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;
I never would have guessed!
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.
I recognize the distinction, I deny that it applies when a moral unanimity of the episcopacy teaches something in union with their head. That, according to the theologians, guarantees that the teaching is infallible-- not the fact that it IS infallible.
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?
Who knows what that miserable heretic meant? Surely you're not going to take his word for it? But again, I'm not talking about VII as such (though I think the argument could easily be made) I'm talking about the fact that the doctrine of VII met the conditions for the OUM, i.e. all of the world's bishops taught it together with the pope. AFTER the council.
Have you considered why the OUM is infallible given these conditions (moral unanimity of the bishops together with the pope)? It is precisely because for the entire episcopacy, together with the pope, to teach something fallible would constitute a defection. The Church would not be a reliable guide to Heaven, nor a reliable guard of doctrine. In fact, we're not just talking about something that is merely "fallible," but with quite serious doctrinal error, some would even go so far as to say heresy. To say that VII is merely "fallible" is to hide the reality of the situation behind a word-- it is fallible, surely, but it is pernicious and destroying of souls, to be sure. It would be like saying that someone is feeling under the weather when they just underwent a double amputee and are suffering from kidney stones and a brain tumor-- it's a gross simplification that is so simplified it is misleading. Anyways, what you are positing (all of the bishops and the pope teaching error) constitutes a defection of the Church. We are talking about the entire hierarchy teaching souls a false doctrine-- that is manifestly opposed to the Great Commission.
You cannot "tuck that away" into the fallible ordinary magisterium with the conditions met. You couldn't with the canonizations, and you can't with this.
Of course, I can always be provoked to rejoin...
Yes, I am aware, per your admission, that what you disagree with is this:
"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). "
Thus far, your attempts to refute this most obvious Catholic teaching have been pathetic.
Topic: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLVIII - May 24th, 2014 (Read 23204 times)