It is Catholic teaching that the entire Hierarchy, the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church, cannot defect, die or disappear. Wilhelm and Scannell, for e.g. write, "The Indefectibility of the Teaching Body is at the same time a condition and a consequence of the Indefectibility of the Church ... the Teaching Body as a whole could not die or fail without irreparably destroying the continuity of authentic testimony." Where is this Teaching Body of the Church today, per SVs and others? Is it found among diocesan Bishops or not?This ^^^ is novus ordo thinking, but if it were true, then we are all bound under pain of mortal sin to be novus ordo.
This ^^^ is novus ordo thinking, but if it were true, then we are all bound under pain of mortal sin to be novus ordo.
While the indefectibility of the Magisterium is Catholic teaching (although one could argue about its scope), and not mere Novus Ordo thinking, you are quite correct that XavierSem is inconsistent with his own principles and therefore guilty of formal schism.It is actually something more than just novus ordo thinking, it's more like a novus ordo doctrine that the hierarchy is itself, the (indefectible) universal magisterium. The Church's magisterium has been made into a completely confused idea, it's to the point that I have only seen a very few who got it correct, most do exactly what the OP did - which would make 1) the teaching of today's NO hierarchy ("universal magisterium") true Catholic teaching - which necessarily would make 2) 2000 years of the Church's Universal Magisterium (prior to V2) all lies.
This ^^^ is novus ordo thinking, but if it were true, then we are all bound under pain of mortal sin to be novus ordo.This doesn't answer the question. The indefectibility of the Church isn't constrained to a book of official teachings (doctrine); it also pertains to a living magisterium (and other things).
Just fwiw, whenever the Church speaks of anything "universal", "universal" always includes time as well as unanimity, as in "since the time of the Apostles and forever", and as in "always and everywhere". As such, the idea that today's hierarchy is "universal" or a "universal anything" only adds to the confusion.
In order to maintain clear thinking whenever speaking of the Church's Universal Magisterium, always reference Pope Pius IX's meaning:
"...all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith." - Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter
Hopefully this answers the thread's title question for you.
Your poll choices demonstrate that you not only know nothing about the OUM and what it actually is, but also that you lack any understanding of the current crisis. You believe that the mere existence of the OUM is all that matters, even if it has defected from teaching truth.So who comprises the OUM of the Church according to you?
It is actually something more than just novus ordo thinking, it's more like a novus ordo doctrine that the hierarchy is itself, the (indefectible) universal magisterium. The Church's magisterium has been made into a completely confused idea, it's to the point that I have only seen a very few who got it correct, most do exactly what the OP did - which would make 1) the teaching of today's NO hierarchy ("universal magisterium") true Catholic teaching - which necessarily would make 2) 2000 years of the Church's Universal Magisterium (prior to V2) all lies.Even the Wikipedia the Jєω-Encyclopedia is honest enough as to recognise the second requirement, and yet most Novus Ordites aren't. However, the Magisterium refers not only to the Church's ancient teachings but also to the teaching authority of the Church and those who have it. That being the hierarchy of the Church, whom the indefectibility promise also applies to. If almost the entirety of the Church's hierarchy, including the Pope, teach heresy for decades - is that not defection? Xavier's question still stands, where is the legitimate teaching body of the Church? Does it rest in the hands of Pope Francis and his Liberal goons? Bishops in the SSPX, or the Thuc line, or... etc.
Because it would go contrary to the NO narrative, point #2 is always non-existent in this novus ordo doctrine.
So who comprises the OUM of the Church according to you?
Do you mean who exercises the OUM?Right. Who are these people presently.
That is clearly defined by Vatican I. Pope and the bishops teaching unanimously in union with him, when they teach something as being de fide, cannot err.
Even the Wikipedia the Jєω-Encyclopedia is honest enough as to recognise the second requirement, and yet most Novus Ordites aren't. However, the Magisterium refers not only to the Church's ancient teachings but also to the teaching authority of the Church and those who have it. That being the hierarchy of the Church, whom the indefectibility promise also applies to. If almost the entirety of the Church's hierarchy, including the Pope, teach heresy for decades - is that not defection? Xavier's question still stands, where is the legitimate teaching body of the Church? Does it rest in the hands of Pope Francis and his Liberal goons? Bishops in the SSPX, or the Thuc line, or... etc.
Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06553a.htm) of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14726a.htm), but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05543b.htm) characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) or in morals (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10559a.htm); nor can it ever lose the Apostolic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm) hierarchy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07322c.htm), or the sacraments (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm) through which Christ communicates grace to men (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm).
Right. Who are these people presently.
This doesn't answer the question. The indefectibility of the Church isn't constrained to a book of official teachings (doctrine); it also pertains to a living magisterium (and other things).Not sure how one could think that; "...all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world etc...." could possibly fit in, or even is in a book.
Even the Wikipedia the Jєω-Encyclopedia is honest enough as to recognise the second requirement, and yet most Novus Ordites aren't. However, the Magisterium refers not only to the Church's ancient teachings but also to the teaching authority of the Church and those who have it. That being the hierarchy of the Church, whom the indefectibility promise also applies to. If almost the entirety of the Church's hierarchy, including the Pope, teach heresy for decades - is that not defection? Xavier's question still stands, where is the legitimate teaching body of the Church? Does it rest in the hands of Pope Francis and his Liberal goons? Bishops in the SSPX, or the Thuc line, or... etc.Where do you get the idea that the hierarchy is indefectible? Do you believe they're infallible too? If not, then how is a fallible hierarchy able to be indefectible?
Do you mean who exercises the OUM?^^^^ Novus Ordo doctrine - see Lumen Gentium 25.
That is clearly defined by Vatican I. Pope and the bishops teaching unanimously in union with him, when they teach something as being de fide, cannot err.
...Contrary to such reasoning, it is within the Conciliar Establishment that one finds the historical and structural continuity of the True Church; even though they are serving Satan, those who hold ecclesiastical offices hold them legitimately. Those who say otherwise have not proved that, because these men are apostates from the Faith, they cannot be considered to hold any offices.
Father Wathen stopped just one step short of sedeprivationism. He describes the material continuity, which he calls "the historical and structural continuity". Next logical step is that even though they maintain this material continuity, they do NOT maintain the formal continuity (because they no longer hold the same faith).The question was, "where is the legitimate teaching body of the Church?" I presumed he is asking where the legitimate hierarchy is - which Fr. Wathen correctly answers.
You see, when you miss and fail to articulate a necessary distinction, it always looks like you're contradicting yourself. What they're all missing is the formal/material distinction originally articulated by St. Robert Bellarmine and masterfully applied to the current crisis by Bishop Guerard des Lauriers.It is an unnecessary distinction or perhaps best left up to competent theologians to sort through some day.
Where do you get the idea that the hierarchy is indefectible? Do you believe they're infallible too? If not, then how is a fallible hierarchy able to be indefectible?"The hierarchy of the Church, all the way up to the Pope, are serving Satan."
From: Who Shall Ascend?
...Contrary to such reasoning, it is within the Conciliar Establishment that one finds the historical and structural continuity of the True Church; even though they are serving Satan, those who hold ecclesiastical offices hold them legitimately. Those who say otherwise have not proved that, because these men are apostates from the Faith, they cannot be considered to hold any offices.
"One who is no longer a Catholic," they say, "cannot possibly hold an office within the Church, nor exercise legitimate authority." No, even though these individuals have incurred the censures of the Church's law for heresy, apostasy, the desecration of the churches, the violation of the Sacraments, for these and similar crimes, they continue to be the legitimate
authorities of the Church. And since they do hold these offices, others who seek to interpose themselves into authority over the Catholic faithful, commit schismatical acts in doing so, and themselves incur the penalties of the Code. - Fr. Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?
It is an unnecessary distinction or perhaps best left up to competent theologians to sort through some day.There is no such organisation as the "Conciliar Church". If Vatican 2 was a valid council, then the so-called "Conciliar Church" IS the Catholic Church. If the post-V2 Popes were valid, then their proclamations, decrees, promulgated rites, etc. were all done for the Catholic Church. It is ridiculous to assert that the Popes could've accidentally created a second Church that they didn't know existed and then accidentally only issued their decrees, etc. for the "Conciliar Church" which they didn't even know existed, despite each one explicitly referring to the Catholic Church and their authority as its leader.
The fact is, the hierarchy is not infallible, either in a council nor dispersed throughout the world - this idea is a major cause of confusion, particularly among sedes. Per V1, only the pope is infallible when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra.
Sedes believe LG 25 is a Church dogma - and it is a dogma - of the conciliar church, not the Catholic Church.They read "hierarchy" and "Magisterium" as one and the same, both infallible which is altogether wrong. So when they see the hierarchy spreading error, they say the infallible magisterium as defected - which is the completely wrong thinking inspired by the NO doctrine in LG 25. All it does is start debates about formal/material that has nothing to do with reality at all.
There is no such organisation as the "Conciliar Church". If Vatican 2 was a valid council, then the so-called "Conciliar Church" IS the Catholic Church. If the post-V2 Popes were valid, then their proclamations, decrees, promulgated rites, etc. were all done for the Catholic Church. It is ridiculous to assert that the Popes could've accidentally created a second Church that they didn't know existed and then accidentally only issued their decrees, etc. for the "Conciliar Church" which they didn't even know existed, despite each one explicitly referring to the Catholic Church and their authority as its leader.
There is no such organisation as the "Conciliar Church". If Vatican 2 was a valid council, then the so-called "Conciliar Church" IS the Catholic Church. If the post-V2 Popes were valid, then their proclamations, decrees, promulgated rites, etc. were all done for the Catholic Church. It is ridiculous to assert that the Popes could've accidentally created a second Church that they didn't know existed and then accidentally only issued their decrees, etc. for the "Conciliar Church" which they didn't even know existed, despite each one explicitly referring to the Catholic Church and their authority as its leader.Oh, the conciliar church certainly does exist, as Fr. Wathen puts it in his book, Who Shall Ascend?:
Sure, one can use the term "Conciliar Church" loosely, but the question is: What is it?That's correct. And it is the new church with all it's new doctrines that arose from it's "new Pentecost" (V2) we see that have taken over the Catholic Churches nearly everywhere in the world.
Father Wathen agrees that whatever it is, it isn't the Catholic Church.
Right now, since the Holy See is vacant, the OUM is not being exercised."the Teaching Body as a whole could not die or fail." Who are they? Do you have names?
Your poll choices demonstrate that you not only know nothing about the OUM and what it actually is, but also that you lack any understanding of the current crisis. You believe that the mere existence of the OUM is all that matters, even if it has defected from teaching truth.You have it exactly right. XavierSem craftily edited W&S to hide the part that completely destroys his own position.
Art II. The Indefectibility of the Teaching Body is at the same time a condition and a consequence of the Indefectibility of the Church. A distinction must, however, be drawn between the Indefectibilty of the Head and the Indefectibility of the subordinate members. The individual who is the Head may die, but the authority of the Head does not die with him --- it is transmitted to his successor. On the other hand, the Teaching Body as a whole could not die or fail without irreparably destroying the continuity of authentic testimony. Again, the Pope's authority would not be injured if, when not exercising it (extra judicium), he professed a false doctrine, whereas the authenticity of the episcopal testimony would be destroyed if under any circuмstances the whole body fell into heresy.
(Wilhelm and Scannell, Vol 1, Book I, Part I, Ch II, Sect 14)
You have it exactly right. XavierSem craftily edited W&S to hide the part that completely destroys his own position.And who are the ordinaries that you recognize in the Church?
Also W&S have 2 definitions of Teaching Body. One is the narrow sense meaning the ordinaries. The other is a more general sense of the entire hierarchy consisting of all clerics. They are using the general sense when discussing indefectibility.
Stubborn, Magisterium simply means, Teaching Authority. For e.g. Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis uses Pope Pius XII speaks of the Ordinary Magisterium, the Ordinary Teaching Authority, "these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority" (p.20)Here again, you ignore point #2 (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/where-exactly-is-the-ordinary-and-universal-magisterium-of-the-church-today/msg648436/#msg648436). You neglected to quote the part which is the most pertinent to the discussion, namely, "...by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith."
In the citation you provide from Pope Bl. Pius IX, "the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world", is a reference to the Ordinary and Universal Teaching Authority of the Church. Notice that the criterion of universality given by Pope Pius IX is that it is that of the Church spread over the whole world, that is what universality in Ordinary and Universal Magisterium means.
Another example from Van Noort, cited by Salza and Siscoe: ""Meantime, notice that the Church possesses infallibility not only when she is defining some matters in solemn fashion, but also when she is exercising the full weight of her authority through her ordinary and universal teaching. Consequently, we must hold with an absolute assent, which we call ‘ecclesiastical faith,’ the following theological truths: (a) those which the [solemn or extraordinary] Magisterium has infallibly defined in solemn fashion; (b) those which the ordinary magisterium dispersed throughout the world unmistakably proposes to its members as something to be held (tenendas).This is true. Here Van Noort speaks of the three Church's magisteriums, her ordinary magisterium, her universal magisterium and her solemn magisterium, i.e. her ordinary teachings, her universal teachings and her teachings taught in an extraordinary manner, i.e. teachings defined ex cathedra by the pope.
Within the universal magisterium is the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium and yes, we absolutely do owe our assent of faith to these teachings because they are the truth, and it is Catholic truth that binds us. But these teachings are not the hierarchy. The hierarchy can go off the deep end as reality demonstrates, and when that happens we must not follow. It is the truth that is *always* binding, the truth is eternal, the truth can never go off the deep end, which is why we are bound to the truth, not the hierarchy.The first bold sentence is false, at least in the way implied by Stubborn. The Roman Pontiff binds Catholics. He is the "the permanent principle of the unities of faith and communion and their visible foundation."
We are bound no less by either the Church's Ordinary Magisterium, Universal Magisterium, or her Extraordinary Magisterium. No less because what we're bound by is Catholic truth, it does not matter the method, it is the matter, the truth that binds us.
Now if you are a believer that LG 25 is in fact a Catholic doctrine and the hierarchy is in fact the magisterium, then you may must flush and denounce Catholic truth, and follow the always infallible hierarchy no matter what they preach - just double check to make sure whatever it is they preach, that they are unanimous and in union with the pope with their preaching.
The first bold sentence is false, at least in the way implied by Stubborn. The Roman Pontiff binds Catholics. He is the "the permanent principle of the unities of faith and communion and their visible foundation."Thanks for making my point re: LG 25. So you are a NOer I take it?
The second clause is also false. The hierarchy cannot "go off the deep end" or the Church defects. If that is in fact what you believe occurred then go all the way with it and accept the defection.
The third sentence is also heresy. The Catholic Church is a society governed by living members and Catholics are absolutely bound to them.
The last sentence is partially true. Catholics must follow the hierarchy and remain in union with the pope. This is Catholicism.
Ladislaus claims, "Right now, since the Holy See is vacant, the OUM is not being exercised.", but that begs the question. The Conclusion is assumed in the Premise. Rather, since the OUM teaches that the Holy See is occupied, it follows as infallibly true that in fact it is.
And while for subsequent ages down to our own day it continues to be theoretically true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) that the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm)may, by the exercise of this ordinary teaching authority arrive at a final and infallible decision regarding doctrinal (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm) questions, it is true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) at the same time that in practice it may be impossible to prove conclusively that such unanimity as may exist has a strictly definitive value in any particular case, unless it has been embodied in a decree (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm) of an ecuмenical council (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm), or in the ex cathedra (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm) teaching of the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm), or, at least, in some definite formula such as the Athanasian Creed (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm). Hence, for practical purposes and in so far as the special question of infallibility is concerned, we may neglect the so called magisterium ordinarium ("ordinary magisterium") and confine our attention to ecuмenical councils and the pope (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm).
I'm disappointed to see 5 people (poll result) have admitted to objective heresy. Teaching and Governing are merely aspects of the same Office. Without being appointed to Episcopal Office by the Pope, one cannot exercise Ordinary Jurisdiction or Ordinary teaching authority.This coming from a man who attends SSPX masses. You're so self-contradictory it's actually painful to read.
Teaching and Governing are merely aspects of the same Office.
So what? The teaching office is related to the spiritual/doctrinal/Divine/unchanging nature of the papacy, while the Governing is related to the human/fallible/can-be-changed portion of it (i.e. Christ gave Peter the power to "bind and loose").Not so. Read the citation from the CE again. When Vatican I defined the supreme teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, it also defined his universal jurisdiction. The two are related, as the CE puts it, "Since, however, the teaching of the Church is authoritative, the teaching authority is traditionally included in the ruling authority". They are only One Office, its governmental aspects and its teaching aspects are inter-connected.
Similarly, when there's no Pope, such as in sedevacantist periods, the OUM continues to exist IN POTENCYThe Bishops retain the powers they have already received from the Pope before he died. "Then indeed the divine law and institution of perpetuity remains, and by the same reason the right and duty in the Church of procuring the succession according to the established law; there remain also the participations in the powers [of the papacy] to the extent they are communicable to others [e.g. to the Cardinals or bishops], and have been communicated by the successor of Peter while still alive, or have been lawfully established and not abrogated [thus the jurisdiction of bishops, granted by the Pope, does not cease when he dies]; but the highest power itself, together with its rights and prerogatives, which can in no way exist except in the one individual heir of Peter, now actually belong to no one while the See is vacant." (Cardinal Franzelin, VACANCY OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE, no. 15) How will you explain what Van Noort said?
You assume that the Novus Ordo hierarchy exercise the OUMThe Catholic Hierarchy is identified by the Bishops appointed to office by the Pope. Where are they, otherwise? There's no Hierarchy either?
We are bound no less by either the Church's Ordinary Magisterium, Universal Magisterium, or her Extraordinary Magisterium. No less because what we're bound by is Catholic truth, it does not matter the method, it is the matter, the truth that binds us.You keep citing Lumen Gentium 25, but you state something not stated there. When something is taught by the Extraordinary Magisterium (e.g. Trent), we owe it the assent of divine and Catholic Faith. When something is taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (e.g. all the Bishops stating the Assumption of Mother Mary is divinely revealed dogma), we again owe it the assent of divine and Catholic Faith. This is clearly taught in Vatican I, and is cited by Pope Pius XII to that effect. When something is taught by the Ordinary Non-Infallible Authentic Magisterium, we give it a prudential and conditional assent called religious submission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsequium_religiosum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsequium_religiosum)
Since the magisterium really is always infallibleMagisterial statements are not always infallible, but they are generally safe. Not everything becomes infallible just because it occurs once in a Papal Encyclical. There are many theological grades of certitude like doctrina catholica, proxima fidei etc before a doctrine becomes de fide. You are attributing to me something you said above, "We are bound no less by either the Church's Ordinary Magisterium, Universal Magisterium, or her Extraordinary Magisterium." I don't think that's right. Assent of divine and Catholic Faith we give to an ex cathedra and infallible teaching, and Religious Submission we give to all teaching that is not definitive or infallible.
Notice the way Msgr. Noort says, "the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession." - so Teaching Body, Hierarchy, OUM can be used synonymously.I disagree it can be used synonymously because using it that way has led the vast majority astray because truth does not matter, the (Modernist) hierarchy does. The teaching body is the hierarchy, not the UOM - again, "universal" always includes the attribute of time, it means "since the time of the Apostles and forever", magisterium = teaching, not people.
But let's rephrase the question, then: where are the Ordinaries of the Church? Only those who are Ordinaries (1) can exercise Ordinary Jurisdiction by virtue of their Ruling Office/Ruling Authority (2) can exercise Ordinary Teaching Authority by virtue of that same Office.
You keep citing Lumen Gentium 25, but you state something not stated there. When something is taught by the Extraordinary Magisterium (e.g. Trent), we owe it the assent of divine and Catholic Faith. When something is taught by the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (e.g. all the Bishops stating the Assumption of Mother Mary is divinely revealed dogma), we again owe it the assent of divine and Catholic Faith. This is clearly taught in Vatican I, and is cited by Pope Pius XII to that effect. When something is taught by the Ordinary Non-Infallible Authentic Magisterium, we give it a prudential and conditional assent called religious submission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsequium_religiosum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsequium_religiosum)I cite LG 25 because that is the gospel you are preaching but apparently don't even realize it. You are preaching that whatever the bishops teach in unison and union with the pope is infallible - which is altogether false and is strictly and only a NO doctrine defined in LG 25.
When something is taught byThe bishops did not define the Assumption, the pope did that when he defined the doctrine ex cathedra, which doctrine is identical with what was revealed because the Apostles were eyewitnesses to the Assumption and that event account has been taught, handed down since then.the Extraordinary Magisteriuma Council (e.g. Trent), we owe it the assent of divine and Catholic Faith. When something is taught by theOrdinary and Universal MagisteriumHierarchy (e.g. all the Bishops stating the Assumption of Mother Mary is divinely revealed dogma), we again owe it the assent of divine and Catholic Faith.
I say: This is conditional upon that the teaching "must always show that what is taught is identical with what was revealed, it must be a teaching with authority..."
Magisterial statements are not always infallible, but they are always safe. Not everything becomes infallible just because it occurs once in a Papal Encyclical. There are many theological grades of certitude like doctrina catholica, proxima fidei etc before a doctrine becomes de fide.Here you're using it synonymously again proves that to do so only serves as the instrument of confusion. This instrument you are using is one of the main instruments that was used by the enemy which helped get us in this mess to begin with - and is still effective today as you are demonstrating.
Notice the way Msgr. Noort says, "the ordinary and universal magisterium is giving an utterly clear-cut witness to the legitimacy of his succession." - so Teaching Body, Hierarchy, OUM can be used synonymously.
I agree about the infallible safety of the Magisterium. And if Xavier believes it too, then he's unquestionably in schism.Of course we have absolute certainty regarding infallible safety of the Church's Magisterium, that is not at issue, what's at issue here is like all things NO, the multi-meaning of the word "Magisterium" - which Xavier wants to use synonymous with the pope and hierarchy so as to confuse the confused even further.
You know, the very raison d'etra of the Traditional movement is that there have been errors taught at Vatican II and in the subsequent papal teaching, and that we cannot accept these without endangering our faith, i.e. that this teaching is not in fact safe. So if you 1) are a Traditional Catholic (believe that the V2 teaching is harmful) and 2) believe in the infallible safety of the Magisterium, then you MUST logically conclude that the V2 Magisterium is not in fact the Catholic Magisterium.Your first sentence is incomplete. This is because errors were taught decades before, or well in advance of V2 and are in fact errors which helped usher in V2. One the errors is the idea that the Church's magisterium, which actually is always 100% infallible, is the pope and/or hierarchy.
Of course we have absolute certainty regarding infallible safety of the Church's Magisterium, that is not at issue, what's at issue here is like all things NO, the multi-meaning of the word "Magisterium" - which Xavier wants to use synonymous with the pope and hierarchy so as to confuse the confused even further.Don't conflate Magisterium with the infallible Magisterium. Much of the Magisterium is fallible, but it's all infallibly safe. Meaning it can be wrong, but it can't lead you into heresy or rejection of the Faith. And yet today we have the Pope and the Bishops teaching heresy.
Your first sentence is incomplete. This is because errors were taught decades before, or well in advance of V2 and are in fact errors which helped usher in V2. One the errors is the idea that the Church's magisterium, which actually is always 100% infallible, is the pope and/or hierarchy.
They took a true meaning and misapplied it to the pope and hierarchy - and nearly everyone not only bought off on it, they think it is some church doctrine or a defined dogma, which it is, of the conciliar church.
Much of the Magisterium is fallible, but it's all infallibly safe. Meaning it can be wrong, but it can't lead you into heresy or rejection of the Faith.There's no such thing as: infallibly safe fallibility. That's a contradiction to the highest degree.
Thus, from the universal agreement of the Church's ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof, demonstrating that the Blessed Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven- which surely no faculty of the human mind could know by its own natural powers, as far as the heavenly glorification of the virginal body of the loving Mother of God is concerned-is a truth that has been revealed by God and consequently something that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all children of the Church. For, as the Vatican Council asserts, "all those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."
6. But as the Church was to last to the end of time, something more was required besides the bestowal of the Sacred Scriptures. It was obviously necessary that the Divine Founder should take every precaution, lest the treasure of heavenly-given truths, possessed by the Church, should ever be destroyed, which would assuredly have happened, had He left those doctrines to each one's private judgment. It stands to reason, therefore, that a living, perpetual "magisterium" was necessary in the Church from the beginning, which, by the command of Christ himself, should besides teaching other wholesome doctrines, give an authoritative explanation of Holy Writ, and which being directed and safeguarded by Christ himself, could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching.
Organs of infallibility
Having established the general doctrine of the Church's infallibility, we naturally proceed to ask what are the organs through which the voice of infallible authority makes itself heard. We have already seen that it is only in the episcopal body which has succeeded to the college of Apostles that infallible authority resides, and that it is possible for the authority to be effectively exercised by this body, dispersed throughout the world, but united in bonds of communion with Peter's successor, who is its visible head and centre. During the interval from the council of the Apostles at Jerusalem to that of their successors at Nicaea this ordinary everyday exercise of episcopal authority was found to be sufficiently effective for the needs of the time, but when a crisis like the Arian heresy arose, its effectiveness was discovered to be inadequate, as was indeed inevitable by reason of the practical difficulty of verifying that fact of moral unanimity, once any considerable volume of dissent had to be faced. And while for subsequent ages down to our own day it continues to be theoretically true that the Church may, by the exercise of this ordinary teaching authority arrive at a final and infallible decision regarding doctrinal questions, it is true at the same time that in practice it may be impossible to prove conclusively that such unanimity as may exist has a strictly definitive value in any particular case, unless it has been embodied in a decree of an ecuмenical council, or in the ex cathedra teaching of the pope, or, at least, in some definite formula such as the Athanasian Creed. Hence, for practical purposes and in so far as the special question of infallibility is concerned, we may neglect the so called magisterium ordinarium ("ordinary magisterium") and confine our attention to ecuмenical councils and the pope.
1. The Morally Unanimous Preaching (Teaching) of the Bishops
290 Bishops teach the flock entrusted and subject to them by means of catechisms, by synodal directives, mandates, and in public sermons. If it is evident from these docuмents that some doctrine is being set forth universally as an object of faith, then nothing else is required for this doctrine to be accepted de fide. Bishops spread throughout the world, but with the Roman Pontiff forming one Corporate Body, are infallible when declaring a teaching on faith or morals.
II.
(. . .)
b) What Vincent means by universality he explains straight away: “We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses.” Hence universality is the agreement of the entire Church, and, insofar as it is distinct from the mark of antiquity, it is the consent of the Church at this present time when the controversy has arisen. This is manifest from Chapter 3 in which Vincent contrasts universality, as the present consensus, which can be troubled by newly invented errors, with antiquity, i.e. the agreement of the previous age “which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty”. Moreover in the Chapter 29 he says that universal consent is to be followed “lest we...be torn from the integrity of unity and carried away to schism,” which he illustrates in Chapter 4 by the example of the Catholics in Africa, who “detesting the profane schism [of Donatus], continued in communion with all the churches of the world [which were at that time in agreement].”
(. . .)
d) Finally, Saint Vincent of Lerins everywhere clearly teaches that either one of these two marks—i.e. universal consent and the agreement of antiquity—suffices to demonstrate the apostolicity of a doctrine.
Thus in Chapter 3 he writes :
i) “What then will a Catholic Christian do if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member?” Here universal consent is opposed to local error.
ii) “What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity.” Here antiquity is appealed to in the event that contemporary controversies should have muddied the waters and made it hard to establish for the time being the belief of the universal Church. There can therefore be no doubt that the true sense of the Vincentian Canon is the sense explained in our thesis. Any doctrine which is supported by neither of these two marks must be considered as being, at best, not yet sufficiently proposed to Catholic faith; and a doctrine which is repugnant to either mark must be considered to be a profane novelty.
[The members of the Congress of German Catholic theologians at Munich] recognized and asserted that all Catholics in their scholarly writings are obliged in conscience to obey the dogmatic decrees of the infallible Catholic Church.
We desire to reassure ourselves that they did not mean to limit the obligation, which strictly binds Catholic teachers and writers, to those things only which are proposed by the infallible judgement of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by everybody. In a like manner, We are convinced that it was not their intention to state that the perfect adherence to revealed truths (which they regard as absolutely necessary for true progress in science and for refuting errors) can be maintained, if the submission of faith is given only to those dogmas expressly defined by the Church. The reason for this is the following: even supposing that we are treating of that subjection which is to be made by an explicit act of divine faith, this must not be limited to those things which have been defined in the express decrees of the ecuмenical councils or of the Roman Pontiffs of this See; but it must also be extended to those things which, throught the ordinary teaching of the whole Church throughout the world, are proposed as divinely revealed and, as a result, by universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians are held to be matters of faith.
XavierSem,
The only arguments you have left to make is to prove Vatican II doesn't contradict past Church teaching: Religious Liberty, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, the nature of the Church, etc.
Don't conflate Magisterium with the infallible Magisterium. Much of the Magisterium is fallible, but it's all infallibly safe. Meaning it can be wrong, but it can't lead you into heresy or rejection of the Faith.This quote demonstrates the confusion I've been talking about.
And here we have XavierSem who tells us that Vatican 2 was a-ok and that the current hierarchy are valid both formally and materially, and yet refuses to submit to that hierarchy and obstinately ignores their orders. Making himself a schismatic.
POPE PIUS XII THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION - November 1, 1950As I said earlier, "whenever the Church speaks of anything "universal", "universal" always includes time as well as unanimity, as in "since the time of the Apostles and forever", and as in "always and everywhere".
QuoteQuoteThus, from the universal agreement of the Church's ordinary teaching authority we have a certain and firm proof, demonstrating that the Blessed Virgin Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven- which surely no faculty of the human mind could know by its own natural powers, as far as the heavenly glorification of the virginal body of the loving Mother of God is concerned-is a truth that has been revealed by God and consequently something that must be firmly and faithfully believed by all children of the Church. For, as the Vatican Council asserts, "all those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed."
we have XavierSem who tells us that Vatican 2 was a-okNo, I haven't said that. The Church has always used Dogma and Anathema against serious errors and grave dangers. The first mistake was doing away with that; among other things, abortion, contraception, the "free love" movement of the 60s, Communism etc should have been dogmatically condemned. But I also believe, and can legitimately believe, that evolution should have been dogmatically condemned even earlier, by Ven. Pope Pius XII, who made a mistake there. Jesus had sent a revelation to a holy soul explaining His displeasure with the false pagan theory of monkeyish evolution, unfortunately the churchmen didn't take it seriously. This remains to be done in future, and these kind of Papal mistakes are possible; the Popes, like all of us, are bound to seek the Divine Will, and do it. There should have also been dogmatic declarations on the Kingship of Christ, and clear directives to all Catholic States to uphold it, along with docuмents teaching ex cathedra that the Catholic Faith and explicit faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation. Finally, the Papal and Collegial Consecration to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, and the dogmatic definition that Our Lady is Mediatrix of All Graces. Many of these were explicitly taught by Archbishop Lefebvre, Cardinal Ottaviani, Cardinal Siri etc. They remain to be done in the future. But none of them are reasons to go outside of the Hierarchical Church, where you will be starved for graces.
Not so. I explained in my post (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/where-exactly-is-the-ordinary-and-universal-magisterium-of-the-church-today/msg648980/#msg648980) to Forlorn why the Church's Magisterium is always infallible. In a nutshell, because the Church's Magisterium is teachings, not the hierarchy, not the pope and not people. There is no and can be no OM which disagrees with the UM or EM because they are all part of the UM.
Stubborn, I think trad123 means, (1) Pope Pius XII had asked all the Bishops of the world about the Assumption. They responded that, yes, the Assumption was definable dogma. But Pope Pius XII obviously did not explicitly ask all the Bishops of all time about that. (2) If you accept what Van Noort said, that the OUM in his day was giving us an utterly clear cut witness that Pope Pius XII was the legitimate Successor of St. Peter, the same conclusion seems to follow, as all Bishops of all time did not even know who Pope Pius XII was till then. It was the Bishops of the whole world at that time who were doing so. This seems to go against what you are saying on OUM infallibility.
To be clear, I don't believe the Bishops in union with the Pope are always infallible. Yes, individually, and many of them together, can make mistakes, even serious ones. But if all Bishops, under the Pope, agree (1) that something is dogma, (2) or on a dogmatic fact, they are right. That's what the theologians say.Yes, among certain 19th ad 20th century theologians, that is what they say, but prior to that? No.
This quote demonstrates the confusion I've been talking about.You're the one who's been arguing that the Magisterium can be wrong. As you said so yourself, not even all the Bishops and the Pope being in agreement makes something infallible. It must always be something the Church has always taught. Therefore, by your own logic, the rest of the Ordinary Magisterium must be fallible. Stop flip-flopping.
Prove it to yourself, stop just parroting it haphazardly, instead, actually give an example of the Church's Magisterium being wrong, and also when it is wrong "but it can't lead you into heresy or rejection of the faith". The whole line of thinking is utterly absurd when what the Church and the Church's Magisterium is, is correctly understood.
The only way your above quote could be true, is through a misunderstanding of what the Church and the Church's Magisterium is, *and*, if you, like NOers, do not believe that the Church is Christ, "...the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing". - Humani Generis (27) (https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html)
This is why we must belong to the Church, because in doing so we belong to Christ, they "are one and the same thing", because there is no salvation "in any other". Because Christ and the Church are one, and because the teachings of the Church is the Church's Magisterium, the Church's Magisterium and the teachings of Christ "are one and the same thing". Yet you are saying they can be wrong, which is to say the Church can be wrong, which is saying that Christ can be wrong. Preposterous.
Not so. Like yourself, Xavier has the same confused idea of of what the Church and the Magisterium is. Whereas you believe the pope is not the pope because he and the hierarchy, being the magisterium, is not, to be brief, infallibly safe, Xavier believes same as the pope - that because the magisterium is infallibly safe, whatever the pope and hierarchy do is safe to follow and accept. Neither ideas make any Catholic sense whatsoever, because both ideas are Novus Ordo.
There's no such thing as: infallibly safe fallibility. That's a contradiction to the highest degree.It is in no way a contradiction. The teachings of the Pope are part of the Ordinary Magisterium, but they are not infallible unless they are ex cathedra. Therefore, the rest of it is fallible and can be wrong. So the Pope, and therefore the Ordinary(but not Universal) Magisterium can teach in error. It's fallible. But it's infallibly safe in that you can never be guilty of sin for giving religious assent to the teachings of the Pope, even if they later turn out to be wrong.
The ordinary magisterium can err and it cannot err. It depends on the situation and what is said and how it’s said. You can’t make generalizations, as you are doing. It’s too complex.To quote yourself, "That's a contradiction to the highest degree." If something can ever err, then saying it cannot err is factually incorrect. What you are failing to do is differentiate between the Ordinary Magisterium, the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, and the Extraordinary Magisterium. The first is fallible, the latter two are not.
It is in no way a contradiction. The teachings of the Pope are part of the Ordinary Magisterium, but they are not infallible unless they are ex cathedra. Therefore, the rest of it is fallible and can be wrong. So the Pope, and therefore the Ordinary(but not Universal) Magisterium can teach in error. It's fallible. But it's infallibly safe in that you can never be guilty of sin for giving religious assent to the teachings of the Pope, even if they later turn out to be wrong.
...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 only a specific portion of the Magisterium is fallible.
Stubborn just lambasted me and basically accused me of heresy and insulting the Body of Christ for saying that the Ordinary Magisterium is fallible - when his entire (correct) argument just before that was that only a specific portion of the Magisterium is fallible. Throwing around insults because he can't see the contradictions in his own posts.
Throwing around insults because he can't see the contradictions in his own posts.
You're the one who's been arguing that the Magisterium can be wrong. As you said so yourself, not even all the Bishops and the Pope being in agreement makes something infallible. It must always be something the Church has always taught. Therefore, by your own logic, the rest of the Ordinary Magisterium must be fallible. Stop flip-flopping.:facepalm:
Stubborn has his own definition of Magisterium which excludes the non-infallible portions of Church teaching. I've pointed out to him that it's a semantic disagreement and that he's not using the term Magisterium in the same way that most Catholic theologians do. Within the authentic Magisterium, theolgians distinguish between the mere authenticuм ("merely authentic" = non-infallible) and then the infallible Magisterium.You are the one who agrees with the whole false, necessary-for-the-NO idea of what the magisterium even is, I have already provided definitions from popes and theologians who reject the complicated, 19/20th century theologians' idea of what it is.
You are correct that most even Traditional Catholics don't make the proper distinctions between Ordinary (merely-authentic), Ordinary Universal, and Extraordinary. In addition to that, sometimes you have the Pope speaking as a private doctor.
I personally hold another category. When the Pope writes a letter to a Bishop, which has happened many times, he is in fact teaching/instructing the bishop as Pope, in his official capacity, but he is not addressing a teaching to the Universal Church. Or when he gives a speech to a group of midwives. He is speaking to them as Pope, but the scope of his teaching is too narrow to make it strictly part of the Magisterium. Or when he would give a sermon at Sunday Mass. So that is a category somewhere between teaching as a private doctor and exercising Magisterium towards the Universal Church.
I had this battle with him for a long time, and I discovered, at long last, that he was not in fact contradicting himself, but, rather, defining terms differently than most Catholic theologians. Non-infallible teachings made by the Pope that happen to be wrong he would say are not actually part of the Magisterium (as he defines it).The pope is not the magisterium. It is so obvious why you think he is, but he is not, neither is the hierarchy the magisterium. The magisterium is teachings, not people.
The pope is not the magisterium. It is so obvious why you think he is, but he is not, neither is the hierarchy the magisterium. The magisterium is teachings, not people.
Why would you think that I believe this when you were on the thread where I called out XavierSem for conflating the Magisterium with those who exercised it? Magisterium, like the word "teaching" in English, can refer either to the ACT of teaching or to the things taught ... depending on whether you're considering the verbal noun subjectively or objectively. But in no case does it mean the same thing as the teacher himself.Then go ahead and give an instance, or an example of the magisterium being wrong - and another example of it not being so wrong as to lead people into heresy or reject the faith.
Then go ahead and give an instance, or an example of the magisterium being wrong - and another example of it not being so wrong as to lead people into heresy or reject the faith.
Go ahead.
There's no theologian who would hold that the teaching of an Ecuмenical Council is not Magisterium.Just for clarity (not trying to stoke the fire), what do you guys consider the Second Vatican Council to be?
Stubborn, would you please stop this? Based on the definitions of most theologians, it is YOU who hold that the Magisterium has been wrong. You hold that Vatican II taught various errors to the Church, and so the teaching of Vatican II would qualify (in your mind) as erroneous Magisterium. But you comeback is that the erroneous teaching of Vatican II is not actually Magisterium. We've gone over this 100 times. There's no theologian who would hold that the teaching of an Ecuмenical Council is not Magisterium. Nobody defines the term as you do to the exclusion of all error.No, it would not qualify as erroneous magisterium - the magisterium is always infallible. I've only said that probably a dozen times now. Because the magisterium is teachings of the Church, which means the magisterium is teachings of Christ. Pope Pius XII and Pope Pius IX - your "magisterium" - taught this as I quoted them.
Just for clarity (not trying to stoke the fire), what do you guys consider the Second Vatican Council to be?It was a council of the Church that should have never been convened. It was a robber council, a counterfeit council. It was the birth of the Novus Ordo church with new doctrines, new liturgy and new anti-Catholic religion, even had it's own Pentecost, The "New Pentecost" (https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/J23V2ADR.HTM).
But it's infallibly safe in that you can never be guilty of sin for giving religious assent to the teachings of the Pope, even if they later turn out to be wrong.If this were true, then the catholic laity are effectively robots and the hierarchy should be followed mindlessly and treated like walking oracles. You fail to distinguish the different levels of magisterial teaching and the consequent different levels of assent the laity must give.
But it's infallibly safe in that you can never be guilty of sin for giving religious assent to the teachings of the Pope, even if they later turn out to be wrong.Kind of like when Vatican II told us it was ok to commit a mortal sin by praying with heretics and schismatics?
If something can ever err, then saying it cannot err is factually incorrect. What you are failing to do is differentiate between the Ordinary Magisterium, the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, and the Extraordinary Magisterium. The first is fallible, the latter two are not.The magisterium is a tool. Therefore it can be infallible or not, depending. There's no contradiction whatsoever.
It was a council of the Church that should have never been convened. It was a robber council, a counterfeit council. It was the birth of the Novus Ordo church with new doctrines, new liturgy and new anti-Catholic religion, even had it's own Pentecost, The "New Pentecost" (https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/J23V2ADR.HTM).I agree. This thread is somewhat confusing and I'll admit I can't define what the magisterium is but the quotes provided here have helped to clarify it.
Because the magisterium is teachings of the Church, which means the magisterium is teachings of Christ.
So in your line of thinking, the Second Vatican Council is not authentic magisterium because it taught things contrary to the Catholic Faith?V2 didn't exercise any Extraordinary, doctrinal, ex-cathedra magisterium. We should all agree on this. Even new-rome admits this and this is why they allow new-sspx to debate V2, because this council does not have to be accepted with a "certainty of faith" which all doctrines and dogmas do.
I agree. This thread is somewhat confusing and I'll admit I can't define what the magisterium is but the quotes provided here have helped to clarify it.Exactly correct. Certainly no, it is not the Magisterium. Here is a link (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/the-second-vatican-council-51899/new/#new) to a short, excellent summary of it's purpose and what happened at V2.
So in your line of thinking, the Second Vatican Council is not authentic magisterium because it taught things contrary to the Catholic Faith? Things that Our Lord would never teach. "The Moslems together with us adore the one merciful God."
V2 didn't exercise any Extraordinary, doctrinal, ex-cathedra magisterium. We should all agree on this. Even new-rome admits this and this is why they allow new-sspx to debate V2, because this council does not have to be accepted with a "certainty of faith" which all doctrines and dogmas do.But we cannot all agree on this because some people here have been led (taught) to believe that all councils, by virtue of being a council, are infallible. Where is this teaching found? Likely such a teaching, if it exists at all, will be taught by some well respected, 19th/20th century theologians, but not the Church.
The pope is not the magisterium. It is so obvious why you think he is, but he is not, neither is the hierarchy the magisterium. The magisterium is teachings, not people.If you had any grasp of Latin, you'd understand that magisterium refers to the office of the "magister", that is, the teacher. It refers to both the teachings of the Church and the hierarchy with the authority to teach.
It was a council of the Church that should have never been convened. It was a robber council, a counterfeit council. It was the birth of the Novus Ordo church with new doctrines, new liturgy and new anti-Catholic religion, even had it's own Pentecost, The "New Pentecost" (https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/J23V2ADR.HTM).And who exactly are you to decide which Councils of the Church are valid or not? You're a sedeplenist, aren't you? The Pope presiding over it and all the Bishops present were validly ordained, consecrated, elected, etc. How exactly is Vatican 2 unique in that it's the one and only Ecuмenical council Stubborn gets to wave away because he dislike it?
If this were true, then the catholic laity are effectively robots and the hierarchy should be followed mindlessly and treated like walking oracles. You fail to distinguish the different levels of magisterial teaching and the consequent different levels of assent the laity must give.
But we cannot all agree on this because some people here have been led (taught) to believe that all councils, by virtue of being a council, are infallible. Where is this teaching found? Likely such a teaching, if it exists at all, will be taught by some well respected, 19th/20th century theologians, but not the Church.
Supposedly, the reason they are infallible is because the pope and bishop all gathered together in a council and all agreed to preach the same thing - by virtue of this gathering and unanimous agreement, *whatever* they preach is infallible, infallibly safe, and might possibly even contain some insignificant errors, but not to worry, the errors are presumed to be so slight and insignificant, that they cannot lead anyone to heresy or rejecting the faith. This is what their idea of magisterium is. Correct me if I said that wrong.
Also, please note that no one has yet posted anything that provides some examples of the Magisterium being wrong, and also when it is wrong "but it can't lead you into heresy or rejection of the faith".
The reason for this, is because they confuse the infallibility of the magisterium, with differing degrees of religious assent we owe to teachings that are not infallibly defined. Which is probably the main reason why no one is able to post any example of the magisterium being wrong.
If you had any grasp of Latin, you'd understand that magisterium refers to the office of the "magister", that is, the teacher. It refers to both the teachings of the Church and the hierarchy with the authority to teach.Be sure to let Pope Pius IX and the other popes know this when you meet them.
And who exactly are you to decide which Councils of the Church are valid or not? You're a sedeplenist, aren't you? The Pope presiding over it and all the Bishops present were validly ordained, consecrated, elected, etc. How exactly is Vatican 2 unique in that it's the one and only Ecuмenical council Stubborn gets to wave away because he dislike it?I am Roman Catholic, not a sedewhateverist.
No one has ever said that in this thread. I've said the exact opposite multiple times, do try to keep up.No, I admitted no such thing, I said the sedes "confuse the infallibility of the magisterium, with differing degrees of religious assent we owe to teachings that are not infallibly defined. Which is probably the main reason why no one is able to post any example of the magisterium being wrong".
In the bolded part you just admitted that certain teachings can be in error, therefore the Church can teach in error. You made up your own definition of Magisterium and insisted that the whole Magisterium must be infallible because that Church's teachings are infallible, and yet here you are going on about fallible teachings of the Church. Even when you twist words to mean whatever you want, you still cannot help contradicting yourself. That's because your position is untenable and entirely contrary to reason.
I am Roman Catholic, not a sedewhateverist.I just used the term to be briefer than "You believe Francis is the Pope?". Saves a bit of time. And you know that - but you were just looking for a nice way to cop out of replying. I'm interested in seeing how a good Roman Catholic can justify rejecting an Ecuмenical Council that was called for and presided over by a valid Pope, but I don't expect to see that answer before a dozen more nitpicky cop outs.
No, I admitted no such thing, I said the sedes "confuse the infallibility of the magisterium, with differing degrees of religious assent we owe to teachings that are not infallibly defined. Which is probably the main reason why no one is able to post any example of the magisterium being wrong".Fantastic reading comprehension as always. As you've said several times now, there are teachings that are not infallibly defined. Therefore there are fallible teachings in the Church -> some of the Church's teachings are fallible. Your argument earlier was that the Magisterium must be infallible because the Church's teachings are infallible, yet then you went on to say that the Church *can* actually teach fallibly. Contradicting yourself.
Now try to read it again, this time go ahead and post something the magisterium got wrong.
Fantastic reading comprehension as always. As you've said several times now, there are teachings that are not infallibly defined. Therefore there are fallible teachings in the Church -> some of the Church's teachings are fallible. Your argument earlier was that the Magisterium must be infallible because the Church's teachings are infallible, yet then you went on to say that the Church *can* actually teach fallibly. Contradicting yourself.I will simply post the link (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/where-exactly-is-the-ordinary-and-universal-magisterium-of-the-church-today/msg648517/#msg648517) to the post I already made that answered this query.
I will simply post the link (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/where-exactly-is-the-ordinary-and-universal-magisterium-of-the-church-today/msg648517/#msg648517) to the post I already made that answered this query.Hiding behind terminology once again. I don't care that you have no idea what the distinction between the non-Universal and Universal Ordinary Magisterium is. A rose by any other name is just as sweet, the inherent attributes of something are not altered by the names you call them. We both recognise and agree that teachings of the Pope, or the Pope and Bishops, which are not what the Church has always taught, are not infallible. Doesn't matter what you call those teachings - doesn't change the fact you contradicted yourself.
Still waiting for you to provide something - anything that demonstrates the magisterium being wrong, or admit that there is no such thing because it is an impossibility - except within the NO church.
If you had any faith, you would then understand, as V1 states, that whatever is contained in the magisterium is infallible. V1 explicitly include the Solemn, Universal and Ordinary Magisterium - but although it is clearly and explicitly written that way, you continue to reject it.
You will never find "Where Exactly is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium", because what you are looking for does not now, and never has existed.....but keep on looking I guess.
Hiding behind terminology once again. I don't care that you have no idea what the distinction between the non-Universal and Universal Ordinary Magisterium is. A rose by any other name is just as sweet, the inherent attributes of something are not altered by the names you call them. We both recognise and agree that teachings of the Pope, or the Pope and Bishops, which are not what the Church has always taught, are not infallible. Doesn't matter what you call those teachings - doesn't change the fact you contradicted yourself.We can end this discussion if your going to continually *not* read what I post. I leave it up to you.
You have stated:
(1) That the Church has teachings that are falilble and require varying degrees of religious assent
and
(2) That the Church's teachings = the Magisterium = The Body of Christ and are therefore all infallible.
Two contradictory statements. Either all the teachings are infallible or they are not, they can't both all be infallible and yet some be fallible. Some is a subset of all.
You have stated:Gentlemen,
(1) That the Church has teachings that are falilble and require varying degrees of religious assent
and
(2) That the Church's teachings = the Magisterium = The Body of Christ and are therefore all infallible.
Gentlemen,The thing that is complex, is the unlearning of the common misunderstanding, taught by certain 19th/20th century theologians, of what he Church's Magisterium is.
The more I read about the history and theology of the magisterium, the more I realize that it is super complex. The idea of the Magisterium itself is simple and most people readily understand it, including both of you. But, if you study the history of it, you'll realize that theologians over the last few centuries, (especially after V1) have changed, added and refined many of the definitions/labels of the terms. So it's very difficult to discuss this topic unless you define terms in the beginning. For example, I think I read somewhere that the Magisterium used to only refer to 1) extraordinary definitions and 2) authoritative ordinary & universal teachings. In other words, there was no such thing as the "ordinary, fallible" magisterium. This makes sense to me, because in prior centuries, when popes spoke of the magisterium, they were obviously speaking of authoritative, clear-cut teachings. They were NOT talking about the "ordinary, fallible" level, where the pope gives a sermon on sundays or he gives a speech at a religious conference.
Fast forward to the 1800s and the 1900s and theologians starting including ALL papal writings, sermons and lower-level synods, meetings, etc into the definition of the "ordinary/fallible" magisterium. Why they did this, I don't know. But there has been MUCH that has changed, definitionally, between the 1600s and now on this topic. This explains why you can't agree on terms.
Gentlemen,
The more I read about the history and theology of the magisterium, the more I realize that it is super complex. The idea of the Magisterium itself is simple and most people readily understand it, including both of you. But, if you study the history of it, you'll realize that theologians over the last few centuries, (especially after V1) have changed, added and refined many of the definitions/labels of the terms.