A catechism is not part of the OUM. Although it does contain a lot of things taught by the Magisterium.
There is no Justification for disregarding a council of the Church (were it real).
Regardless even all the necessary requirements are fulfilled for solemn Magisterial pronouncements. There is another thread going on right now about come and join the discussion.
It was a real council, it was a Pastoral Council.
It wasn't a "real" council of the Catholic Church. It was a real council of your false "church" so in a way you are right.
It was, as the OP explains, a real Council of the Catholic Church. It was not, contrary to what you were taught, infallible.
And for the record, I was raised a trad through the revolution, attending only a very few NO services in my youth and even then, only as we searched for the True Mass in Diocesan churches - during which we left the service either during or well before the sermon - after that, my first and only full NO service I can remember attending, was a funeral NO for a work acquaintance in 1999. So while you can accuse me of any number of things, please refrain from accusing me of belonging to the false church or of the false church being my Church.
Consider that the main reason why the overwhelming majority of people accepted the NO in the first place is because they imagined that they had to do so, that they had to accept this revolution because the pope himself commanded it, and their idea is that they can be saved only by obedience to the pope regardless of what the he says.
This erroneous idea did not arise out of some rumor or out of thin air, rather, this idea that whatever the pope, and by extension the magisterium said, was automatically always infallible - and that blind obedience to whatever they said is absolutely mandatory, was deliberately "infiltrated into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the church" as +ABL said, probably since at least the early 1900s, and this infiltration of error occurred mainly through the teachings of those certain 'well respected' 20th century theologians who taught the same thing about infallibility that you are posting, as if it is a teaching of the Church. You must unlearn this error that helped fuel the revolution in a major way.
Show me where Vat. I taught that the Magisterium can be in error in any form.
V1 did not itemize those times when the magisterium can be in error, it decreed those times when the magisterium is infallible. V1. by decreeing those occasions when and in what respect the pope / magisterium cannot err, admits, in effect, that in all other areas of their vast prerogatives, the pope / magisterium is completely fallible
.
It's true that the pope is fallible in his private capacity but that Teaching Authority AKA Magisterium is always infallible.
Vatican Council Session 3, Chapter 3, #8: Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture and tradition, and which are proposed by the church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.
Anything that is taught to us from any source that either contains error or is not contained in Divine Revelation is not part of the Magisterium.
One of the problems you have here is, you start out asking the wrong question when you asked:
"Show me where Vat. I taught that the Magisterium can be in error in any form." Your question should have been along the lines of;
"show me these conditions for infallibility you say that V1 taught" - which I did. And if you know of these conditions yet persist in claiming the magisterium is always infallible, then all I can say is you are very wrong and you need to study V1's teachings in the matter.
FYI, this debate is not about the underlined in your red quote because we are in agreement about that, this debate is about the conditions for infallibility that V1 laid out and are to be found just prior to your underlined which you apparently do not understand.
We know which teachings are infallible because V1 teaches that it is those teachings
"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..." - nothing that came out of V2 meets these requirements from V1 that I've italicized for your benefit.
Pardon my criticism here but you underlining what you did is akin to the BODers reading nothing else in the whole of Trent except the words; "or without the desire thereof", and then claiming that's Trent defining a BOD. Please read, understand and accept those requirements I've italicized. I'm not trying to be facetious when I say that I realize this will be most difficult for you.
1) That the magisterium can, did and do teach error is proved by the magisterium itself after V2. Trying to claim otherwise is adding your own personal requirements to the doctrine of infallibility as decreed by V1.
2) That the Pope and Church Councils are not always infallible is proved by V2 itself - again, I understand completely that this is completely contrary to what you've learned about infallibility. As +ABL said about this error as regards infallibility:
"After all of these liberal ideas have been infiltrated into the seminaries, the catechisms and all the manifestations of the church, I am now being asked to align myself with these liberal ideas." I complied some of his quotes in
this post
I understand this one is difficult for a lot of folks to swallow, but it is actually pretty basic when you read V1 and accept what it teaches - the problem seems to be in the unlearning of the errors you've learned. Stick with V1 alone - I am not inventing anything, I am merely reiterating V1's teaching.
I understand that it's hard for someone to believe that the Church's Magisterium is Infallible, it's pretty basic when you believe that Christ would not have given us a Teaching Authority that could teach errors. It would also be easy to believe this error if you thought that just about everything written by a Catholic is part of the Magisterium.............
The rest of your reply is based off the wrong understanding of infallibility, as +ABL correctly stated above, you are repeating the liberal ideas of what you've learned regarding infallibility is, and not what V1 taught. As +ABL noted;
"Infallibility is extremely limited, only bearing on very specific cases which Vatican I has very well defined and detailed", which is why I asked you to try to "unlearn" the errors you've learned as regards infallibility and stick strictly with V1's clear teaching on the subject.
Topic: The Second Vatican Council (Read 29759 times)