterium where the pope teaches by his grace of state.  Still you make the same error again and again and again.  I can only provide you with the information.   I cannot make you read it.  I cannot make you understand it.

Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: drew
If the pope is the rule of faith, obedience becomes unconditional, therefore, all Catholics must obey the pope.  Since the pope commands what is unconscionable, therefore, Catholics cannot obey the pope, therefore, he is not the pope.

If this is what you think the SV argument is based on then you need to study. The claimant is not the Pope because of his manifest heresy/apostasy before his election. It’s not because of what he commands, it’s because of what he believes. One cannot be Catholic and publically do and teach what these men believe. Vatican II taught heresy to the universal Church and Paul VI used solemn dogmatic language. That was an outward manifestation of his beliefs and those of whom were in attendance and agreed upon it.

This is an admission that you have made yourself the "lord of the harvest."

Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: drew
When did the pope, with the same solemnity that Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, define that “every man has a right to whatever religion they want” as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith?

Quote from: Paul VI
Vatican II docuмent, Dignitatis Humanae:
“PAUL, BISHOP, SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD(in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians), TOGETHER WITH THE FATHERS OF THE SACRED COUNCIL FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY...9.The things which this Vatican Synod declares concerning the right of man to religious liberty… this doctrine on liberty has its roots in divine Revelation(he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church); with all the more reason, therefore, it is to be preserved sacredly by Christians...12.The Church therefore, faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and the Apostles when it acknowledges the principle of religious liberty as in accord with human dignity and the revelation of God(he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church), and when it promotes it…EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE THINGS SET FORTH IN THIS DECREE HAS WON THE CONSENT OF THE FATHERS.  WE, TOO, BY THE APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY CONFERRED ON US(in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority) BY CHRIST, JOIN WITH THE VENERABLE FATHERS IN APPROVING, DECREEING, AND ESTABLISHING THESE THINGS IN THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND WE DIRECT THAT WHAT HAS THUS BEEN ENACTED IN SYNOD BE PUBLISHED TO GOD’S GLORY… I, PAUL, BISHOP OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.”


You  know next to nothing about the Church's magisterium and what you do know, you have twisted. This is additional evidence.  Equating this docuмent to the Ex Cathedra definition of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary by Pope Pius XII engaging the Extra-ordinary Magisterium of the Church to dogmatically define this doctrine, demonstrates that you have no idea what the Magisterium is or how it is exercised.

Furthermore, your quote of the Vatican II docuмent on Religious Liberty, is improper for at least two important reasons.  Firstly, the docuмent is not even a decree claiming to be "dogmatic" within the context of the council.  It is professed to be a merely pastoral decree admitted by all both during and after the council.  Secondly, your quote taking out of context with the intention of implying that the docuмent is claiming that doctrine of Religious Liberty has its source divine Revelation.  That is false. The entire paragraph cited says:

Quote from: Vatican II, On Religious Liberty
9. The declaration of this Vatican Council on the right of man to religious freedom has its foundation in the dignity of the person, whose exigencies have come to be are fully known to human reason through centuries of experience. What is more, this doctrine of freedom has roots in divine revelation, and for this reason Christians are bound to respect it all the more conscientiously. Revelation does not indeed affirm in so many words the right of man to immunity from external coercion in matters religious. It does, however, disclose the dignity of the human person in its full dimensions. It gives evidence of the respect which Christ showed toward the freedom with which man is to fulfill his duty of belief in the word of God and it gives us lessons in the spirit which disciples of such a Master ought to adopt and continually follow. Thus further light is cast upon the general principles upon which the doctrine of this declaration on religious freedom is based. In particular, religious freedom in society is entirely consonant with the freedom of the act of Christian faith.

The decree in fact denies that Religious Liberty is directly found in divine Revelation and admits that the doctrine is deduced as an implication from the "dignity of the human person in its full dimensions."  This is nothing other than churchmen teaching by their grace of state and nothing more.
 
Lastly, the Dogma from Vatican I infallibility states that the Church must intend to "define."  In this docuмent there is no formal definition and nothing is proposed as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.    

To imply or argue that this docuмent is a papal claim to be invoking the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (which is infallible) is an act of deception.  To suggest that this docuмent is equivalent to Pope Pius XII's definition of the Assumption may be evidence for declaration of brain death.  What it does clearly demonstrate is that you believe the pope is the rule of faith for there is no other premise from which anyone could conclude that these two papal acts are equivalent.  You must believe that the pope himself is the determining factor and not the act.  Again, that is making the pope the rule of faith.

Quote from: Aneven Seven
Quote from: drew
I admit, as I have already admitted, that Pope Pius XII used the term “ordinary magisterium.”  It is unfortunate because he is not talking about the “ordinary magisterium.”

Unfortunate for you that is, because it proves you wrong.
Quote from: drew
 
Vatican I said:
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

So what do think about the word, “perpetual”?  What does it mean?  The word is derived from the “from Latin perpetualis, from perpetuus continuing throughout, from perpes, perpet- continuous.” (Oxford)

Well if perpetual meant having a Pope every single second from Peter on, this statement from Vatican I would be false. So it must mean something else. It is clear from the context, it is talking about the office of the Papacy.

Who has claimed that "perpetual successor" means "having a pope every single second from Peter on"?  But no matter how long a papal interregnum has been, at most a couple years, there has always been an intent from the death of one pope to the confirm his successor and always a mechanism to do so.  Never has there been a situation where there exists no efficient cause nor instrumental cause to create a pope.  Never has an interregnum lasted beyond a couple years.  It is now 60 years since John XXIII's election and after 60 years you still have nothing to hope for.  You are at a dead end.  

There are examples in nature of perpetual events with long periods for recurrence such as some forms of radioactive decay or planetary rotation but to called "perpetual" these periods must recur at regular and predicable intervals.  Nowhere in the history of the "perpetual successors" of Peter has there been an interval of 60 years with no  hope of resolution over the horizon.

What you are doing again is the corruption of Dogma twisting its clear meaning of words.  This is what those who make the pope the rule of faith always do. They consider Dogma as general theoretical guide lines or approximations of truth that can be interpreted in a non-literal sense to serve the theological ends of whoever is playing "lord of the harvest."

Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: drew
How many years does it take to break “continuity”? Can you give any secular historical example “perpetual succession” is claimed to have been maintained after a period of sixty years of vacancy?

At least one Vatican I theologian seemed to think that there is no limit on an interregnum and that it doesn’t affect Perpetual Succession.
I was wondering if you can give a historical example of Catholics calling the Pope a heretic and claiming he is still in the Church. Or if you could give an example of people refusing obedience and submission to a lawful Pope. Ridiculous!

This answer is absurd.  A "theologian seemed to think" that the papal office could be indefinitely vacant and still have "perpetual succession"?
   
Pope Honorius was formally declared a heretic and no one ever suggested he lost his office.  Caiaphas was a heretic and Jesus Christ never declared that he lost his office.  

Still you have no understanding regarding how acts of obedience are morally regulated after being told several times.  

Quote from: Aneven Seven

Quote from: drew
It is only “necessary that the Pope be a Catholic and not a heretic” if the pope is the rule of faith.  You deny this repeatedly and then affirm in the next breath.

WHAT!!!!! This statement made me laugh literally out loud. If you could only see how ludicrous this is. The Church has ALWAYS taught that a heretic is NOT a Catholic. I think you need some quotes.

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jєωs or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives…”

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.

”Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896:
“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9):
“No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to a single one of these he is not a Catholic.”

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (#15), June 29, 1896:
“No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.”

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo, Dec. 18, 1208:
“By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics, but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”

St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction."

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30:
"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the manifest heretic cannot be Pope."

St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306: "Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church..."

St. Antoninus (1459): "In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub.)

The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Papal Elections,” 1914, Vol. 11, p.
456: "Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female
[as Pope] would be null and void."

This has been address repeatedly and you add nothing new.  Formal heresy will formally remove a Catholic formally from the Church just like every mortal sin.  Heresy can, but does not necessarily, remove a Catholic materially from the Church.  You have already admitted that a heretic in the internal forum alone would not lose his office.  The implications of this are lost on you.  The removal of a heretic materially from the Church is done so because of scandal and not because of the heresy per se and this removal is possible but not necessary.  A heretic that is removed materially from the Church is done so by the human law of the Church which imposes ipso facto penalties by law that can only be imposed after due process determination of guilt.  The law imposes the penalty, the law does not impose the guilt.

Quote from: Aneven Seven
Quote from: drew
Pope Honorius was declared by an ecuмenical council to have been a heretic and this declaration was approved formally by the pope.  The “gates of hell” did not prevail except in the minds of those who held Honorius to be the rule of faith.  Once again you showing your bad principles.


First, it is argued whether or not Honorius was heretic or failed to stamp out heresy. The CE article on him explains it well.

Second, The 3rd Council of Constantinople never declared that he retained his office or lost it. So there’s that.

I’m sure if Honorius would have declared to the Church that Christ only had one will, instead of only discussing with the Patriarch of Constantinople, the faithful would have considered him to fall from office. That’s because all Catholics everywhere from the beginning of the Church were taught that heretics are not part of the Church.

It does not matter what you are "sure" of.  Honorius was formally declared a heretic by an ecuмenical council that was affirmed by the pope.  This act, by your understanding councilaar and papal acts, is infallible.  He was never during his life or after considered by anyone to have lost his office.  No legitimate papal act of Honorius was ever considered null because of loss of office due to heresy.  It did not happen.  This is the only precedent for formal heresy in a pope and no loss of office.

Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: drew
Sedevacantism is a theology of despair.

SV is not a theology. It is a term coined to describe the interregnum currently befalling the Church. It is based on Dogma that Heretics are not a part of the Church.  

Quote from: drew
You have no idea the meaning of magisterium,

The Magisterium is the Church’s office of its Teaching Authority and it is unable to err, and until you can prove from the Magisterium that it can err, you have lost the battle against Church Teaching.

Quote from: drew
you have no idea how the attribute of indefectibility is preserved,

It is preserved by the authority of Christ. The Church will not ever be overcome by heretics, which are the Gates of Hell.

This is correct regarding the Magisterium for Christ's Church.  It is an error to claim that sedevacantism is not a "theology."  Its theology has brought you to a church that is not the Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church, established by Jesus Christ, was founded upon Peter and his "perpetual successors."  Your church is lacking this necessary attribute.  You did not end up at this dead-end by definition.

Have you considered a name for your church?

Quote from: An even Seven
Second Council of Constantinople:“… we bear in mind what was promised about the holy Church and Him who said the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (by these we understand the death-dealing tongues of heretics)…”

If a heretic were the leader of the Church of Christ then the Gates of hell have most literally prevailed.

Quote from: drew
By what authority do you impose a canonical ipso facto penalty without due process?

This never ceases to amaze me. You clearly have no idea what an ipso facto penalty is. It means it is incurred by that very fact. Before any sentence. A hearing and sentence may proceed, but that is only to declare what has ALREADY happened.
Here is Pope Pius VI  
Auctorem fidei: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.

Clearly a personal examination does not need to happen for the excommunication to happen. That is, for the person to be outside the Church. Here is St. Robert explaining it quite nicely.

St. Robert Bellarmine: "For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is 'ipso facto' deposed. The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate - which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence. And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the Body of Christ.”  

Canon 188.4, 1917 Code of Canon Law:
“There are certain causes which effect the tacit resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) if he has publicly fallen away from the faith.”

These laws are human laws of the Church.  Ipso facto penalties are imposed by law upon the guilty.  Lacking a public charge of heresy and an admission of guilt, the determination of guilt requires due process in the external forum for penalty of law to be imposed.

You have made yourself the "lord of the harvest."    
 
The essential problem for you is that you belong to a church that is manifestly not the Catholic Church.  You have no pope, you will never get one, and therefore the church you belong to is not Catholic because the Catholic Church will always have "perpetual successors" to Peter.  To achieve this end you have corrupted what the Magisterium of the Church is.  You have made the pope the rule of faith by taking his personal teaching by his grace of state and given these teachings the marks of infallibility in direct opposition to the Dogmas on infallibility which establish the criteria for infallible teachings.
 
I don't think you are stupid but there is clear evidence that you are unknowledgeable on very important matters, poorly educated, and unable to examine any problem outside a fixed and determined perspective.  I have only entered this discussion with you for the benefit others. As I said before no one can be reasoned from a position that did not reasonable assume.  Still, you should at least know that the church you belong to is not Catholic.  That is clearly evident and here is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.  Sedevacantism is a theology of despair. You think a heretical pope means the "gates of hell have prevailed."  Just another example of drawing conclusions that do not necessarily follow.  I would only believe this if I belonged to a church in which its necessary attributes were not nor could ever be present.  The only question I have is which more often comes first, the despair or the sedevacantism.

Drew  



Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on February 04, 2017, 04:19:01 AM
Quote from: drew

So Clemens, you belong to a Church that has no pope, and no hope of ever getting one. The Church founded by Jesus Christ was built upon Peter the first pope and we know by divine and Catholic faith that Peter will have "perpetual successors."  Those that do not regard Dogma as the rule of faith have no problem with taking this Dogma in a non-literal sense.  

Drew  


That's the bottom line.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Stubborn on February 04, 2017, 07:47:03 AM
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: Pax Vobis
Quote
•"It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions." 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia, Infallibility



Pope Pius IX, Ineffibilis Deus"We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”    
Ok, you believe, I assume from your quote from the CE, that this is the only thing written in this Bull, that is infallible. Let’s take a look at just some of the other quotes.
“…the eternal Father chose and prepared for his only-begotten Son a Mother in whom the Son of God would become incarnate…”
Can we believe that the Father did not prepare for His only begotten Son, a Mother in whom His Son would become Incarnate? Or is this infallible?
“The Catholic Church, directed by the Holy Spirit of God, is the pillar and base of truth”
Can we believe that the Church is not the pillar of truth and that it is directed by some other force than the Holy Spirit? Or is it infallible?
“For such dignity and authority belong to the Church that she alone is the center of truth and of Catholic unity.”
Can we believe that the Church is not the only center of Truth and Catholic unity? Or is it infallible?

My point is, if you don’t know, that just because a statement of a Pope does not have all the Ex Cathedra language of a solemn definition, does not mean it is not infallible or requires a “conditional assent” as drew puts it.
The Popes also from time to time, reiterate a Dogma already clearly defined, or explain the finer points of a Dogma. It is just as infallible. That means we can in NO way dissent from these teachings. This does not mean that every word of a Pope is infallible, or even that every word in a docuмent which he uses his Solemn Judgement and defines a Dogma is infallible. It only means that the Pope is exercising the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium to teach what the Church already believes.


FWIW.......The first quote in red is infallible via an ex cathedra pronouncement, that is, a solemn teaching of the Church's Extraordinary Magisterium. The other quotes are infallible via the Church's Ordinary Universal Magisterium........
Quote from: First Vatican Council

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.


 
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: drew on February 04, 2017, 06:47:05 PM
Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: drew
I have already provided you with an authoritative quotations by a theologian considered to be the best of his time by Fr. Fenton defining the term "authentic magisterium" which is a relatively new theological term.  I have already provided you with authoritative theologians regarding the possibility of error in the authentic ordinary magisterium where the pope teaches by his grace of state

I did not think you could prove your erroneous belief. That, not only do you not have any Magisterial teaching to back your claims, but you consider theologians part of the Magisterium. This shows your hypocrisy, that you are more willing to accept what a theologian says as Authoritative than what you consider a Pope says.

Your replies are nothing more than bromides that are endlessly and mindlessly repeated by sedevacantists.  It is hoped that having arrived in a church that is missing a necessary attribute of the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ that you might try to rethink the problem but you have not thought about anything.  You don't argue, you just repeat slogans.  This reply is just parroting the same erroneous understanding you have of the meaning of the word "magisterium."  

The theologian quoted was to provide a definition of the term "authentic magisterium."   You have been misusing the term constantly in your posting.  Now you are asking for a "Magisterial teaching" to prove that the definition of the term "authentic magisterium" is correct!  And because this, which does not exist, was not provided it "shows (my) hypocrisy."  

Getting your definitions correct is the first job you have to address before you can even try to reason.

The second theologian with Fr. Fenton was to provide you with an expert opinion that teachings of the authentic ordinary magisterium, that is, the pope teaching by his grace of state have in the past and may in the future contain error and therefore admit of a "prudent" and "conditional" acceptance.  Your bromide reply: It is "hypocrisy .... more willing to accept what a theologian says as Authoritative than what you consider a Pope says."  

This reply is not just stupid, it is totally disconnected from what in fact was said.  It is a mindless reply.

Quote from: Aneven Seven
Quote from: drew
Furthermore, your quote of the Vatican II docuмent on Religious Liberty, is improper for at least two important reasons.  Firstly, the docuмent is not even a decree claiming to be "dogmatic" within the context of the council.  It is professed to be a merely pastoral decree admitted by all both during and after the council.  Secondly, your quote taking out of context with the intention of implying that the docuмent is claiming that doctrine of Religious Liberty has its source divine Revelation.  That is false.

The decree in fact denies that Religious Liberty is directly found in divine Revelation and admits that the doctrine is deduced as an implication from the "dignity of the human person in its full dimensions."  This is nothing other than churchmen teaching by their grace of state and nothing more.
Lastly, the Dogma from Vatican I infallibility states that the Church must intend to "define."  In this docuмent there is no formal definition and nothing is proposed as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.    

First, a decree does not have to claim to be dogmatic for it to be so. Show where the Magisterium says it has to. Let me add that to your list of made up  "teachings".
Second, If a council claims something is of Divine Revelation (DR), and especially if the Pope declares it through his apostolic authority to the whole Church, it is infallible. Vatican II explicitly says in DH #9” this doctrine on liberty has its roots in divine Revelation” and in #12” The Church therefore, faithful to the truth of the Gospel, follows the way of Christ and the Apostles when it acknowledges the principle of religious liberty as in accord with human dignity and the revelation of God” I understand that you don’t want to admit it but it’s right there. And for you to say that it actually denies that it’s part of DR, is a lie.
Lastly, Proclaiming that something is part of DR, definitely constitutes infallibility in this circuмstance. You have no valid response. Paul VI uses his apostolic authority and declares to the whole church that Rel. Lib. Is part of DR.
He is telling “catholics” that Rel. Lib. Is included in the Rule of Faith. You are making yourself the rule of faith by making up different rules, then contradicting them, about what is infallible. You said before that only the Canons in Trent were infallible. You skipped my question as to why that is. Then you claim that DH isn't infallible because it say it was Dogmatic. Then you tell me that the right to religious liberty is not to be considered infallible because you say it didn't intend to define. Rel. Lib. is not part of DR but Paul VI clearly taught that it is. He is saying that it was handed down from God and has always been believed. This is just as authoritative as the Canons in Trent were Paul VI actually the Pope.
You are all over the place and only want to consider infallible what fits your narrative.

Oh brother!  Where to begin.  Another bromide.  Another mindless parroting of sedevacantist canned answers.  You are like a talking doll with a handful possible answers, just pull the string and see what you get.  You should begin be reading the Dogma from Vatican I on infallibility with the purpose of trying to understand it.  I do not know of any Dogmatic definitions that begin by saying "This is a Dogma."  A Dogmatic definition gives evidence of itself by meeting specific criteria.  You must learn what those criteria are.

Vatican II never defined any doctrine and proposed it as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  Dogma requires a formal definition on faith and/or morals with the intent to bind all the faithful for all time.  This intent of Vatican II to define doctrine was explicitly denied by the pope who called the council and the pope who closed the council.  After the council there were statements from Paul VI, JPII, and Benedict XVI that no dogma was defined in the council.  Not only was it not done, there was not expressed intent ever to do so.  Lacking intent, it is impossible to engage the Church's attribute of infallibility.  

Of the 16 docuмents, two are called "dogmatic constitutions" and the others are "decrees" or "declarations."  The docuмent on Religious Liberty (DH) was called a "declaration."  The term "dogmatic" that was incorporated in two council texts is used in the same sense that Ott entitled his book, Dogmatic Theology.  Neither of these texts defined any doctrine as a formal of divine and Catholic faith.  They produced no Dogma.  Still the two constitutions establish the foundational principles that justify all the decrees and declarations that followed.

My complaint is that you took a quotation from DH out of context to imply that the teaching for Religious Liberty was from "divine Revelation."  This is lie and now reply by repeating the lie. You are an ass if think anyone has to listed to your distortions.  

Rather than reply again to you, which is clearly wasted effort.  I invite anyone else to compare your claim with the actual text of paragraph nine.  The declaration describes what is means by "roots in divine Revelation" and that description says explicitly that this novel doctrine is not taught in divine Revelation but extrapolated from what is calls, "dignity of the human person in its full dimensions."

From this paragraph you argue that DH has the same authority as the Extra-ordinary dogmatic degree of Pope Pius XII on the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary!  Those who say, as you have, that DH claims that Religious Liberty is of divine Revelation are liars that intentionally distort the text out of context to deceive others.  

Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: drew
But no matter how long a papal interregnum has been, at most a couple years, there has always been an intent from the death of one pope to the confirm his successor and always a mechanism to do so.  Never has there been a situation where there exists no efficient cause nor instrumental cause to create a pope.  Never has an interregnum lasted beyond a couple years.  It is now 60 years since John XXIII's election and after 60 years you still have nothing to hope for.  You are at a dead end.

Who says that Pope Pius XII didn’t intend to have a successor confirmed or that a single clergyman can’t elect a new Pope. The Cardinals haven’t always elected a Pope, nor has it always been clear how a certain Pope was elected.  What has to be ABSOLUTELY true is that the Pope elected had to have the Catholic Faith prior to their election as per Dogma and “cuм Ex”.

So you have a "single clergyman" to "elect a new Pope."  Good. Do it. It has been tried plenty of time since Vatican II.  There must have been at least a dozen papal claimants.  Which of these is your Pope?  There is Michael I, two different Peter II, Gregory XVII, Gregory XVIII, Leo XIV, Innocent XIV, Alexander IX, Pius XIII, Clement XIV, Mathurin I, Linus II, etc., etc. Innocent XIV was elected after an international conclave of sorts. He walked away when the plan failed to gather any support.  So which of these is your pope?  If none, why not?  Again, these are rhetorical questions.  The point is that even if a group a sedevacantists got together and elected a pope he will not be received by other groups of sedevacantists.  That is the historical record over the last sixty years.  

Heresy is the rejection of Dogma.  So since nearly every single sedevacantist holds that the pope is the rule of faith and that inconvenient Dogmas, such as that which says that there will always be "perpetual successors" in the Chair of Peter, need not be believed, how can a sedevacantist ever produce a pope when they are heretics by definition?  Again, just a rhetorical question.  Don't bother trying to answer.  

Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: drew
What you are doing again is the corruption of Dogma twisting its clear meaning of words.  This is what those who make the pope the rule of faith always do. They consider Dogma as general theoretical guide lines or approximations of truth that can be interpreted in a non-literal sense to serve the theological ends of whoever is playing "lord of the harvest."

That is not true. Dogma is the rule of faith not some guideline. You are making a straw man here. I adhere to Dogma while you claim that you are the arbiter of what Dogma is. I wish I could say what you consider Dogma and Infallible but your guidelines change so much, it's impossible. If you don’t like the response you're given, you claim, it’s not infallible, or imply that a Theologian is the rule of faith.

You do not even know what Dogma is! How is it then possible that it could be your rule of faith? Don't bother replying.  The question is rhetorical because you cannot possible answer it. You are unable to distinguish between the authority of DH from Vatican II and the Extra-ordinary dogmatic declaration of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  That being said, any answer would only confuse you more.  

Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: drew
This answer is absurd.  A "theologian seemed to think" that the papal office could be indefinitely vacant and still have "perpetual succession"?

“We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy.  In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope – with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created.  There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of the Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.”(Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society – Theological Essays, 1882)
Fr. O’Reilly spoke after Vatican I and was said to be considered the most important Theologian of his time. So it’s not absurd to think an Interregnum could last a very long time, nor is it contrary to any Dogma.

I do not know Fr. O'Reilly but if your reference is accurate and not out of context as  you did with your reference to DH, what possible authority is this!  When you read an article by Fr. Fenton in AER you will typically find references to a dozen or more expert theologians on both sides of any given question.  In his article on the authority of papal encyclicals he references more than thirty different expert theologians of varying opinions.

Now this reference to some unknown character who postulates that if during the GWS there had been no pope at all, it would not mean that the "perpetual succession" had been lost. This is empty speculation.  Empty because it never happened.  Empty because even if it had, there still was a hierarchy present with the intent and power to select a pope.  You have neither!  Therefore you do not have an efficient and/or instrumental cause capable of creating a pope.  For you the "perpetual succession" to the chair of Peter is broken!  You cannot fix it.  The church you belong to is without an essential attribute that Jesus Christ endowed His Church.  The church you belong to is not, and cannot be, His church!    

Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: drew
Pope Honorius was formally declared a heretic and no one ever suggested he lost his office.  Caiaphas was a heretic and Jesus Christ never declared that he lost his office.

No one ever suggested that he retained his office. Were you there? Did the Council ever relate what the common thought was? Was Honorius’ heresy public and manifest?
To Caiaphas. Was he a heretic? Where is the evidence for that? What Church Dogmas did he deny? Evil and Sinful? Yes. Heretic? I don’t know and neither do you.

Because, if Honorius had lost his office, all his papal acts would have had to have been corrected. Never happened.  That is the historical proof that he never lost his office.  Honorius was formally declared to have been a heretic by an ecuмenical council that was approved by the Pope.  This act was both public and manifest which is the appropriate response to the crime.  

Caiaphas was a Sadducee.  We know from scripture that the Sadducees denied the resurrection of the body. We also know that they only accepted the Pentateuch for scriptural authority.  That is why when the Sadducees presented the speculative theological problem of the multiple marriages to Jesus answered correcting their error with a reference from the Pentateuch.  The denial of the resurrection of the body was a heresy.  It is a doctrine directly affirmed by St. Martha to our Lord.  Jesus affirmed that the rulers "sit on the chair of Moses" and therefore they were to be obeyed but not imitated. Still, when the man born blind was disobedient to the rules for proclaiming Jesus as a prophet and expelled from the Temple, Jesus rewarded his disobedience to the legitimate rulers by seeking him out to reveal to him His divinity.    

Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: drew
Formal heresy will formally remove a Catholic formally from the Church just like every mortal sin.  

Wow. Every mortal sin removes a Catholic from the Church? It’s amazing that you imply I’m so uneducated about Catholic Teaching and yet say things like this.
Not every Mortal sin removes one from the Church. Here is an extension of the quote already provided.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corp. Chris.:”For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.”
No sin, no matter how GRAVE, severs a man from the Church as does heresy etc…  He goes on to teach what happens when one is in mortal sin but still in the Church. That is, lose charity and divine grace, incapable of supernatural merit. Then says, but they are not deprived of all life implying that those in heresy etc… are deprived of all life. This has it’s basis in the Dogmatic Teaching that heretics are not in the Church.
You are the opposite extreme of Stubborn. He doesn’t think that any sin can sever a man from the Church, you think all mortal sins sever a man. This is too much, how can I argue with someone who has total disregard for the teachings of the Popes and Dogma.

You have already admitted that the sin of heresy in the internal forum would not remove anyone from their office.  In this you are correct.  So what does Pope Pius XII mean by saying that the "nature" of heresy, schism and apostasy to "sever a man from the body of the Church"?  If it were the "nature" of the sin as you understand it, then itself heresy whether in the internal forum alone or the external forum would both cases would cause both the formal and material separation from the Church.  It does not.  It is the nature of these sins to destroy the virtue of faith without which repentance is impossible.  That is the reason for the separation from the Church by these sins.
 
But the problem is different when examined from either a legal perspective or a moral perspective.  From the legal perspective it is the human law of the Church the removes materially a heretic from the Church.  These human laws have an ipso facto penalty of excommunication.  The law imposes the penalty but the does not materially impose the guilt.  The guilt must always be materially proven through due process.  That is the nature of human law.

From a moral perspective it  may be easier to understand.   The Mystical Body of Christ and the Catholic Church are one and the same.  The "soul of the Church" is the Holy Ghost.  The soul is coextensive with every living part of every body.  A Catholic in mortal sin no longer has sanctifying grace, no longer has the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, he is an enemy of God and has lost the right to eternal life in heaven.  He has lost God's friendship.  He is no longer is a member of the Mystical Body of Christ.  He is a dead to the life of Christ.  So how is still a member of the Church since the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ?   Every mortal sin formally removes a Catholic from the Church but not materially.  Just as a dead limb can still be part of a tree but the life of three is lost to the dead limb.  The dead limb is formally removed from the life of the tree but is not materially removed.  When the sin does not attack the virtue of Faith, the Church does not materially exclude the sinner from the Church.  Schism, heresy and apostasy are sins against the virtue of Faith.  They like all mortal sins formally separate the sinner from the Church.  If the heresy is only in the internal forum, perhaps known only to a confessor and God, there is no ipso facto material separation from the Church. These sins by their nature can but not necessarily lead to material separation from the Church. It is the nature of these sins that when they are in the external forum they can lead to the Church to materially separate the heretic for the sake of the faithful.  If heresy in and of itself always and everywhere caused material separation then the Church would not be invisible because sins of the internal forum unknown to all but God.  It therefore is the nature of heresy, apostasy and schism to materially separate the sinner from the Church because they attack the virtue of Faith.  That is the normal natural course of development but this is not absolute, it is not a necessary result.  The moral and legal cause of material separation from the Church is the good of the Faithful and not the heresy itself.

I do not expect any reply from you on this question.  You only have a fixed slogan for a pat answer.  

I do not pretend to have definitive answers to these questions but my understanding of this question is in accord with Catholic dogma, principles of moral theology, and Church law and they do not lead to conclusions that a clearly and manifestly offensive to Catholic Faith.

You cannot say the same.

Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: drew
A heretic that is removed materially from the Church is done so by the human law of the Church which imposes ipso facto penalties by law that can only be imposed after due process determination of guilt.  

Every time you talk about “ipso facto” penalties you show your ignorance of it more and more. Ipso facto and a penalty imposed after due process are opposite from each other. Ipso facto excommunicates by the act of the violation. This is done before due process or else it would have no meaning. If the act required due process, ipso facto could not be applied. This is easily understood if one were to only read the quotes provided before.
We are not trying to determine whether these claimants are heretics based on what we think they believe in their hearts. No one could do that so that assertion is irrelevant. They manifested their heresies through word/deed before their election and have done so ever since their false elevations.

Ipso facto laws will lead to immediate formal excommunication but not material excommunication.  You already admitted this when you agreed that a heretic in the internal forum alone would not lose his office.  For a legal ipso facto penalty to be imposed by the law in the external forum for heresy requires determination of guilt.  The same is true for secular criminal laws.  For example, a state may have a law that if a gun is used in an armed robbery then a mandatory sentence of ten years is imposed by the law.  These laws impose ipso facto the penalty for the crime but they do not do so until there is a due process determination of guilt.

These laws are human laws of the Church.  God has bound them in the internal forum but God does not always see that the criminal is brought to human justice.  

Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: drew
Have you considered a name for your church?

Catholic.
How about you? Maybe the sometimes-catholic church? The fifth-pillar-catholic church? The material-catholic church? The defective-catholic church? The unable-to-legitimately-govern-because-the-pope-is-a-heretic-catholic church?
 
Your church cannot be the Catholic Church.  You have no pope.  As they say, 'better a leg that limps than no leg at all.'  

Many saints and theologians have speculated that the Church would recapitulate in her life the life of Christ on earth.  Jesus said that He was the "light of the world."  And so He is.  He then said that his Church would carry on this light after his Ascension.  He told them that they would be the "light of the world."  On occasions there were those who were scandalized by the doctrine and cross of Jesus and left him.  In his passion it was nearly everyone.  The Church seems to me to be still in the Garden of Olives where we say the first collective decision of the Apostolic College, "they all fled."  Sedevacantism is just one a several directions to flee.  But all those who have made the pope their rule of faith will fail this trial.  

Quote from: An even Seven
Quote from: drew
Lacking a public charge of heresy and an admission of guilt, the determination of guilt requires due process in the external forum for penalty of law to be imposed.

Then ipso facto has no meaning. If a Catholic hears another Baptized person saying that there are three Gods in the Trinity, even though he says he knows the Church teaches that there are three persons in One God, do we have to say that this statement is orthodox and this person is a Catholic until a court says that the statement is heretical and that person a heretic. Or can we say that statement is heresy and that person a heretic? This person is ipso facto severed from the Church without any further official Church Statement. That is, by that very fact. Therefore, he is unable to become Pope because he is not Catholic.

Take another witness with you to correct their error.  If they will not hear either of you, take them to the Church.  If they will not hear the Church then let me treated as the heathen and the publican. If the Church will not correct them, you have done all you are morally required to do.  You do not have the authority to do what the Church has failed to do.  You want to make yourself the "lord of the harvest." The pope is your rule of faith and since you reject his rule, you want to usurp an office that is not yours.  You want to determine and enforce your own canonical process.  You are a thief.  You are scandalized by their sin a do not have the patience to suffer the cross. The cross that God offers, you reject.  Like the disciples in the Garden, you have fled.  But don't pretend to what you have fled is the Catholic Church.  You are not one, you are not holy, you are not catholic, and you have no pope.  And without your "pope," you have lost your rule of faith.

This reply is not intended for you.  It is for anyone else who might think that the temptation of sedevacantism is an answer to the crisis in the Catholic Church.

Drew    


Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: drew on February 04, 2017, 08:32:11 PM
Correction:
If heresy in and of itself always and everywhere caused material separation then the Church would not be VISIBLE because sins of the internal forum unknown to all but God.
Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: drew on February 05, 2017, 06:06:35 PM
Quote from: An even Seven
 
Quote from: drew
I do not know of any Dogmatic definitions that begin by saying "This is a Dogma."  A Dogmatic definition gives evidence of itself by meeting specific criteria.  You must learn what those criteria are.

You said:” Firstly, the docuмent is not even a decree claiming to be "dogmatic" within the context of the council.”
This implies that a decree has to claim itself to be dogmatic for it to be so. It doesn't matter anyway because it meets Vatican I's definition for Ex Cathedra.

Hardly the point. Vatican II published two "dogmatic constitutions" which contained no Dogma.  The point was that DH, a pastoral "declaration" never ever made this pretense.

Quote from: An even Seven

Quote from: drew
Vatican II never defined any doctrine and proposed it as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith.  Dogma requires a formal definition on faith and/or morals with the intent to bind all the faithful for all time.  

If the council declares that something is of divine revelation and has not been defined up to that point, then yes, it intends to define. V II taught that Religious Liberty is part of Divine Revelation. You’re ignoring this. You merely give your canned answers that you learned from the “society”.

Quote from: drew
My complaint is that you took a quotation from DH out of context to imply that the teaching for Religious Liberty was from "divine Revelation."  This is lie and now reply by repeating the lie. You are an ass if think anyone has to listed to your distortions.

You better be careful. After this statement people might begin to see who you really are.
The language is extremely clear in DH. Rel. Lib., according to the “council” is of Divine Revelation.  

Quote from: drew
Rather than reply again to you, which is clearly wasted effort.  I invite anyone else to compare your claim with the actual text of paragraph nine.  The declaration describes what is means by "roots in divine Revelation" and that description says explicitly that this novel doctrine is not taught in divine Revelation but extrapolated from what is calls, "dignity of the human person in its full dimensions."

I invite anyone to do so also. I also hope that they will not ignore paragraph 12 like you have done. This is where is gives the meaning of what is said.
” In faithfulness therefore to the truth of the Gospel, the Church is following the way of Christ and the apostles when she recognizes and gives support to the principle of religious freedom as befitting the dignity of man and as being in accord with divine revelation.”
Faithful to the TRUTH of the Gospel? In accord with DIVINE REVELATION? Uh Oh…looks like V II is teaching to the entire “church” that Rel. Lib. can be found in the Revelation of God and the Holy Ghost is the Author of it.

Quote from: drew
Those who say, as you have, that DH claims that Religious Liberty is of divine Revelation are liars that intentionally distort the text out of context to deceive others.

Those who say, as you have, that DH does not claim that Religious Liberty is of Divine Revelation either haven’t read the text, are incapable of comprehension, or have as their motive the destruction of souls.  
Do you believe it’s the infallible teaching of the Church that Religious Liberty is condemned?


Quote from: Dignitatis Humanae, Pastoral Declaration on Religious Freedom, Vatican II

9. The declaration of this Vatican Council on the right of man to religious freedom has its foundation in the dignity of the person, whose exigencies have come to be are fully known to human reason through centuries of experience. What is more, this doctrine of freedom has roots in divine revelation, and for this reason Christians are bound to respect it all the more conscientiously. Revelation does not indeed affirm in so many words the right of man to immunity from external coercion in matters religious. It does, however, disclose the dignity of the human person in its full dimensions. It gives evidence of the respect which Christ showed toward the freedom with which man is to fulfill his duty of belief in the word of God and it gives us lessons in the spirit which disciples of such a Master ought to adopt and continually follow. Thus further light is cast upon the general principles upon which the doctrine of this declaration on religious freedom is based. In particular, religious freedom in society is entirely consonant with the freedom of the act of Christian faith.
12. In faithfulness therefore to the truth of the Gospel, the Church is following the way of Christ and the apostles when she recognizes and gives support to the principle of religious freedom as befitting the dignity of man and as being in accord with divine revelation. Throughout the ages the Church has kept safe and handed on the doctrine received from the Master and from the apostles. In the life of the People of God, as it has made its pilgrim way through the vicissitudes of human history, there has at times appeared a way of acting that was hardly in accord with the spirit of the Gospel or even opposed to it. Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Church that no one is to be coerced into faith has always stood firm.
Thus the leaven of the Gospel has long been about its quiet work in the minds of men, and to it is due in great measure the fact that in the course of time men have come more widely to recognize their dignity as persons, and the conviction has grown stronger that the person in society is to be kept free from all manner of coercion in matters religious.

No one is claiming that Vatican II did not teach heresy.  What is denied is that heresy was ever formally imposed as an object of divine and Catholic faith and that any novelty was claimed to be part of the ordinary and universal teaching of the Church.  It is a repeated fact of history that any intent to define or impose as a formal object of divine and Catholic faith doctrine was denied by every single councilar principle before, during and after the Council. All three of these are necessary to formulate DOGMA.

You  have claimed that DH is equivalent to the dogmatic declaration of Pope Pius XII on the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  To defend this absurdity you took a quotation out of context from paragraph 9 on three occasions.  Now you add to your folly by taking a quotation from paragraph 12.  

In paragraph 9, what is claimed to "have its roots in divine revelation" is the "dignity of the human person."  This is true and confirmed in scripture and tradition and the divine liturgies in both East and West such as, "O God who hast wonderfully formed man's exalted nature, and still more wonderfully restored it." From the psalms, "Who hast made him (man) a little less than the Angels..." The paragraph specifically says that "Revelation does not indeed affirm in so many words the right of man to immunity from external coercion in matters religious."  It affirms from the "dignity of the human person" that "religious freedom in society is entirely consonant with the freedom of the act of Christian faith."  No novelty is claimed to be grounded in divine revelation.

In paragraph 12, says, "In faithfulness therefore to the truth of the Gospel, the Church is following the way of Christ and the apostles when she recognizes and gives support to the principle of religious freedom as befitting the dignity of man and as being in accord with divine revelation" and concludes that, "nevertheless, the doctrine of the Church that no one is to be coerced into faith has always stood firm."  

What is affirmed from apostolic tradition is that "no one is to be coerced into the faith." This is the constant teaching of the Church that no one can be forced to accept the Catholic faith. It is affirmed in the docuмent regarding the Jєωs which the Church applied all throughout the middle ages, Sicut Judaeis non, published by St. Gregory the Great.  No one was to harm them, but they were not to be forced to convert, they were to be given no positions of cultural influence, they were not permitted public worship  in Catholic lands.

The novelty of Religious Freedom is the doctrine that the dignity of the human person is so great that he is entitled by God his creator to ignore His revelation and disobey His commandments. That novelty is nowhere affirmed in these citations and no claim to this novelty is made from divine revelation.  Nowhere in this citation it is affirmed that any person possesses a right to practice a false religion.

You take citations clearly out of context to support you ideology.  You corrupt the Dogma of infallibility by denying the Dogmatic necessity for definition of doctrine and Dogmatic intention to bind, and lastly you  corrupt the meaning of "magisterium" by conflating the Ex-Cathedra declaration of Catholic Dogma of the Assumption with a "pastoral declaration"  which again evidences that you have no idea what the word "magisterium" means.

This bizarre  corruption can only be due to stupidity or malice.  It follows from making the pope the rule of faith.  You belong to a church that has no pope and will never get one, so you have lost your rule of faith which is reduced to sedevacantist slogans which you repeat like a magical mantra.

Drew  


Title: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
Post by: Maria Auxiliadora on February 07, 2017, 11:07:40 AM
This video is very informative and relevant.

Fr. Hesse explains why Vatican II is Not A Council of the Church
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/15a18baebd9a18f3?projector=1