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 Jew as a Jew, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.“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.
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
Topic: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium (Read 36605 times)