Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Mithrandylan

I asked how Catholics would recognize the UOM, not what they would learn having recognized it.  

How do they recognize it in the first place?  To say "that which has always and everywhere been taught" is to give a non-answer, and a circular fallacy.  The point of the UOM is to teach, and the point of being subject to the UOM is to learn.  You are presupposing the very faith learned from the UOM in order to identify the UOM.  

It doesn't work that way, it can't work that way.  

No, that is the argument you are trying to maintain to support sedevacantism.

Ha, well, I'm not the one who spent two weeks and half a dozen threads trying to convince everyone that canonizations are fallible, even going as far to use a Novus Ordo priest from a secular news source as "proof."  

I'm not interested in politics, crisis positions or retaining a status quo.  If the Catholic Church teaches something, I want to know what it is and believe it.

Quote

The very fact the St Vincent's "Commonitorium" instructs Catholics how to distinguish sound doctrine from novelties (ie., the infallible ordinary magisterium from the authentic/fallible ordinary magisterium) presupposes such novelties and errors from the magisterium are possible.

It does not presuppose that error and novelty are possible from the Church, but from heretics (who attempt to hide in it).  

St. Vincent is not making the juxtaposition you are, of "sound doctrine=infallible ordinary magisterium" and "heresy=fallible magisterium."  He is advising Catholics how to discern Tradition from novelty, but he is not admitting that the Catholic Church can be the author of novelty, which is what you are saying by assigning it to the UOM (all of the bishops together with the pope).

Which UOM are you speaking of?

I notice you don't like to spell out that distinction, as you rightly sense it mitigates against the sedevacantist position.

So, when you speak of the "UOM" in the future, please indicate whether you are speaking of the universal ordinary infallible magisterium, or the universal ordinary fallible magisterium (to which Vatican 2 and the lions share of post-V2 Vatican 2 teachings belong).

PS: Please cite where I say that error is possible from the Church.  The whole point (which you have conveniently missed several times) is that those novel teachings of the authentic magisterium do not come from the infallible ordinary magisterium of the Church.

Sean Johnson,

There's no such thing as the  'universal ordinary fallible magisterium'.

There's only the Ordinary Universal Magisterium which is infallible;

and the Ordinary Magisterium which is not infallible.


 

J.Paul,

But the argument IS settled.
And here it is in a nutshell.

The Ordinary Universal Magisterium is infallible.  It's teachings are therefore guaranteed by the Holy Ghost to be free of error.  There is absolutely no need to subject such teachings to an additional 'Tradition' test.  

The Ordinary Universal Magisterium consists of the pope teaching in union with the bishops of the world.

The Conciliar popes have been preaching Vatican II in union with the bishops of the world for over 50 years.

If the Conciliar popes are true popes, Vatican II is covered by the infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.  It's teachings are therefore guaranteed by the Holy Ghost to be free of error.

Thanks for the good laugh!

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Mithrandylan

I asked how Catholics would recognize the UOM, not what they would learn having recognized it.  

How do they recognize it in the first place?  To say "that which has always and everywhere been taught" is to give a non-answer, and a circular fallacy.  The point of the UOM is to teach, and the point of being subject to the UOM is to learn.  You are presupposing the very faith learned from the UOM in order to identify the UOM.  

It doesn't work that way, it can't work that way.  

No, that is the argument you are trying to maintain to support sedevacantism.

Ha, well, I'm not the one who spent two weeks and half a dozen threads trying to convince everyone that canonizations are fallible, even going as far to use a Novus Ordo priest from a secular news source as "proof."  

I'm not interested in politics, crisis positions or retaining a status quo.  If the Catholic Church teaches something, I want to know what it is and believe it.

Quote

The very fact the St Vincent's "Commonitorium" instructs Catholics how to distinguish sound doctrine from novelties (ie., the infallible ordinary magisterium from the authentic/fallible ordinary magisterium) presupposes such novelties and errors from the magisterium are possible.

It does not presuppose that error and novelty are possible from the Church, but from heretics (who attempt to hide in it).  

St. Vincent is not making the juxtaposition you are, of "sound doctrine=infallible ordinary magisterium" and "heresy=fallible magisterium."  He is advising Catholics how to discern Tradition from novelty, but he is not admitting that the Catholic Church can be the author of novelty, which is what you are saying by assigning it to the UOM (all of the bishops together with the pope).

Which UOM are you speaking of?

I notice you don't like to spell out that distinction, as you rightly sense it mitigates against the sedevacantist position.

So, when you speak of the "UOM" in the future, please indicate whether you are speaking of the universal ordinary infallible magisterium, or the universal ordinary fallible magisterium (to which Vatican 2 and the lions share of post-V2 Vatican 2 teachings belong).

PS: Please cite where I say that error is possible from the Church.  The whole point (which you have conveniently missed several times) is that those novel teachings of the authentic magisterium do not come from the infallible ordinary magisterium of the Church.

I figured the term "universal" would have tipped you off.  

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31979#p0

That is a link to Tanquerey on the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.  Here is an excerpt:

"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."

Here is Ott:

Ott, Ludwig.  Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.  Trans. Lynch.  4th ed. reprint.  Tan.  1974.  p 300.

"The Bishops exercise their infallible teaching power in an ordinary manner when they, in heir dioceses, in moral unity with the pope, unanimously promulgate the same teachings on faith and morals.  The Vatican Council expressly declared that also the truths of Revelation proposed as such by the ordinary and general teaching office of the Church are to be firmly held with "divine and catholic faith" (D 1792).  But the incuмbents of the ordinary and general teaching office of the Church are members of the whole episcopate scattered over the whole earth.  The agreement of the Bishops in doctrine may be determined from the catechisms issued by them, from their pastoral letters, from the prayer books approved by them and from the resolutions of particular synods.  A morally general agreement suffices, bit in this the express or tacit assent of the Pope, as the supreme head of the Episcopate, is essential."

Mgr. Van Noort, G. S.T.D.  Dogmatic Theology Vol. II: Christ's Church.  Trans. Castelot & Murphy.  Newman.  1957.  pp 330-332.  (see attachments below)


These authors teach (and more can be provided, indefinitely) that all of the bishops teaching in union with their head are infallible, i.e., they are protected from error.  The idea that they must also teach something traditional (and then are infallible) is perfectly circular.  The very purpose of infallibility is to assure, ensure and guarantee that no other teaching is even possible given these conditions.  

Another twenty five anyone???

Quote from: Stubborn

Pope Pius IX's letter, Tuas Libenter, testifies to that fact. All we need to accept is that he never would have had any need to write the letter if the guarantee of infallibility, automatically extended to the Ordinary Universal Magisterium - or are we to presume he was wrong on that?

Could you please provide this letter and highlight the support for this?

Here is the most complete letter I personally have yet to see.

Below is a snip and a few examples, which is enough, I think, to exemplify as being wrong those who say the OUM is incapable of teaching error.

.....For the rest, We cannot hide from you that We have been made rather anxious: for We feared that the example of this Congress, assembled independently of the ecclesiastical authority, might little by little do damage to the right of spiritual government and legitimate teaching which, in virtue of the divine institution, belongs properly to the Roman Pontiff and to the bishops who in union and agreement with the Successor of St. Peter; and that, as a consequence of this harm done to the government of the Church, the principle of unity and obedience in matters of faith might eventually be weakened in many souls. We feared also lest, in the same Congress, opinions and systems might be aired and supported which, by reason above all of the publicity given to them, would imperil the purity of doctrine and the duty of obedience.

1) First if anything that is taught from the ordinary universal magisterium is guaranteed to be free from the possibility of error - then there would have been zero reason for Pope Pius IX to even write the letter.

2) Why would the pope have "been made rather anxious" at all if the ordinary universal magisterium is incapable of teaching error?

3) Why would he fear that the ordinary universal magisterium, "might little by little do damage to the right of spiritual government and legitimate teaching" if it is a teaching of the Church that the ordinary universal magisterium cannot err in it's teaching?

4) The reason the letter was written at all, and the reason the pope was made rather anxious and the reason he was afraid ("We feared also") was because the teaching authority that the ordinary universal magisterium have, certainly can be abused. "We feared also lest, in the same Congress, opinions and systems might be aired and supported which, by reason above all of the publicity given to them, would imperil the purity of doctrine and the duty of obedience."

And while as the good Bishop once again, has set heads to spinning into making arguments of infallibility, non-infallibility, ordinary or extraordinary, conditions met or not met, and so on, these men have been living according to their heresies, and teaching their heresies, and publishing their heresies, and proclaiming their heresies as representing the mind of the Catholic Church for almost sixty years.

That is the reality. They are living and breathing heretics who daily infect souls with their heresies and teach against the Catholic Faith.

It matters not if they refuse to declare them according to traditional conditions, or that they are not infallible in their activities.

Taking refuge among the Church's theological distinctions and Saintly proclamations to the point of no longer being capable of naming a heretic and an apostate has produced a generation and culture of clerical paralysis.

In a perpetual dance around the bush, never having the courage to tear away the blighted branch, for fear that to do so would cause the bush to suddenly disappear from existence.

Yes, yes, yes,  sedevacantism is our most important consideration, we must know that, musn't we? Our Princes tell us this is so.

In this, the Faithful and the unknowing are left adrift.


" For he lieth in wait and turneth good into evil, and on the elect he will lay a blot."

" But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?"

The insanity/inanity is reaching a fever pitch.

You say very well here.

Why is it so difficult for so many to see?

By his actions we can know that +W has an agenda, and this agenda is neither the defense and propagation of the Catholic Faith nor the building up of the Christian edifice.

We also know the fruits of this agenda: endless divisions; endless hair splittings; endless wasting of precious time; endless diversions away from what is most important for the Church; endless dissolution of Catholic militancy; endless vain tinkering with immortal souls.

It's positively shameful.