Error by Excess and/or By Defect

Unfortunately this three-fold distinction between the Extraordinary Magisterium, the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, and the authentic non-infallible Magisterium, has fallen into oblivion. This has resulted in two opposite errors in the crisis situation of the Church at the present time: the error by excess of those who extend papal infallibility to all acts of the pope, without distinction; and the error by defect of those who restrict infallibility to definitions that have been uttered ex cathedra.

The error by excess actually eliminates the Ordinary Non-Infallible or "Authentic" Magisterium and inevitably leads either to Sedevacantism or to servile obedience.

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm

Fr. Le Floch, superior of the French Seminary in Rome, announced in 1926:

"The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility."

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm

Are you aware that there is no record of Fr. Le Floch ever saying this?  This quote is most likely false: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=714&p=7718&hilit=Le+floch&sid=4dcd437b1167fe1cb1c1e9433915d57e#p7718

In any event this is a pundit, a soundbite.  Not an argument.

Error by Excess and/or By Defect

Unfortunately this three-fold distinction between the Extraordinary Magisterium, the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, and the authentic non-infallible Magisterium, has fallen into oblivion. This has resulted in two opposite errors in the crisis situation of the Church at the present time: the error by excess of those who extend papal infallibility to all acts of the pope, without distinction; and the error by defect of those who restrict infallibility to definitions that have been uttered ex cathedra.

The error by excess actually eliminates the Ordinary Non-Infallible or "Authentic" Magisterium and inevitably leads either to Sedevacantism or to servile obedience.

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm

This is from the article you've already quoted and is dealing with the teaching office of the papacy.  It isn't relevant since I'm not talking about the magisterium of the papacy.

I'm talking simply about the bishops throughout the world, dispersed (so, not assembled under a council) teaching X in union with the Holy Father.  Theologians consider this (with not further qualification or condition) medium of teaching to be infallible, and de fide.

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Fr. Le Floch, superior of the French Seminary in Rome, announced in 1926:

"The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility."

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm

Are you aware that there is no record of Fr. Le Floch ever saying this?  This quote is most likely false: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=714&p=7718&hilit=Le+floch&sid=4dcd437b1167fe1cb1c1e9433915d57e#p7718

In any event this is a pundit, a soundbite.  Not an argument.

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Error by Excess and/or By Defect

Unfortunately this three-fold distinction between the Extraordinary Magisterium, the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, and the authentic non-infallible Magisterium, has fallen into oblivion. This has resulted in two opposite errors in the crisis situation of the Church at the present time: the error by excess of those who extend papal infallibility to all acts of the pope, without distinction; and the error by defect of those who restrict infallibility to definitions that have been uttered ex cathedra.

The error by excess actually eliminates the Ordinary Non-Infallible or "Authentic" Magisterium and inevitably leads either to Sedevacantism or to servile obedience.

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm

This is from the article you've already quoted and is dealing with the teaching office of the papacy.  It isn't relevant since I'm not talking about the magisterium of the papacy.

Quote

I'm talking simply about the bishops throughout the world, dispersed (so, not assembled under a council) teaching X in union with the Holy Father.  Theologians consider this (with not further qualification or condition) medium of teaching to be infallible, and de fide.

It follows that the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, whether of the Universal Church or that of the See of Rome, is not that of a judgment, not that of an act to be considered in isolation, as if it could itself provide all the light necessary for it to be clearly seen. It is that of the guarantee bestowed on a doctrine by the simultaneous or continuous convergence of a plurality of affirmations or explanations, none of which could bring positive certitude if it were taken by itself alone. Certitude can be expected only from the whole complex, but all the parts concur in making up that whole (Pope or Church?, op. cit., p.18).

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm

"If the Ordinary Magisterium is to be infallible, it must be traditional (cf. Salaverri, loc. cit.). If it breaks with Tradition, the Ordinary Magisterium cannot claim any infallibility. Here we see very clearly the very special nature of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, to which we must devote some attention."

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm

The author of that article is talking about papal infallibility.  Here is what immediately precedes what you quoted:

It is an error, therefore, to extend infallibility unconditionally to the whole of the Ordinary Magisterium of the pope, whether he is speaking urbi et orbi or just addressing pilgrims. It is true that the infallibility of the Extraordinary Magisterium is not enough for the Church; the Extraordinary Magisterium is a rare event, whereas "faith needs infallibility and it needs it every day," as Cardinal Siri himself said (Renovatio, op.cit.). But Cardinal Siri is too good a theologian to forget that even the pope’s infallibility has conditions attached to it. If the Ordinary Magisterium is to be infallible, it must be traditional (cf. Salaverri, loc. cit.). If it breaks with Tradition, the Ordinary Magisterium cannot claim any infallibility. Here we see very clearly the very special nature of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, to which we must devote some attention.

It is NOT talking about all of the bishops united to the pope teaching X.  If it is, it is playing a word game by introducing the subject of "ordinary magisterium of the pope" and dropping "of the pope" later in the paragraph, which might lead the reader to incorrectly conflate the two.  But we both know they are two different things, and I think the context from the article you linked to makes it sufficiently clear as well.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Fr. Le Floch, superior of the French Seminary in Rome, announced in 1926:

"The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility."

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm

Are you aware that there is no record of Fr. Le Floch ever saying this?  This quote is most likely false: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=714&p=7718&hilit=Le+floch&sid=4dcd437b1167fe1cb1c1e9433915d57e#p7718

In any event this is a pundit, a soundbite.  Not an argument.

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Error by Excess and/or By Defect

Unfortunately this three-fold distinction between the Extraordinary Magisterium, the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, and the authentic non-infallible Magisterium, has fallen into oblivion. This has resulted in two opposite errors in the crisis situation of the Church at the present time: the error by excess of those who extend papal infallibility to all acts of the pope, without distinction; and the error by defect of those who restrict infallibility to definitions that have been uttered ex cathedra.

The error by excess actually eliminates the Ordinary Non-Infallible or "Authentic" Magisterium and inevitably leads either to Sedevacantism or to servile obedience.

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm

This is from the article you've already quoted and is dealing with the teaching office of the papacy.  It isn't relevant since I'm not talking about the magisterium of the papacy.

Quote

I'm talking simply about the bishops throughout the world, dispersed (so, not assembled under a council) teaching X in union with the Holy Father.  Theologians consider this (with not further qualification or condition) medium of teaching to be infallible, and de fide.

It follows that the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, whether of the Universal Church or that of the See of Rome, is not that of a judgment, not that of an act to be considered in isolation, as if it could itself provide all the light necessary for it to be clearly seen. It is that of the guarantee bestowed on a doctrine by the simultaneous or continuous convergence of a plurality of affirmations or explanations, none of which could bring positive certitude if it were taken by itself alone. Certitude can be expected only from the whole complex, but all the parts concur in making up that whole (Pope or Church?, op. cit., p.18).

http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm

What do you think that quote proves?  

There is nothing isolated or "taken alone" in fifty years of unanimous and constant teaching of X by all the bishops together with the pope.  It's actually quite the OPPOSITE of "isolated" or "taken alone."  

Quote from: 2Vermont

I still don't see how you're getting what you're getting from this letter.

The letter to the bishops of Germany from Pope Pius IX is laying out the fact that all the bishops together, i.e. the OUM, CAN teach error.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

I'm talking simply about the bishops throughout the world, dispersed (so, not assembled under a council) teaching X in union with the Holy Father.  Theologians consider this (with not further qualification or condition) medium of teaching to be infallible, and de fide.

Per Tuas libenter, what Mith wrote is wrong and what Sean has been saying is correct.

Theologians actually do have further qualifications and conditions for teachings to be infallible, these conditions are, per Tuas Libenter, the common and constant consent as being necessary conditions.

If the OUM approve or teach teachings like the NO, we know that infallibility had no part in it because it is new, it is therefore not a constant teaching even if it is a common teaching of the OUM.   We know this because this is what pope Pius IX wrote in his letter. He also acknowledged that all the bishops in Germany, the OUM for all intents and purposes if not at least figuratively,  certainly could all agree to teach error and actually teach error.

The whole point is that per Tuas libenter, we know the OUM can teach error and we know the qualifications and conditions to know when teachings are fallible or infallible, either way, the jist is that per pope Pius IX, the OUM certainly can teach error.

If the OUM can teach error, why should we trust Tuas Libenter-- whether according to your reading or another?

Mith-

It appears to me that you want to reduce the rule of St. Vincent (i.e., that which has been taught always and everywhere) to merely that which has been taught everywhere (but not always).

And such teachings (which are now taught everywhere, but certainly not always) you claim belong to the infallible ordinary magisterium.

But according to the following explanation, you are wrong to do so:



"About this subject, A.C. Martimort wrote:

Bossuet’s error consisted in rejecting the infallibility of the pope’s Extraordinary Magisterium; but he performed the signal service of affirming most clearly the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium [of the pope] and its specific nature, which means that every particular act bears the risk of error... To sum up: according to the bishop of Meaux, what applies to the series of Roman popes over time is the same as what applies to the episcopal college dispersed across the world. (Le Gallicanisme de Bossuet, Paris, 1953, p.558)

In fact, we know that the bishops, individually, are not infallible. Yet the totality of bishops, throughout time and space, in their moral unanimity, do enjoy infallibility. So if one wishes to ascertain the Church’s infallible teaching one must not take the teaching of one particular bishop: it is necessary to look at the "common and continuous teaching" of the episcopate united to the pope, which "cannot deviate from the teaching of Jesus Christ" (E. Piacentini, OFM Conv., Infaillible meme dans les causes de canonisation? ENMI, Rome 1994, p.37).


http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm

My claim is that when the bishops united to the pope (dispersed throughout the world [or not]) teach X, X is guaranteed to be infallible.  If X is NOT infallible (as is obviously the case with the filth from VII) then we must search to find a solution to a contradiction.

The whole point is that VII could NOT have come from the ordinary magisterium.  You recognize this, and are trying to find ways in which it could not, but you have not found a way-- you are merely repeating that since it is novel (and erroneous, to boot) it could not be a product of the OUM (or any organ of infallibility for that matter).  But this is just restating the facts, no solution is reached to the contradiction posed by requisites for infallibility met resulting in obviously fallible teachings, teachings that are not only fallible but actually contradictory to the deposit of faith we have already received.  

The whole point of infallibility is the removal of any possibility of error.  To say that something is infallible if it does not contain error is perfectly circular.  When infallibility is "engaged" (i.e. the conditions for it are met) then error is impossible.  It (error) isn't merely unlikely, improbable or undesirable, it is promised and guaranteed by God to be completely absent from such teachings.

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Mith-

It appears to me that you want to reduce the rule of St. Vincent (i.e., that which has been taught always and everywhere) to merely that which has been taught everywhere (but not always).

And such teachings (which are now taught everywhere, but certainly not always) you claim belong to the infallible ordinary magisterium.

But according to the following explanation, you are wrong to do so:



"About this subject, A.C. Martimort wrote:

Bossuet’s error consisted in rejecting the infallibility of the pope’s Extraordinary Magisterium; but he performed the signal service of affirming most clearly the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium [of the pope] and its specific nature, which means that every particular act bears the risk of error... To sum up: according to the bishop of Meaux, what applies to the series of Roman popes over time is the same as what applies to the episcopal college dispersed across the world. (Le Gallicanisme de Bossuet, Paris, 1953, p.558)

In fact, we know that the bishops, individually, are not infallible. Yet the totality of bishops, throughout time and space, in their moral unanimity, do enjoy infallibility. So if one wishes to ascertain the Church’s infallible teaching one must not take the teaching of one particular bishop: it is necessary to look at the "common and continuous teaching" of the episcopate united to the pope, which "cannot deviate from the teaching of Jesus Christ" (E. Piacentini, OFM Conv., Infaillible meme dans les causes de canonisation? ENMI, Rome 1994, p.37).


http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm

My claim is that when the bishops united to the pope (dispersed throughout the world [or not]) teach X, X is guaranteed to be infallible.  If X is NOT infallible (as is obviously the case with the filth from VII) then we must search to find a solution to a contradiction.

The whole point is that VII could NOT have come from the ordinary magisterium.  You recognize this, and are trying to find ways in which it could not, but you have not found a way-- you are merely repeating that since it is novel (and erroneous, to boot) it could not be a product of the OUM (or any organ of infallibility for that matter).  But this is just restating the facts, no solution is reached to the contradiction posed by requisites for infallibility met resulting in obviously fallible teachings, teachings that are not only fallible but actually contradictory to the deposit of faith we have already received.  

The whole point of infallibility is the removal of any possibility of error.  To say that something is infallible if it does not contain error is perfectly circular.  When infallibility is "engaged" (i.e. the conditions for it are met) then error is impossible.  It (error) isn't merely unlikely, improbable or undesirable, it is promised and guaranteed by God to be completely absent from such teachings.

Mith-

1) The solution you are seeking is called the authentic (i.e., fallible) ordinary magisterium;

2) It seems to me you do not wish to recognize the existence of the fallible/authentic ordinary magisterium, because you realize it vaporizes sedevacantism.

3) Yet, how did Paul VI specify that the teachings of V2 only belonged to the authentic ordinary magisterium:

"Pope Paul VI himself indicated what theological "note" it carried: "Ordinary Magisterium; that is, it is clearly authentic" (General Audience of Dec. 1, 1966: Encycliques et discours de Paul VI , Ed.Paoline,1966, pp.51,52)."

4) How do you explain that?