Author Topic: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLVIII - May 24th, 2014 (Read 23180 times)

Ambrose · « **Reply #180 on:** May 27, 2014, 10:44:08 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Pete Vere
Quote from: SeanJohnson
Am I allowed to wonder whether this was your purpose in coming to CI in the first place?

Sure, why wouldn't you be? As far as I know, it's not a thought crime in your state.

But on a more serious note, what was Mgr Williamson's argument against sedevacantism in this particular newsletter?

Has it occurred to you that your encouragement hardens them in their errors, and that you will incur responsibility for doing so?

The problem is your errors, not ours. Examine yourself.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #181 on:** May 28, 2014, 01:05:31 AM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Has it occurred to you that your encouragement hardens them in their errors, and that you will incur responsibility for doing so?

I am not encouraging them. I am raising questions and sharing observations.

The main observation being that after 40 years the R&R has not produced a single convincing non-emotionally-based argument against sedevacantism.

Sean has a point. I've seen very few posts of yours actually arguing or defending your own position. What I have seen are plenty of posts along the lines of "sede beats R&R". Since most people here are these or a close variation of these, you're effectively a sedevacantist apologist.

awkwardcustomer · « **Reply #182 on:** May 28, 2014, 05:24:09 AM »

It is ridiculous to use 'Tuas Libenter' to claim that the OUM is capable of teaching error. Pope Pius IX is clearly addressing goups of bishops whose theological novelties fall outside of the bounds of true doctrine.

As only emanating from small, self-selecting groups of bishops and not from the the episcopate in union with the pope, these novel theological opinions would not form part of the OUM, thus safeguarding its infallibility.

If anything, Pope Pius IX is demonstrating that the OUM CANNOT teach error.

Pete Vere · « **Reply #183 on:** May 28, 2014, 06:51:50 AM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: Pete Vere
Quote from: SeanJohnson
Has it occurred to you that your encouragement hardens them in their errors, and that you will incur responsibility for doing so?

I am not encouraging them. I am raising questions and sharing observations.

The main observation being that after 40 years the R&R has not produced a single convincing non-emotionally-based argument against sedevacantism.

Sean has a point. I've seen very few posts of yours actually arguing or defending your own position. What I have seen are plenty of posts along the lines of "sede beats R&R". Since most people here are these or a close variation of these, you're effectively a sedevacantist apologist.

Is this really all that surprising to R&R'ers?

The argument of Mgr Williamson and the Resistance wing of the R&R for a quarter century now, including the EC upon which this thread is based, is that Eccleisia Dei/ Summorum Pontificuм trads and sedevacantist trads are the flip side of each other.

I agree.

In fact, it is one of the few R&R arguments with which I agree, since both ED/SP trads and sedes seek to adhere to Traditional Catholic ecclesiology, rather than propose the theological novelty (as Mgr Williamson has done in the past) that a Pope can be head of two diametrically opposed Churches.

So what is the next R&R argument?

JPaul · « **Reply #184 on:** May 28, 2014, 07:34:29 AM »

Pete Vere,

Quote

So what is the next R&R argument?

Tune in Friday evening for the next episode of RRF Smackdown.......

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #185 on:** May 28, 2014, 08:17:09 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: Stubborn
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?

Tuas Libenter says what it says whether you want to accept it or not - it seems quite obvious you do not. Pope Pius IX therefore, according to you, was either wrong or did not know what he was talking about - either way suffices for you to discount what he clearly teaches, in favor of your adherence to the Chair being vacant. That is what it all boils down to. That's all that really matters to all the sedevacantists I've ever debated and you are no different.

Pope Pius IX knew that when the OUM teach, unless they are teaching something which has always been accepted by the Church as the universal and constant teaching of the Church, that it is not infallible and that without those prior conditions, the danger of teaching error is real.

But according to you and others who have their own idea about what infallibility even is, whatever the OUM decide to teach is automatically going to be infallible no matter what, which is prot thinking, that is not even Catholic thinking, not only that, this is the same line of thinking that helped get us into this mess to begin with.

What Pope Pius IX was warning the bishops about is the very thing you are claiming is an impossibility - he was concerned that they could teach error while you are saying he should have had no worries because it is impossible for them to teach error.

Stubborn, I cited three different theologians who all say the same thing. Sean even agrees with that. YOU are the only one who disagrees with what is being posited. It's the height of arrogance to claim that I'm being protestant. I wonder if you've actually read anything in this thread?

What is protestant is you taking a primary source and privately interpreting it for us, and against the theologians and historical context.

It's not just protestant, it's the height of illogic. Tuas Libentur is not warning against the entire episcopacy falling into error together with the pope, and teaching that error (together, united) to the faithful. He just isn't. Awkward Customer has shown this many times.

But even beyond that, if your argument is that the OUM can teach all manner of error, how on earth do you presume to then cite it in order to present a convincing argument? The OUM is exercised in many different ways, but of the most significant and weighty of these ways (inasmuch as this way is quite easily and sufficiently verified) is when all of the bishops together with their head teach X, X is infallible because for all of the bishops and the pope to err would constitute a defection of the Church. If all manner of error in this expression of the OUM can happen willy nilly, how much more easily and flippantly can it happen when it's "just the pope" teaching? You are truly outstanding, I think I have never met a person with such an amazing lack of circuмspection. There was one guy I talked to who said he's an agnostic because there isn't sufficient proof for God, and then went on to explain that he believes we're all science experiments of aliens from a distant universe. This is up there with that. I'm not going to bend over backwards explaining to you how stupid it is to use a teaching authority that you yourself claims is untrustworthy as evidence that that same teaching authority can be untrustworthy. You're the only one (thankfully) expressing this ridiculous and illogical idea.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #186 on:** May 28, 2014, 08:46:43 AM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: SeanJohnson
Quote from: Mithrandylan
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;

I never would have guessed!

Quote
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.

Quote

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.

You posted your resignation from the thread after I had already started writing my reply-- a reply which was not intended to provoke your rejoining.

What I disagree with is your idea of the teaching authority of the Church-- and I don't think the SSPX article you're citing really even agrees with you. I think it briefly attempts to suggest what you are saying, perhaps tentatively and without any real depth, but the article and especially the sources contained therein are nearly exclusively focused on proving that the pope isn't infallible in everything he does, to which I agree-- so it's not really a relevant argument.

The question, broadly, is how something which the theologians all teach is part of the OUM can contain such egregious error. More specifically and locally to this thread, the focus is on how a particular way of exercising the OUM (the bishops dispersed throughout the world teaching X in union with their head) can contain error. The answer is that it cannot, besides the fact that the theologians do not cede that it is possible (which in better times would be proof enough to simply drop entertaining the idea) but the very idea that the entire hierarhy, that is those who exclusively carry out the mission given by Christ to His apostles (so, the mission and purpose of the Church as such) would entirely cease to carry out that mission and instead carry out the exact opposite of that mission!

You have said that the answer lies in that VII is not taught by the OUM, and as proof for this claim you offer that it is not infallible (or, obviously fallible if you prefer). It is obviously fallible, but the contradiction remains in that if all of these Novus Ordo bishops are actually the successors to the apostles, and if Francis (or Paul VI or JPII or BXVI) are all true popes, then VII is clearly part of the OUM because it is taught throughout the world by all of the bishops united to the pope. So, either we have understood the OUM incorrectly, and by extension and logical necessity have misunderstood the nature of the Church and the Divine Constitution thereof together with the Great Commission given the Church and its hierarchy, or VII is part of the deposit of faith (in which case we definitely have misunderstood all of the preceding anyways) and we need to reconcile it with Tradition, and it is (infallibly) reconcilable with Tradition if that were the case.

With Francis' recent "declare and define" (going beyond the general argument of infallibility toward canonizations) we have an instance where all conditions for papal infallibility are met. Many have sought to deal with this contradiction by imposing another condition on the declaration, the condition that the declaration be right. This is an effective denial of papal infallibility as such, just as the argument you are putting forth (though I know you do not intend it to be) requires a denial of the Church's infallibility as such. With the conditions met (in this case, all of the world's bishops teaching X united with their head, the pope) the result is guaranteed to be "right." That's the whole purpose of infallibility, a safeguard and divine assistance to protect and preserve being wrong. It's simply not possible. To add the condition of "rightness" or "infallibility" to the conditions required for a teaching to be considered infallible completely defeats the purpose of infallibility-- it is not something guaranteed under certain conditions, it is something which is possible under certain conditions, but only guaranteed to happen... when it actually happens. It's circular, and meaningless to boot.

Quote

This thread is unfortunately acrimonious.

Were I a more perfect Catholic, I would have ignored provocative responses.

Eventually, all these threads become so.

But because religion is something men hold close to the heart...

I do not apologize for any content in my posts.

I do apologize (especially to Mith) for any uncharitable tone/tenor.

Apology accepted, and was in advance. And I extend my own if I have been impatient with you.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #187 on:** May 28, 2014, 10:28:31 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: Stubborn
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?

Tuas Libenter says what it says whether you want to accept it or not - it seems quite obvious you do not. Pope Pius IX therefore, according to you, was either wrong or did not know what he was talking about - either way suffices for you to discount what he clearly teaches, in favor of your adherence to the Chair being vacant. That is what it all boils down to. That's all that really matters to all the sedevacantists I've ever debated and you are no different.

Pope Pius IX knew that when the OUM teach, unless they are teaching something which has always been accepted by the Church as the universal and constant teaching of the Church, that it is not infallible and that without those prior conditions, the danger of teaching error is real.

But according to you and others who have their own idea about what infallibility even is, whatever the OUM decide to teach is automatically going to be infallible no matter what, which is prot thinking, that is not even Catholic thinking, not only that, this is the same line of thinking that helped get us into this mess to begin with.

What Pope Pius IX was warning the bishops about is the very thing you are claiming is an impossibility - he was concerned that they could teach error while you are saying he should have had no worries because it is impossible for them to teach error.

Stubborn, I cited three different theologians who all say the same thing. Sean even agrees with that. YOU are the only one who disagrees with what is being posited. It's the height of arrogance to claim that I'm being protestant. I wonder if you've actually read anything in this thread?

What is protestant is you taking a primary source and privately interpreting it for us, and against the theologians and historical context.

It's not just protestant, it's the height of illogic. Tuas Libentur is not warning against the entire episcopacy falling into error together with the pope, and teaching that error (together, united) to the faithful. He just isn't. Awkward Customer has shown this many times.

But even beyond that, if your argument is that the OUM can teach all manner of error, how on earth do you presume to then cite it in order to present a convincing argument? The OUM is exercised in many different ways, but of the most significant and weighty of these ways (inasmuch as this way is quite easily and sufficiently verified) is when all of the bishops together with their head teach X, X is infallible because for all of the bishops and the pope to err would constitute a defection of the Church. If all manner of error in this expression of the OUM can happen willy nilly, how much more easily and flippantly can it happen when it's "just the pope" teaching? You are truly outstanding, I think I have never met a person with such an amazing lack of circuмspection. There was one guy I talked to who said he's an agnostic because there isn't sufficient proof for God, and then went on to explain that he believes we're all science experiments of aliens from a distant universe. This is up there with that. I'm not going to bend over backwards explaining to you how stupid it is to use a teaching authority that you yourself claims is untrustworthy as evidence that that same teaching authority can be untrustworthy. You're the only one (thankfully) expressing this ridiculous and illogical idea.

Well, yes, I accept the teaching contained in the three quotes/citations you provided from Tanqueray, Ott, and Van Noort.

However, I also stated the following:

"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). "

There is no opposition between the position of the quotes you provided, and those I provided; you just didn't dig deep enough to include a discussion of the fallible ordinary magisterium.

However, the two quotes I did provided do directly contradict your contention that:

"I recognize the distinction [i.e., between the fallible and infallible ordinary magisterium -my add], I deny that it applies when a moral unanimity of the episcopacy teaches something in union with their head."

But if:

1) That which "applies to the series of Roman popes over time is the same as what applies to the episcopal college dispersed across the world;

2) And if "it is necessary to look at the common and continuous teaching of the episcopate united to the pope;"

Then it becomes obvious that the teachings of Vatican II (which was certainly an example of the bishops teaching in moral unity with the pope...but not over time, and the substance of their teachings either unheard of in the history of the Church, or condemned) do not belong to the universal infallible ordinary magisterium.

They must necessarily, therefore, belong to the universal fallible/authentic ordinary magisterium.

And this is precisely what Paul VI declared.

Stubborn · « **Reply #188 on:** May 28, 2014, 12:45:41 PM »

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

It is ridiculous to use 'Tuas Libenter' to claim that the OUM is capable of teaching error. Pope Pius IX is clearly addressing goups of bishops whose theological novelties fall outside of the bounds of true doctrine.

As only emanating from small, self-selecting groups of bishops and not from the the episcopate in union with the pope, these novel theological opinions would not form part of the OUM, thus safeguarding its infallibility.

If anything, Pope Pius IX is demonstrating that the OUM CANNOT teach error.

Tell that to Fr. Cekada as he uses that letter to prove the OUM is automatically infallible.

Stubborn · « **Reply #189 on:** May 28, 2014, 01:20:04 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: Stubborn

Tuas Libenter says what it says whether you want to accept it or not - it seems quite obvious you do not. Pope Pius IX therefore, according to you, was either wrong or did not know what he was talking about - either way suffices for you to discount what he clearly teaches, in favor of your adherence to the Chair being vacant. That is what it all boils down to. That's all that really matters to all the sedevacantists I've ever debated and you are no different.

Pope Pius IX knew that when the OUM teach, unless they are teaching something which has always been accepted by the Church as the universal and constant teaching of the Church, that it is not infallible and that without those prior conditions, the danger of teaching error is real.

But according to you and others who have their own idea about what infallibility even is, whatever the OUM decide to teach is automatically going to be infallible no matter what, which is prot thinking, that is not even Catholic thinking, not only that, this is the same line of thinking that helped get us into this mess to begin with.

What Pope Pius IX was warning the bishops about is the very thing you are claiming is an impossibility - he was concerned that they could teach error while you are saying he should have had no worries because it is impossible for them to teach error.

Stubborn, I cited three different theologians who all say the same thing. Sean even agrees with that. YOU are the only one who disagrees with what is being posited. It's the height of arrogance to claim that I'm being protestant. I wonder if you've actually read anything in this thread?

What is protestant is you taking a primary source and privately interpreting it for us, and against the theologians and historical context.

No, prots believe that Catholics think the pope is always infallible - you say the pope and the OUM is always infallible. But when the changes hit, those weak faithed Catholics who allowed themselves to be led astray by the OUM, compromised and became NO because like you, they believed the OUM was incapable of error and thanks to that thinking, went along with what the OUM told them to do.

Now since you do not believe that the OUM can promulgate error no matter what, it is YOU that need to re-examine your idea of when teachings are and are not infallible because if it impossible for the OUM to promulgate error, then the NO is not error. Period.

The NO should be more than enough bold and "in your face" evidence against any such idea that the OUM is infallible no matter what - Pope Pius IX knew that and that is why he wrote that letter of instruction - or do you suppose he had nothing better to do one day and simply decided to put his personal thoughts down in writing?

Quote from: Mithrandylan

It's not just protestant, it's the height of illogic. Tuas Libentur is not warning against the entire episcopacy falling into error together with the pope, and teaching that error (together, united) to the faithful. He just isn't. Awkward Customer has shown this many times.

But even beyond that, if your argument is that the OUM can teach all manner of error, how on earth do you presume to then cite it in order to present a convincing argument? The OUM is exercised in many different ways, but of the most significant and weighty of these ways (inasmuch as this way is quite easily and sufficiently verified) is when all of the bishops together with their head teach X, X is infallible because for all of the bishops and the pope to err would constitute a defection of the Church. If all manner of error in this expression of the OUM can happen willy nilly, how much more easily and flippantly can it happen when it's "just the pope" teaching? You are truly outstanding, I think I have never met a person with such an amazing lack of circuмspection. There was one guy I talked to who said he's an agnostic because there isn't sufficient proof for God, and then went on to explain that he believes we're all science experiments of aliens from a distant universe. This is up there with that. I'm not going to bend over backwards explaining to you how stupid it is to use a teaching authority that you yourself claims is untrustworthy as evidence that that same teaching authority can be untrustworthy. You're the only one (thankfully) expressing this ridiculous and illogical idea.

As is typical of many sedevacantists, you hold to a double standard.

I referenced a letter from a pope, from Pope Pius IX - I assume you accept him as a valid pope, and as a sedevacantist, you adhere to the thinking that the pope, being a real pope, is prevented from teaching any error that can harm the faith - so how are you able to question what he, a genuine and valid real pope explicitly taught?

Another portion of the double standard is - if you adhere to the belief that the OUM is incapable of promulgating error, then you have no valid reason not to accept the NO.

The OUM, like the pope and the rest of us still answers to God in the end, and unless their teachings have the common and constant consent of the Church, their teachings are fallible.

I do not expect you or any sedevacantist actually, to accept this, but there it is, big as life right there in a teaching from a valid pope - how can you, a sedevacantist, say that a valid pope did wrong?

awkwardcustomer · « **Reply #190 on:** May 28, 2014, 01:56:36 PM »

Stubborn,

If Fr Anthony Cedaka is using 'Tuas Libenter' to prove that the OUM cannot teach error, then that rather proves the point being made. The OUM is infallible. Pope Pius IX does not suggest anything different.

The OUM of the conciliar popes is not infallible because the conciliar popes are not popes. If they WERE popes then their OUM WOULD be infallible and its teachings would be guaranteed by the Holy Ghost to be free of error.

True popes teaching in union with the bishops of the world cannot preach error. It is impossible.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #191 on:** May 28, 2014, 06:52:07 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: Stubborn
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?

Tuas Libenter says what it says whether you want to accept it or not - it seems quite obvious you do not. Pope Pius IX therefore, according to you, was either wrong or did not know what he was talking about - either way suffices for you to discount what he clearly teaches, in favor of your adherence to the Chair being vacant. That is what it all boils down to. That's all that really matters to all the sedevacantists I've ever debated and you are no different.

Pope Pius IX knew that when the OUM teach, unless they are teaching something which has always been accepted by the Church as the universal and constant teaching of the Church, that it is not infallible and that without those prior conditions, the danger of teaching error is real.

But according to you and others who have their own idea about what infallibility even is, whatever the OUM decide to teach is automatically going to be infallible no matter what, which is prot thinking, that is not even Catholic thinking, not only that, this is the same line of thinking that helped get us into this mess to begin with.

What Pope Pius IX was warning the bishops about is the very thing you are claiming is an impossibility - he was concerned that they could teach error while you are saying he should have had no worries because it is impossible for them to teach error.

Stubborn, I cited three different theologians who all say the same thing. Sean even agrees with that. YOU are the only one who disagrees with what is being posited. It's the height of arrogance to claim that I'm being protestant. I wonder if you've actually read anything in this thread?

What is protestant is you taking a primary source and privately interpreting it for us, and against the theologians and historical context.

It's not just protestant, it's the height of illogic. Tuas Libentur is not warning against the entire episcopacy falling into error together with the pope, and teaching that error (together, united) to the faithful. He just isn't. Awkward Customer has shown this many times.

But even beyond that, if your argument is that the OUM can teach all manner of error, how on earth do you presume to then cite it in order to present a convincing argument? The OUM is exercised in many different ways, but of the most significant and weighty of these ways (inasmuch as this way is quite easily and sufficiently verified) is when all of the bishops together with their head teach X, X is infallible because for all of the bishops and the pope to err would constitute a defection of the Church. If all manner of error in this expression of the OUM can happen willy nilly, how much more easily and flippantly can it happen when it's "just the pope" teaching? You are truly outstanding, I think I have never met a person with such an amazing lack of circuмspection. There was one guy I talked to who said he's an agnostic because there isn't sufficient proof for God, and then went on to explain that he believes we're all science experiments of aliens from a distant universe. This is up there with that. I'm not going to bend over backwards explaining to you how stupid it is to use a teaching authority that you yourself claims is untrustworthy as evidence that that same teaching authority can be untrustworthy. You're the only one (thankfully) expressing this ridiculous and illogical idea.

Well, yes, I accept the teaching contained in the three quotes/citations you provided from Tanqueray, Ott, and Van Noort.

However, I also stated the following:

"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). "

There is no opposition between the position of the quotes you provided, and those I provided; you just didn't dig deep enough to include a discussion of the fallible ordinary magisterium.

However, the two quotes I did provided do directly contradict your contention that:

"I recognize the distinction [i.e., between the fallible and infallible ordinary magisterium -my add], I deny that it applies when a moral unanimity of the episcopacy teaches something in union with their head."

But if:

1) That which "applies to the series of Roman popes over time is the same as what applies to the episcopal college dispersed across the world;

2) And if "it is necessary to look at the common and continuous teaching of the episcopate united to the pope;"

Then it becomes obvious that the teachings of Vatican II (which was certainly an example of the bishops teaching in moral unity with the pope...but not over time, and the substance of their teachings either unheard of in the history of the Church, or condemned) do not belong to the universal infallible ordinary magisterium.

They must necessarily, therefore, belong to the universal fallible/authentic ordinary magisterium.

And this is precisely what Paul VI declared.

I have read that quote a few times, have paid close attention to what you bolded. A few thoughts:

First of all, is "E Piacentini" (cited source in one of your quotes) Ernesto Piacentini? If so, I'm not sure you (or the SSPX) would want to rely on him.

If it is, I believe he is saying what he is saying in order to approve, not condemn VII; actually, if it is the same Piacentini, we can be certain that is what he is attempting to do. That man wants nothing to do with the traditional Catholic faith.

Neither Tanquerey, Van Noort, nor Ott mention time. I believe this is because it is taken for granted (and of faith, I would assume) that all of the bishops together with the pope could not teach a false gospel for even a moment. I have given the reasons: for the hierarchy together with the pope to teach a false gospel is for the hierarchy to defect from its mission. This is an impossible conclusion, so any syllogism which leads to it must be faulty in either the major or the minor.

Let's consider what Piacentini says and look into the implications of it: How soon until VII becomes part of the OUM? It's been fifty years. Would a hundred years of the bishops together with the pope teaching it make it part of the OUM? Two hundred? A thousand? Because what I'm drawing from you now is that the main point to your argument is time, yes? It's undisputed that a moral unanimity of bishops with the pope are teaching these new doctrines, and you are arguing that because there has not been sufficient passage of time, it is not part of the OUM... [yet]. When does VII become part of the OUM?

Or, if you prefer:

What makes Pascendi part of the OUM? VII doctrines have been taught as long as Pascendi has (or, had, if you will) been taught. Why is one part of the OUM and not the other?

If we view times as the missing ingredient, then VII really is a time bomb in quite a different way than Michael Davies imagined, because at a certain point it becomes part of the OUM.

I will return to the argument I made in my last post. I think time can be helpful in discerning what is part of the faith and what is not, but because it is impossible for the entire hierarchy to teach a false gospel for even an instant, time is ultimately or essentially not a factor when considering doctrines taught unanimously by the bishops and the pope together. If you can find some more sources which elucidate this point, I am willing to listen but not because I think that it will free the VII doctrines from having met the criterion of the OUM, but just to help understand the activity of the teaching Church better.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #192 on:** May 28, 2014, 07:03:08 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: Stubborn

Tuas Libenter says what it says whether you want to accept it or not - it seems quite obvious you do not. Pope Pius IX therefore, according to you, was either wrong or did not know what he was talking about - either way suffices for you to discount what he clearly teaches, in favor of your adherence to the Chair being vacant. That is what it all boils down to. That's all that really matters to all the sedevacantists I've ever debated and you are no different.

Pope Pius IX knew that when the OUM teach, unless they are teaching something which has always been accepted by the Church as the universal and constant teaching of the Church, that it is not infallible and that without those prior conditions, the danger of teaching error is real.

But according to you and others who have their own idea about what infallibility even is, whatever the OUM decide to teach is automatically going to be infallible no matter what, which is prot thinking, that is not even Catholic thinking, not only that, this is the same line of thinking that helped get us into this mess to begin with.

What Pope Pius IX was warning the bishops about is the very thing you are claiming is an impossibility - he was concerned that they could teach error while you are saying he should have had no worries because it is impossible for them to teach error.

Stubborn, I cited three different theologians who all say the same thing. Sean even agrees with that. YOU are the only one who disagrees with what is being posited. It's the height of arrogance to claim that I'm being protestant. I wonder if you've actually read anything in this thread?

What is protestant is you taking a primary source and privately interpreting it for us, and against the theologians and historical context.

No, prots believe that Catholics think the pope is always infallible - you say the pope and the OUM is always infallible. But when the changes hit, those weak faithed Catholics who allowed themselves to be led astray by the OUM, compromised and became NO because like you, they believed the OUM was incapable of error and thanks to that thinking, went along with what the OUM told them to do.

Now since you do not believe that the OUM can promulgate error no matter what, it is YOU that need to re-examine your idea of when teachings are and are not infallible because if it impossible for the OUM to promulgate error, then the NO is not error. Period.

The NO should be more than enough bold and "in your face" evidence against any such idea that the OUM is infallible no matter what - Pope Pius IX knew that and that is why he wrote that letter of instruction - or do you suppose he had nothing better to do one day and simply decided to put his personal thoughts down in writing?

Quote from: Mithrandylan

It's not just protestant, it's the height of illogic. Tuas Libentur is not warning against the entire episcopacy falling into error together with the pope, and teaching that error (together, united) to the faithful. He just isn't. Awkward Customer has shown this many times.

But even beyond that, if your argument is that the OUM can teach all manner of error, how on earth do you presume to then cite it in order to present a convincing argument? The OUM is exercised in many different ways, but of the most significant and weighty of these ways (inasmuch as this way is quite easily and sufficiently verified) is when all of the bishops together with their head teach X, X is infallible because for all of the bishops and the pope to err would constitute a defection of the Church. If all manner of error in this expression of the OUM can happen willy nilly, how much more easily and flippantly can it happen when it's "just the pope" teaching? You are truly outstanding, I think I have never met a person with such an amazing lack of circuмspection. There was one guy I talked to who said he's an agnostic because there isn't sufficient proof for God, and then went on to explain that he believes we're all science experiments of aliens from a distant universe. This is up there with that. I'm not going to bend over backwards explaining to you how stupid it is to use a teaching authority that you yourself claims is untrustworthy as evidence that that same teaching authority can be untrustworthy. You're the only one (thankfully) expressing this ridiculous and illogical idea.

As is typical of many sedevacantists, you hold to a double standard.

I referenced a letter from a pope, from Pope Pius IX - I assume you accept him as a valid pope, and as a sedevacantist, you adhere to the thinking that the pope, being a real pope, is prevented from teaching any error that can harm the faith - so how are you able to question what he, a genuine and valid real pope explicitly taught?

Another portion of the double standard is - if you adhere to the belief that the OUM is incapable of promulgating error, then you have no valid reason not to accept the NO.

The OUM, like the pope and the rest of us still answers to God in the end, and unless their teachings have the common and constant consent of the Church, their teachings are fallible.

I do not expect you or any sedevacantist actually, to accept this, but there it is, big as life right there in a teaching from a valid pope - how can you, a sedevacantist, say that a valid pope did wrong?

This is one, big, burning strawman. The horses are gonna get cold! You've taken nearly every misconception that exists (none of which I even alluded to, much less professed) and put them together in one post.

I'm not even going to get into Tuas Libenter with you, because you don't understand it and you won't understand it if the Pius IX himself came down from Heaven and explained it to you.

But it's the height of illogic and arrogance to read a docuмent from what you believe to be an unreliable medium, read it as if it is teaching that the medium in which it exists is unreliable, and the propose it to us as a reliable source by which to understand the unreliability of the medium from which it came! Madness.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #193 on:** May 28, 2014, 07:09:47 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: Stubborn
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?

Tuas Libenter says what it says whether you want to accept it or not - it seems quite obvious you do not. Pope Pius IX therefore, according to you, was either wrong or did not know what he was talking about - either way suffices for you to discount what he clearly teaches, in favor of your adherence to the Chair being vacant. That is what it all boils down to. That's all that really matters to all the sedevacantists I've ever debated and you are no different.

Pope Pius IX knew that when the OUM teach, unless they are teaching something which has always been accepted by the Church as the universal and constant teaching of the Church, that it is not infallible and that without those prior conditions, the danger of teaching error is real.

But according to you and others who have their own idea about what infallibility even is, whatever the OUM decide to teach is automatically going to be infallible no matter what, which is prot thinking, that is not even Catholic thinking, not only that, this is the same line of thinking that helped get us into this mess to begin with.

What Pope Pius IX was warning the bishops about is the very thing you are claiming is an impossibility - he was concerned that they could teach error while you are saying he should have had no worries because it is impossible for them to teach error.

Stubborn, I cited three different theologians who all say the same thing. Sean even agrees with that. YOU are the only one who disagrees with what is being posited. It's the height of arrogance to claim that I'm being protestant. I wonder if you've actually read anything in this thread?

What is protestant is you taking a primary source and privately interpreting it for us, and against the theologians and historical context.

It's not just protestant, it's the height of illogic. Tuas Libentur is not warning against the entire episcopacy falling into error together with the pope, and teaching that error (together, united) to the faithful. He just isn't. Awkward Customer has shown this many times.

But even beyond that, if your argument is that the OUM can teach all manner of error, how on earth do you presume to then cite it in order to present a convincing argument? The OUM is exercised in many different ways, but of the most significant and weighty of these ways (inasmuch as this way is quite easily and sufficiently verified) is when all of the bishops together with their head teach X, X is infallible because for all of the bishops and the pope to err would constitute a defection of the Church. If all manner of error in this expression of the OUM can happen willy nilly, how much more easily and flippantly can it happen when it's "just the pope" teaching? You are truly outstanding, I think I have never met a person with such an amazing lack of circuмspection. There was one guy I talked to who said he's an agnostic because there isn't sufficient proof for God, and then went on to explain that he believes we're all science experiments of aliens from a distant universe. This is up there with that. I'm not going to bend over backwards explaining to you how stupid it is to use a teaching authority that you yourself claims is untrustworthy as evidence that that same teaching authority can be untrustworthy. You're the only one (thankfully) expressing this ridiculous and illogical idea.

Well, yes, I accept the teaching contained in the three quotes/citations you provided from Tanqueray, Ott, and Van Noort.

However, I also stated the following:

"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). "

There is no opposition between the position of the quotes you provided, and those I provided; you just didn't dig deep enough to include a discussion of the fallible ordinary magisterium.

However, the two quotes I did provided do directly contradict your contention that:

"I recognize the distinction [i.e., between the fallible and infallible ordinary magisterium -my add], I deny that it applies when a moral unanimity of the episcopacy teaches something in union with their head."

But if:

1) That which "applies to the series of Roman popes over time is the same as what applies to the episcopal college dispersed across the world;

2) And if "it is necessary to look at the common and continuous teaching of the episcopate united to the pope;"

Then it becomes obvious that the teachings of Vatican II (which was certainly an example of the bishops teaching in moral unity with the pope...but not over time, and the substance of their teachings either unheard of in the history of the Church, or condemned) do not belong to the universal infallible ordinary magisterium.

They must necessarily, therefore, belong to the universal fallible/authentic ordinary magisterium.

And this is precisely what Paul VI declared.

I have read that quote a few times, have paid close attention to what you bolded. A few thoughts:

First of all, is "E Piacentini" (cited source in one of your quotes) Ernesto Piacentini? If so, I'm not sure you (or the SSPX) would want to rely on him.

If it is, I believe he is saying what he is saying in order to approve, not condemn VII; actually, if it is the same Piacentini, we can be certain that is what he is attempting to do. That man wants nothing to do with the traditional Catholic faith.

Neither Tanquerey, Van Noort, nor Ott mention time. I believe this is because it is taken for granted (and of faith, I would assume) that all of the bishops together with the pope could not teach a false gospel for even a moment. I have given the reasons: for the hierarchy together with the pope to teach a false gospel is for the hierarchy to defect from its mission. This is an impossible conclusion, so any syllogism which leads to it must be faulty in either the major or the minor.

Let's consider what Piacentini says and look into the implications of it: How soon until VII becomes part of the OUM? It's been fifty years. Would a hundred years of the bishops together with the pope teaching it make it part of the OUM? Two hundred? A thousand? Because what I'm drawing from you now is that the main point to your argument is time, yes? It's undisputed that a moral unanimity of bishops with the pope are teaching these new doctrines, and you are arguing that because there has not been sufficient passage of time, it is not part of the OUM... [yet]. When does VII become part of the OUM?

Or, if you prefer:

What makes Pascendi part of the OUM? VII doctrines have been taught as long as Pascendi has (or, had, if you will) been taught. Why is one part of the OUM and not the other?

If we view times as the missing ingredient, then VII really is a time bomb in quite a different way than Michael Davies imagined, because at a certain point it becomes part of the OUM.

I will return to the argument I made in my last post. I think time can be helpful in discerning what is part of the faith and what is not, but because it is impossible for the entire hierarchy to teach a false gospel for even an instant, time is ultimately or essentially not a factor when considering doctrines taught unanimously by the bishops and the pope together. If you can find some more sources which elucidate this point, I am willing to listen but not because I think that it will free the VII doctrines from having met the criterion of the OUM, but just to help understand the activity of the teaching Church better.

Mith-

1) Time is certainly an issue, but it does not stand independent of St Vincent Lerrins' rule (i.e., that which has been taught always and everywhere);

2) For this reason, the concern you raise (i.e., that in 200 years, V2 may by my reasoning become part of the universal ordinary infallible magisterium), is impossible;

3) Since these ideas have been condemned since long before V2, there is no amount of time which can legitimize what has already been condemned (e.g., Just as Pelagianism or Monotheletism could not now be promoted as part of the infallible ordinary universal magisterium);

4) Furthermore, since the quote I supplied from Bossuet states that that which applies to the universal ordinary magisterium of the pope also applies to the universal ordinary magisterium of the bishops dispersed throughout the world, all the other arguments you previously dismissed as inapplicable (i.e., because you thought arguments pertaining to the pope's ordinary magisterium did not also apply to the bishops magisterium) must now be allowed to come back into the picture, unless you can demonstrate Bossuet to have erred in this matter.

5) I guess my question to you would be: If you acknowledge there to be such a thing as the universal ordinary fallible magisterium of the bishops dispersed throughout the world, what would you allow to fall into such a category?

6) It seems to me, unless I misunderstand your argument, that while you allow it in theory (having seen it in the DTC; Salaverri; et al), practically speaking, you are precluded from allowing anything to be taught at that level, since your principles declare that could such a teaching ever land in that category, it evinces the defectibility of the Church.

7) But if such was the case, how could the theologians allow such a category to exist? The idea of an authentic/fallible ordinary magisterium ought to have been condemned as heretical for its mitigation of the Church's indefectibility, correct?

Stubborn · « **Reply #194 on:** May 29, 2014, 05:28:48 AM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

This is one, big, burning strawman. The horses are gonna get cold! You've taken nearly every misconception that exists (none of which I even alluded to, much less professed) and put them together in one post.

I'm not even going to get into Tuas Libenter with you, because you don't understand it and you won't understand it if the Pius IX himself came down from Heaven and explained it to you.

But it's the height of illogic and arrogance to read a docuмent from what you believe to be an unreliable medium, read it as if it is teaching that the medium in which it exists is unreliable, and the propose it to us as a reliable source by which to understand the unreliability of the medium from which it came! Madness.

If sedevacantists admit the OUM can and has promulgated error, as is obviously the case with the NO, it pretty much blows their whole theory right out of the water.

In a debate I had once with Fr. Cekada, he attempted to explain how the NO was promulgated by a OUM that was not really the OUM - but he talked himself into a hole real quick and when pressed, just did pretty much the same thing you are doing by rejecting the requirement of the need for teachings to have been already accepted as being "constant". I'll say one thing for sure, his ad hominems were much, much worse.