Theologians have taught that the pope is infallible in universal disciplinary laws and that this proposition is theologically certain.  However, I don't ever recall seeing the syllogism spelled out that reaches this conclusion.  Can anyone show me where I can find it or present it here?  The terms used in the syllogism should be defined. 

This docuмent is pertinent to your inquiry:

https://sspxpodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Episode36-37.pdf

Thank you.  I will read it.

• Doctrinally, this is fairly easy to prove—for example, the Second Vatican Council was a “pastoral” council and issued no solemn declarations or definitions of faith.

Eh. Wasn't it an ecuмenical council and inside the council they said it was binding, and they use solemn language at the end of the docuмents similar to other binding ecuмenical councils?

"The Church as such ..."


In other words, the Church as an abstract concept?

Theologians distinguished between these authorities (what's at issue is the Pope, and not just any authority) as PRIVATE PERSONS vs. acting in their official capacity.

To assert that Montini was acting as a private person in promulgating the NOM is the height of absurdity.

Please present the syllogism that defends your position.

Eh. Wasn't it an ecuмenical council and inside the council they said it was binding, and they use solemn language at the end of the docuмents similar to other binding ecuмenical councils?

No, quite the contrary.

Now that is interesting, Ladislaus, and I would be interested to learn more about the meaning of the Pope acting as a PRIVATE PERSON. The impression I get is that this is often used by theologians to mean whenever the Pope is not invoking his supreme authority as the infallible teacher of the Church, that is, speaking ex cathedra. You oppose the term, however, to the Pope acting "officially". Can you substantiate that?

Well, in more recent times we have a very clear rule of thumb.  If something appears in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, it's the intention of the Pope to act as Pope.  These aren't the Acta Jorge Bergoliensis, but Acts of the See itself.  Essentially it depends on the intention of the Pope to be acting in his capacity as Pope, vs., in this case, as Jorge Bergoglio.  In the past, there was some debate about inferring that intention, often due to the nature of a docuмent (Bull, Encyclical, etc.), but with the creation of AAS, any ambiguity is cleared up.

Simply because the Pope is teaching non-infallibly, say, in an Encyclical letter, does not translate to him acting as a "Private Person".  He's clearly acting in his official capacity as Pope.

That's actually all that the term ex cathedra actually means.  This term has been turned into a shorthand for when the Pope is acting infallibly, but that's not technically correct.  Acting ex cathedra is simply ONE of the notes of infallibility.

Here's from Pastor Aeternus:

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

That parenthetical "that is" actually defines the term Ex Cathedra, and private person is the opposite of Ex Cathedra, namely when he's NOT exercising his office as shepherd and teacher of all nations.  So even in a simple non-infallible Encyclical letter, he's still exercising his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, but not necessarily defining a doctrine of faith and morals ... etc. etc.

In the past, things where the Pope might be writing a letter to an individual bishop, or giving a sermon, or opining privately (such as when Jorge is answering questions on his plane), those are acts generally construed as the Pope acting as a private theologian, since they're not addressed authoritatively to all Christians.  But, as I said, in recent days, the inclusion of something in AAS has served to remove all ambiguity and guessing regarding his intentions.

Lad-

So, if something appears in the AAS, from an undisputedly legitimate Pope, are we required to assent to it?

Yes, unless it contradicts something of greater weight.

Which is why talking about these non-infallible acts is pointless unless pne connects it with either the ordinary magisterium or automatic loss of office.

Maybe the most authoritative ordinary form Holy Office act is the condemnation of Galileo but most who fawn over obedience to every papal speech and "approved theologian" pretend like the act doesn't exist.

The most hypocritical of them all are those who consider the internal correspondence protocol 120/49 binding but aren't dogmatic geocentrists.

Their ultimate source of authority is man, not the divinely instituted office and in that way they end up adopting Lefebvrite principles while outwardly opposing them.