Quote from: Arvinger

Quote from: Stubborn

It simply is true. And no, the Catholic Church, which is Christ, cannot teach error. I thought I answered earlier, but maybe not.

But Vatican II did teach serious error. Therefore Vatican II's validity and validity of people who promulgated it must be questioned, because the Catholic Church cannot teach such an error.

Quote from: Stubborn

"The teachings of the Pope that are not infallible are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faithful" is a teaching some SV posters on SD attribute to Fenton, Noort and other popular 20th century theologians, as being what the Church infallibly teaches.

It is an error that most definitely is *not* a teaching of the Church - but it is a teaching that nearly everyone believes *is* a teaching of the Church. How did this happen? How did the population accept an invention from 20th century theologians as a teaching of the Church?

It is not an error, it is truth which flow directly from the doctrine of indefectibility of the Church. If the non-infallible teachings were not safe to follow (even though they contain minor errors) that would mean that the Church can defect and lead its children into hell through her non-infallible teachings.

Also, it would mean that each faithful has to sift non-infallible teachings of the Church on his own test them through his private judgment to decide whether they are harmful or not. This is a completely non-Catholic approach.

Finally, you contradict yourself, for first you say that the Catholic Church cannot teach error, now you claim that the non-infallible teachings of the Church can be harmful to the faithul. Please make up your mind.

Quote from: Stubborn

How did this particular teaching, which is not what the Church infallibly taught at V1 and is contradictory to what was taught at V1 ever make it into the theology manuals and pre-V2 seminaries? How is it that those 20th century theologians can teach error like that, yet are considered "respected" theologians?
   

Again, like many times before, you confuse the doctrines of Papal infallibility and indefectibility of the Church. It has nothing to do with Vatican I and Pastor Aeternus - Papal infallibility is in fact limited, but indefectibility of the Church means that also non-infallible teachings can never be harmful to souls and can contain only minor errors.

Plus he does not understand what the theology manuals actually teach since it does not fit in with what the Saint Benedict Center who in effect acts as his Pope teaches.  

He has an unnecessary bias against pre-V2 theology manuals as these manuals are very reliable and a great way of getting a fuller explanation of the Church's basic teachings.  Any serious Catholic who can read them should read them.  And ask questions of our traditional clergy when necessary as the too have a better understanding of what the Church teaches than those who post here do.

Read V1 sometime, then come back and make that teaching agree with the 20th century theologians: "The teachings of the Pope that are not infallible are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faithful"

Of course V2 taught error, is there a trad who denies this? I do not question the validity of V2, but if you want to, I guess no one will stop you.

Simple syllogism:
1. The Catholic Church cannot teach error
2. But Vatican II, claiming to be Ecuмenical Council of the Catholic Church, taught error
3. Vatican II cannot be a valid Council of the Catholic Church

So you believe the false teaching of the 20th century theologians. Fine. You have a lot of company that believe the same lies you believe, but that being the case, your pope problem and V2 validity problem and Magisterium defecting problem remains. But you may add an additional problem of believing a teaching that contradicts V1's teaching.

You are yet to demonstrate why this teaching is wrong and how does it contradict V1, and how do you reconcile your belief that non-infallible teachings of the Church can be harmful to the faithful with the fact that the Catholic Church cannot teach error (clear contradiction).

So, Fenton, van Noort et al. were ignorant of V1 and could not see what Stubborn sees as a clear contradiction? It seems more likely that you are just plainly wrong.

I am not confusing a thing. You are the one confusing things. It is quite simple actually, there are certain parameters which per V1, must be met for teachings to be infallible. Teachings that fall outside of those parameters are entirely fallible. Isn't that simple?

That is exactly correct and exactly irrelevant to this discussion, because we are not discussing Papal infallibility, but non-infallible teachings of the Church (we agree that V2 was not infallible).

The indefectibility of the Church means simply, that no matter what anyone does from within or from without, they will never succeed in destroying the Church. Even heretical popes who are hell bent on destroying the Church will never succeed. That, in a nutshell, is the doctrine of the Church's indefectibility.

Once again you re-define indefectibility of the Church, turning it into indestructibility of the Church, much like modernists re-define EENS. Indefectibility of the Church does not mean merely that the Church cannot be destroyed (that would be indestructibility, not indefectibility), but that it cannot teach error to the faithful (even in her fallible capacity) and it cannot fail in her universal discipline (thus, if the Novus Ordo Mass is evil and displeasing to God, it could not have been promulgated by the Catholic Church).

Those poor souls who adhere to the false teaching that "The teachings of the Pope that are not infallible are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful to the faithful" cling to teachings that are obviously not teachings of the Church, what they are, are teachings of 20th century theologians.

OK, so according to you fallible teachings of the Church can be harmful to the faithful. This means that the Church can in fact teach error (so you contradict yourself, since you claimed she cannot) and can lead souls to hell through its teaching. This is completely wrong and is a denial of Church's indefectibility.

As I wrote before, if the fallible teachings of the Church can be harmful to souls, than an individual Catholic is a final authority to sift the Magisterium and decide on his own which teachings are harmfu land which are not, which is completely non-Catholic notion.

If you are right, than a Novus Ordite can decide that St. Pius X Pascendi, Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos or Pope Gregory XVI Mirari Vos (to mention just few docuмents which condemn modernist ideas) are simply wrong and are examples of fallible teachings (none of thee encyclicals defined any dogma) harmful to the faithful, and are in fact trumped by Vatican II as an Ecuмenical Council. From your standpoint you can hardly object that.

Very good.  Me as well.  Very often, which is a good sign that I'm still learning.  

Quote from: Stubborn

Of course V2 taught error, is there a trad who denies this? I do not question the validity of V2, but if you want to, I guess no one will stop you.

Simple syllogism:
1. The Catholic Church cannot teach error
2. But Vatican II, claiming to be Ecuмenical Council of the Catholic Church, taught error
3. Vatican II cannot be a valid Council of the Catholic Church.

Man, this is old already.

1) The Church, which is Christ, cannot teach error - I think you disagree but can't be sure.

2) The Council taught error - I think you disagree, well, if that is so, you are wrong. The Council is not Christ, the council's teachings were fallible - here, I'm not sure but I think you will suffer heartburn because this is inconceivable to you, the only cure I am aware of, is for you to study V1.

3) Vatican 2 was not a valid council of the Church. You arrive at your conclusion based on 20th century theologians' teachings that you believe to be Church teaching. Hence, your problem remains.

Your problem being, that The Council (whom (I think) you call "the Church") taught error, on that account, I think you conclude that The Council was invalid or was not a Council of The Church.

As I said, I will never convince you otherwise, you will need to convince yourself I guess - until you do, your problem remains. Again, I recommend you read and study the decrees of V1 until you finally understand the requirements for infallibility - if you do this, you will find that everything outside those requirements, including the Second Vatican Council, is entirely fallible.

If you cannot reach this conclusion, then it is my guess that you have placed too high a value on the 20th century theologians' teachings and simply refuse to let go.

Assent Due to Certain Papal Utterances - Dublin Review, 1878
http://sedevacantist.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1401&sid=829eafa4c3a825bd57d6aeaec534c45b

It's quite simple, everyone.

If the Church's Magisterium and Universal Discipline could ever go so badly off the rails that Catholics must sever communion with the hierarchy in order to preserve their faith and save their souls, the Church would have defected.  This is very simple and no error, Stubborn.  You call it an error because you don't like it, because it undermines R&R.

While this has not been dogmatically defined, it proceeds very clearly and very directly from the dogma that the Church cannot defect.  Consequently, your position, Stubborn, is proximate to heresy and a grave sin to hold.  It is not Catholic.

Do you come up with this formula from 20th century theologians?

Lad, you are bent on your sededoubtism as if you found a solution of some sort,  which in and of itself demonstrates a false understanding of the doctrine of papal / OUM infallibility - and even you have admitted your sededoubtism to being a novel idea.

But as +ABL - who should know, said:


Because the seminaries of today are not teaching anything about the making of a priest; they teach liberal psychology, sociology, humanism, modernism and many other sciences and semi sciences that are either contrary to Catholic doctrine or have nothing whatever to do with church teachings or with what a priest should know. As for Catholic teachings, they are hardly being taught in today's seminaries.


These ideas have penetrated into the seminaries and throughout the church. And today the church wakes up finding itself in a liberal straitjacket.


Unfortunately, this is an error. It is a misconception of papal infallibility because since the Council of Vatican I, when the dogma of infallibility was proclaimed, the pope was already infallible. This was not a sudden invention. Infallibility was then far better understood than it is now because it was well known then that the pope was not infallible on everything under the sun.

He was only infallible in very specific matters of faith and morals. At that time, many enemies of the church did all they could to ridicule this dogma and propagate misconceptions. For example, the enemies of the church often said to the unknowing and naive that if the pope said a dog was a cat, it was the duty of Catholics blindly to accept this position without any question.

Of course this was an absurd interpretation and the Catholics knew that. This time the same enemies of the church, now that it serves their purpose, are working very hard to have whatever the pope says accepted, without question, as infallible, almost as if his words were uttered by our Lord Jesus Christ himself.

This impression, although widely promoted, is nevertheless utterly false.

Infallibility is extremely limited, only bearing on very specific cases which Vatican I has very well defined and detailed. It is not possible to say that whenever the pope speaks he is infallible. The fact is that the pope is a liberal, that all this liberal trend has taken place at the Council of Vatican II, and created a direction for the destruction of the church - a destruction which one expects to happen any day.

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. Because I have not aligned myself with these liberal ideas that would destroy the church, there are attempts to suppress my seminaries. And it is for this reason that I am asked to stop ordaining priests.

Stubborn simply does not understand that the claim is not that Vatican II was infallible, thus his arguments about limitations of infallibiltiy are irrelevant. We agree that Vatican II as not infallible.

But even fallible teachings of the Church cannot contain heresy and lead to massive apostasy in the Church, like Vatican II did. This would mean defection of the Church and is impossible. Similarly, the Church cannot fail in her universal discipline therefore if Novus Ordo Missae is displeasing to God and cannot be attended under any circuмstances, it could not have been promulgated by the Church.

Quote from: Arvinger

Teachings of the Ecuмenical Council are part of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. So, if the Ecuмenical Council teaches error, it means that the Church teaches error. I can't believe I have to explain something that basic.

The only thing you need to explain is why you think it was not possible for the Council to tech  error. And no using false teachings from 20th century theologians' to do it.

Because the Catholic Church cannot teach error (you claimed to believe that) and is indefectible. An Ecuмenical Council teachng error and leading souls to hell through adherence to its teachings means defection of the Church.

Stubborn simply does not understand that the claim is not that Vatican II was infallible, thus his arguments about limitations of infallibiltiy are irrelevant. We agree that Vatican II as not infallible.

But even fallible teachings of the Church cannot contain heresy and lead to massive apostasy in the Church, like Vatican II did. This would mean defection of the Church and is impossible. Similarly, the Church cannot fail in her universal discipline therefore if Novus Ordo Missae is displeasing to God and cannot be attended under any circuмstances, it could not have been promulgated by the Church.

It was not promulgated by the Church - always remember that the Church is Christ.

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Arvinger

Teachings of the Ecuмenical Council are part of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. So, if the Ecuмenical Council teaches error, it means that the Church teaches error. I can't believe I have to explain something that basic.

The only thing you need to explain is why you think it was not possible for the Council to tech  error. And no using false teachings from 20th century theologians' to do it.

Because the Catholic Church cannot teach error (you claimed to believe that) and is indefectible. An Ecuмenical Council teachng error and leading souls to hell through adherence to its teachings means defection of the Church.

An Ecuмenical Council did teach error. You and Lad and LoT and etc. are the ones who cannot accept this even though it happened and as historical fact, is indisputable. You are disputing the indisputable. I believe this is because you are stuck in accepting the false teachings of the 20th century theologians who teach that EC's are ipso facto infallible - when V2 proved that idea to not only be completely wrong, it also proved that the vast majority of otherwise faithful Catholics believed it so strongly, that they gave up the true faith for the new faith.