Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Author Topic: The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium  (Read 9419 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3234
  • Reputation: +1968/-976
  • Gender: Male
The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
« Reply #75 on: January 26, 2017, 08:47:42 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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 document 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 ecumenical 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 document 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 document 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 document 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 document), 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…"

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3234
    • Reputation: +1968/-976
    • Gender: Male
    The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
    « Reply #76 on: January 28, 2017, 09:20:44 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.


    Offline Matto

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5329
    • Reputation: +2918/-110
    • Gender: Male
    The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
    « Reply #77 on: January 29, 2017, 10:37:07 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • oops
    In a Station of the Metro
    The apparition of these faces in the crowd;
    Petals on a wet, black bough.

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1257
    • Reputation: +1265/-64
    • Gender: Female
    The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
    « Reply #78 on: January 29, 2017, 12:58:56 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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 document 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
    "At last all which regards the holy ecumenical 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 ecumenical 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.

    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)

    Offline Maria Auxiliadora

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1257
    • Reputation: +1265/-64
    • Gender: Female
    The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
    « Reply #79 on: January 29, 2017, 01:12:43 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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?
    The love of God be your motivation, the will of God your guiding principle, the glory of God your goal.
    (St. Clement Mary Hofbauer)


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8782
    • Reputation: +3463/-720
    • Gender: Male
    The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
    « Reply #80 on: January 29, 2017, 02:18:02 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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

    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.

    I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3234
    • Reputation: +1968/-976
    • Gender: Male
    The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
    « Reply #81 on: January 30, 2017, 09:14:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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.

    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6000
    • Reputation: +3474/-323
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
    « Reply #82 on: February 01, 2017, 10:20:10 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!4
  • 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


    Offline MyrnaM

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6000
    • Reputation: +3474/-323
    • Gender: Female
      • Myforever.blog/blog
    The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
    « Reply #83 on: February 01, 2017, 11:07:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Jesus and His Church are ONE!  

    Interesting quote of Tertullian "The first reaction to truth is hatred"

    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 332
    • Reputation: +1032/-179
    • Gender: Male
    The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
    « Reply #84 on: February 01, 2017, 05:30:33 PM »
  • Thanks!9
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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 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.  

    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 documents 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 documents.”
    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.  Ecumenical Councils often deal with matters of doctrine, and/or discipline, and/or worship, and/or and general law.  The only things from ecumenical 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


    Offline drew

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 332
    • Reputation: +1032/-179
    • Gender: Male
    The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
    « Reply #85 on: February 02, 2017, 03:14:56 PM »
  • Thanks!8
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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 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.

    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 authenticum, 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 ecumenical 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 ecumenical 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


    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 880
    • Reputation: +642/-124
    • Gender: Male
    The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
    « Reply #86 on: February 02, 2017, 10:36:00 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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.

    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 880
    • Reputation: +642/-124
    • Gender: Male
    The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
    « Reply #87 on: February 02, 2017, 11:00:49 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!3
  • 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?

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2409
    • Reputation: +1279/-625
    • Gender: Male
    The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
    « Reply #88 on: February 03, 2017, 08:32:05 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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.
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3234
    • Reputation: +1968/-976
    • Gender: Male
    The Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium
    « Reply #89 on: February 03, 2017, 02:42:40 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • 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



     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16