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.
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, Jew, 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.
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:
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.
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:
“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”:
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.
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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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:
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?
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.
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.
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
Topic: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium (Read 22252 times)