Author Topic: Universal acceptance of a Pope (Read 40116 times)

Ladislaus · « **Reply #130 on:** July 23, 2015, 07:56:41 PM »

Quote from: Gregory I

Yes and we owe an act of divine faith to what theologians teach is the ordinary magisterium.

Well, I guess, then, that you owe an act of divine faith to the doctrine of Religious Liberty.

Amakusa · « **Reply #131 on:** July 24, 2015, 02:48:57 AM »

Quote

You are arguing in circles again. It is the docuмents of V2 which are problematic. On this point ++Lefebvre is in agreement with the sedevacantists. There are heresies in the docuмents. Can a true pope teach heresies and bind the faithful to them?

-> We have already explained that it is impossible to claim that V2 includes heresies properly speaking, since the bishops of the whole world, when gathered (even without the Pope), cannot teach any heresy with moral unanimity. There are errors in V2, but not heresies.

Quote

No. We are in agreement on that. So how do we explain it? You claim that an ecuмenical council of the Church approved by the Pope is not an infallible exercise of the Magisterium. That is novel. It is unheard of in the history of the Church. SVs claim that the heresies in the docuмents prove that Paul VI was not a true Pope.

-> Many sedevacantists make this error: they do not understand papal infallibility. I have been a law student for five years and when I try to explain them their error, I always tell them that they must make a distinction between the legal form of the act and its content: the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium are infallible, but not in their whole content. For instance, the arguments of the Pope when he defined the Immaculate Conception are not considered to be infallible: only his conclusion is. In V2, there was no definition properly speaking: Paul VI did not define any doctrine definitely and irrevocably, as would be the case if the teachings were infallible. Pope Paul VI has declared himself that it was the "authentic magisterium", and theologians use this phrase to refer to the non-infaillible teachings (non-infallible content) of the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium. If the Pope himself has declared that Vatican II was not infallible, it is not infallible. Period!

Ladislaus, peaceful acceptance does not only concern the valid elections, for two reasons: firstly the purpose of peaceful acceptance is precisely to inform the Catholic people that the Pope has been lawfully elected and thus that he is legitimate; secondly, in the case of simoniac or other illegal elections, it has already happened that the election become valid by means of peaceful acceptance (we have already spoken about it on this forum). Therefore, peaceful acceptance allows either to inform the people that the election is lawful, or to render it lawful when it was not.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #132 on:** July 24, 2015, 10:02:16 AM »

Quote from: Amakusa

We have already explained that it is impossible to claim that V2 includes heresies properly speaking, since the bishops of the whole world, when gathered (even without the Pope), cannot teach any heresy with moral unanimity. There are errors in V2, but not heresies.

There is ample evidence (cf. The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, etc) that not only was there no moral unanimity but there was even underhanded tactics on the part of modernists to manipulate the results of the Council. ++Lefebvre himself testified that he only signed the docuмents because he felt morally compelled to be united with the Pope and the other bishops. But it was my impression that he regretted it and he even claimed to have not signed some of the docuмents, although that was later proved to be incorrect. For someone who knows the history of the Council well to say that there was moral unanimity on the Council is dishonest. There have been false councils in the past. So claiming that V2 is a false council is not a novel approach. But to say that all the bishops of the world along with the Pope could exercise the extraordinary magisterium in a way that produced errors is certainly a novel idea. That has never happened. Ever.

Quote from: Amakusa

I always tell them that they must make a distinction between the legal form of the act and its content: the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium are infallible, but not in their whole content. For instance, the arguments of the Pope when he defined the Immaculate Conception are not considered to be infallible: only his conclusion is. In V2, there was no definition properly speaking: Paul VI did not define any doctrine definitely and irrevocably, as would be the case if the teachings were infallible. Pope Paul VI has declared himself that it was the "authentic magisterium", and theologians use this phrase to refer to the non-infaillible teachings (non-infallible content) of the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium. If the Pope himself has declared that Vatican II was not infallible, it is not infallible. Period!

Do you accept novelties then? Can you give another historic example (not V2) where the extraordinary magisterium either declined to teach infallibly or taught infallibly but also included errors which lead the faithful into sin and destruction?

Gregory I · « **Reply #133 on:** July 24, 2015, 05:22:01 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Gregory I
Yes and we owe an act of divine faith to what theologians teach is the ordinary magisterium.

Here you've completely got it jumbled up.

"A Commentary on Canon Law" (Augustine, 1918, Canon 1323, pg 327) states: "The universal and ordinary magisterium consists of the entire episcopate, according to the constitution and order defined by Christ, i.e., all the bishops of the universal Church, dependently on the Roman Pontiff". It also states, "What the universal and approved practice and discipline proposes as connected with faith and morals must be believed. And what the Holy Fathers and the theologians hold unanimously as a matter of faith and morals, is also de fide."

Histrionics · « **Reply #134 on:** July 24, 2015, 05:24:06 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Quote from: Nishant
I know some sedevacantists won't agree, but Vatican II isn't infallible, otherwise it would require the irrevocable assent of divine and Catholic Faith, but Pope Paul VI clearly said it required only the same religious obedience normally given to a Papal Encyclical, ...

And yet you continue to ignore what Msgr. Fenton has to say about the authority of Papal Encyclicals.

Quote from: Msgr. Fenton
It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic’s duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
...
It is, of course, possible that the Church might come to modify its stand on some detail of teaching presented as non-infallible matter in a papal encyclical. The nature of the auctoritas providentiae doctrinalis within the Church is such, however, that this fallibility extends to questions of relatively minute detail or of particular application. The body of doctrine on the rights and duties of labor, on the Church and State, or on any other subject treated extensively in a series of papal letters directed to and normative for the entire Church militant could not be radically or completely erroneous. The infallible security Christ wills that His disciples should enjoy within His Church is utterly incompatible with such a possibility.

That's the typical R&R sleight of hand. You argue that nothing in V2 has the notes of infallibility strictly speaking.

Yet you posit a complete defection of the Magisterium, where the Magsiterium has gone SO BADLY OFF THE RAILS that it REQUIRES of Catholics the REFUSAL of submission to the Magisterium. That would entail the defection of the Magisterium and therefore of the Church herself.

You keep talking about how the Church would defect in the case of an extended sedevacante, but that's not necessarily the case (cf. the material-formal sedeprivationist thesis). What's the point of the material continuity, Nishant, if the Magisterium itself can defect? Well, for that matter, hierarchy would be BETTER OFF DEFECTING entirely if in fact their Magisterium does nothing more than lead people away from the faith.

Yes, and in fact literally every single time he's confronted with the fact that by his own (as well as Msgr. Fenton's) criteria that the docuмents of Vatican II MUST be at least infallibly safe if Paul VI was the Vicar of Christ, it's always crickets.