Author Topic: ELEISON COMMENTS CCCLVIII - May 24th, 2014 (Read 23145 times)

Frances · « **Reply #45 on:** May 25, 2014, 06:55:08 AM »

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

Isn't Paul VI declaring Vatican II to be infallible here? The fact that no dogmas are infallibly defined at a Council doesn't mean that the Council itself is not guaranteed by infallibility.

:dancing-banana:
No. If the Ordinary Magisterium were all that was necessary to guarantee infallibilty, there would be no need for the Extraordinary Magisterium. This would render Vatican I a false council and mean the Pope's every public word and action as binding on the Faith. Is anyone planning to kiss the hand of Jєωιѕн ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ this weekend? Wear a clown nose to Mass? Go to a Mass where a beach ball is the "offering?"
Historically speaking, dogmas are not defined until there is a need for them to be defined, usually in response to the spreading of error. Vatican II was supposed to address the post WWII errors, but instead, was highjacked by liberals, many of whom were Jєωιѕн Freemason who had infiltrated in the years following Pius X, but especially during the reign of Pius XII.

Ambrose · « **Reply #46 on:** May 25, 2014, 07:02:30 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

I'm amused to see protestantism creeping in to the minds of Trads here.

Protestants say that Peter wasn't "the first pope" and that the popish popery of the dark ages papists was a "tradition of men" that Jesus condemned.

Maybe you didn't know that.

.

I too am amazed at the Protestantism creeping in here. Btw, did you ever retract your allegation of heresy against St. Peter?

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/A-Defense-of-St-Peter-Against-the-Allegation-of-Heresy

Frances · « **Reply #47 on:** May 25, 2014, 07:11:40 AM »

Quote from: Pete Vere

Which goes to the root of the problem with Mgr Williamson's newsletter this week. His arguments against sedevacantism--like those of Archbishop Lefebvre--are based entirely upon emotion, and not upon apostolic Tradition.

:dancing-banana:
I'm amused to see Pete Vere publicly proclaim his ignorance of both Mgr. Williamson and Archbishop Lefebvre. While I never met the Archbishop, I've read his writings, viewed filmed footage quite extensively. Bp. Williamson, who did know ABL very well, I know IRL. Neither is given to reasoning based upon emotion.

CI is a pro-Resistance forum. If anyone wishes to criticise ABL or the Resistance, kindly keep remarks to logical critique and question of principles and ideas. Refrain from making uncharitable personal judgements, especially about those no longer living or unable to defend themselves!

2Vermont · « **Reply #48 on:** May 25, 2014, 07:39:21 AM »

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

Surely Paul VI invoked the infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium for Vatican II.

From his General Audience of Jan 12, 1966:

"There are those who wonder what the authority, the theological qualification, the Council wanted to give to his teachings, knowing that it has avoided giving solemn dogmatic definitions, engaging the infallibility of the Magisterium. And the answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated November 16, 1964: given the pastoral character of the Council, it avoided pronouncing in an extraordinary way dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility; but it nevertheless has his teaching authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium which the ordinary magisterium and so obviously true to be accepted docilely and sincerely to all the faithful according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and purpose of each docuмent." (my emphasis)

So, while Vatican II contained no particular dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility. the Council as a whole comes under the infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Isn't this what Paul VI is saying?

Isn't Paul VI declaring Vatican II to be infallible here? The fact that no dogmas are infallibly defined at a Council doesn't mean that the Council itself is not guaranteed by infallibility.

Maybe it's me, but that quote doesn't even make sense.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #49 on:** May 25, 2014, 08:34:29 AM »

I notice almost nobody in this thread is distinguishing between:

1) Extraordinary Magisterium: An infallible declaration which meets all 4 criterion from Vatican I;

2) Ordinary Magisterium: Teachings which are infallible because they have been taught "always and everywhere" (St. Vincent Lerrins' "Commonitorium");

3) Authentic Magisterium: Teachings of the Church authorities which have no basis in tradition.

These teachings of the authentic magisterium are certainly not infallible, and can/must be rejected if they are at odds with teachings of the extraordinary/ordinary magisterium.

Dom Paul Nau wrote a sharp little book called "Pope or Church" a while back, which gives a good explanation of the authentic magisterium.

McFiggly · « **Reply #50 on:** May 25, 2014, 08:51:09 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Well said, Sean.

If St. Athanasius were here today, they'd be calling HIM a "heretic" and a "schismatic."
Translation: they don't know the meaning of the words.

.

Do you think that St. Athanasius would have defended these men, Neil? All Arius did was deny the divinity of Christ; these men by their actions and often by their words and writings, deny absolutely everything. Ratzinger in his writings, for example, reduces Christ to some kind of phenomenological "experience", which is infinitely more radical than poor old Arius' simple denial of one of Christ's two natures.

McFiggly · « **Reply #51 on:** May 25, 2014, 08:58:22 AM »

Also, I don't think St. Peter was a heretic when he "denied Christ"; he did not deny Christ so much as he denied being a Christian. That's just moral cowardice, not heresy, because he said nothing about the faith, only he denied his relation to it.

JPaul · « **Reply #52 on:** May 25, 2014, 10:02:37 AM »

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?"

awkwardcustomer · « **Reply #53 on:** May 25, 2014, 11:21:28 AM »

The Ordinary Universal Magisterium consists of the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See.

When a pope teaches in union with the bishops of the world, surely those teachings are guaranteed by the infallible Ordinary Universal Magisterium.

Doesn't it follow that if the Conciliar popes truly are popes, then their teachings in union with the bishops of the world, which have been Vatican II teachings all the way, are also guaranteed by the infallibility of the OUM.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #54 on:** May 25, 2014, 11:53:29 AM »

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

The Ordinary Universal Magisterium consists of the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See.

When a pope teaches in union with the bishops of the world, surely those teachings are guaranteed by the infallible Ordinary Universal Magisterium.

Doesn't it follow that if the Conciliar popes truly are popes, then their teachings in union with the bishops of the world, which have been Vatican II teachings all the way, are also guaranteed by the infallibility of the OUM.

No.

These teachings are not part of the Church's ordinary magisterium.

They belong to what is called the authentic magisterium.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #55 on:** May 25, 2014, 12:29:44 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: awkwardcustomer
The Ordinary Universal Magisterium consists of the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See.

When a pope teaches in union with the bishops of the world, surely those teachings are guaranteed by the infallible Ordinary Universal Magisterium.

Doesn't it follow that if the Conciliar popes truly are popes, then their teachings in union with the bishops of the world, which have been Vatican II teachings all the way, are also guaranteed by the infallibility of the OUM.

No.

These teachings are not part of the Church's ordinary magisterium.

They belong to what is called the authentic magisterium.

If the ordinary magisterium is not the bishops throughout the world teaching union with the Holy See, then what is it?

I hope you provide some evidence for your position. It seems very novel to me.

awkwardcustomer · « **Reply #56 on:** May 25, 2014, 01:17:59 PM »

There are three organs of infallibility in the Church. The first two organs are 'Extraordinary'; they consist of the pope teaching ex cathedra and the pope teaching in union with an ecuмenical council.

The third organ is 'Ordinary'; it consists of the pope teaching in union with the bishops of the world. This third organ of infallibility, the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is not to be confused with the Ordinary Magisterium, which is not infallible.

The conciliar popes have, in union with the bishops of the world, been preaching Vatican II for over 50 years. If the conciliar popes truly are popes, then Vatican II is safeguarded by the infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Vatican II cannot contain error, if the chair is occupied.

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #57 on:** May 25, 2014, 03:15:23 PM »

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: SeanJohnson
Quote from: awkwardcustomer
The Ordinary Universal Magisterium consists of the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See.

When a pope teaches in union with the bishops of the world, surely those teachings are guaranteed by the infallible Ordinary Universal Magisterium.

Doesn't it follow that if the Conciliar popes truly are popes, then their teachings in union with the bishops of the world, which have been Vatican II teachings all the way, are also guaranteed by the infallibility of the OUM.

No.

These teachings are not part of the Church's ordinary magisterium.

They belong to what is called the authentic magisterium.

If the ordinary magisterium is not the bishops throughout the world teaching union with the Holy See, then what is it?

I hope you provide some evidence for your position. It seems very novel to me.

Traditionally, theologians before Vatican II, and those whom the Society has cited in defense of its position have always said we may resist non-infallible acts and teaching under some circuмstances, ordinary magisterium that is merely "authentic". In this article, the Society expressly teaches that it is impossible that God allow errors in something the Pope declares infallibly.

From a PM sent to me a while back cites the work of Dom Paul Nau:

The Almost Total Eclipse of the "Authentic" Magisterium

The Church's current crisis is not at the level of the Extraordinary or Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. This would be simply impossible.

Normal Times and Abnormal Times

Dom Nau makes it clear that this prudential assent does not apply in the case of a teaching that is "already traditional," which would belong to the sphere of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. However, in the case of a teaching which is not "already traditional," the reservation which interests us does apply: "unless the doctrine rejected...involved a manifest discordance between the pontifical affirmation and the doctrine which had hitherto been taught." Such a situation would legitimize the doctrine's rejection and would imply no "mark of temerity."

This is not a case which can be excluded a priori since it does not concern a formal definition. But, as Bossuet himself says, "It is so extraordinary that it does not happen more than twice or thrice in a thousand years" (Pope or Church? p.29).

In such a case, refusing one's assent does not only not manifest temerity: it is a positive duty. The "discordance" with "doctrine which had hitherto been taught" dispenses the Catholic from all obligation to obedience on this point:

The general principle is that one owes obedience to the orders of a superior unless, in a particular case, the order appears manifestly unjust. Similarly, a Catholic is bound to adhere interiorly to the teachings of legitimate authority until it becomes evident to him that a particular assertion is erroneous (DTC, vol.III, col.1110).

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/2002_January/Popes_Infallible_Magisterium.htm

SeanJohnson · « **Reply #58 on:** May 25, 2014, 03:23:16 PM »

Mith-

Because I copy/pasted a PM sent to me, some things in the previous post might be a bit unclear.

This portion was the commentary from a PM:

"Traditionally, theologians before Vatican II, and those whom the Society has cited in defense of its position have always said we may resist non-infallible acts and teaching under some circuмstances, ordinary magisterium that is merely "authentic". In this article, the Society expressly teaches that it is impossible that God allow errors in something the Pope declares infallibly."

The rest was a quote the PM'er supplied from the work of Dom Paul Nau:

"The Almost Total Eclipse of the "Authentic" Magisterium

The Church's current crisis is not at the level of the Extraordinary or Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. This would be simply impossible.

Normal Times and Abnormal Times

Dom Nau makes it clear that this prudential assent does not apply in the case of a teaching that is "already traditional," which would belong to the sphere of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. However, in the case of a teaching which is not "already traditional," the reservation which interests us does apply: "unless the doctrine rejected...involved a manifest discordance between the pontifical affirmation and the doctrine which had hitherto been taught." Such a situation would legitimize the doctrine's rejection and would imply no "mark of temerity."

This is not a case which can be excluded a priori since it does not concern a formal definition. But, as Bossuet himself says, "It is so extraordinary that it does not happen more than twice or thrice in a thousand years" (Pope or Church? p.29).

In such a case, refusing one's assent does not only not manifest temerity: it is a positive duty. The "discordance" with "doctrine which had hitherto been taught" dispenses the Catholic from all obligation to obedience on this point:

The general principle is that one owes obedience to the orders of a superior unless, in a particular case, the order appears manifestly unjust. Similarly, a Catholic is bound to adhere interiorly to the teachings of legitimate authority until it becomes evident to him that a particular assertion is erroneous (DTC, vol.III, col.1110)."

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/2002_January/Popes_Infallible_Magisterium.htm

Centroamerica · « **Reply #59 on:** May 25, 2014, 03:24:39 PM »

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Mithrandylan
Quote from: SeanJohnson
Quote from: awkwardcustomer
The Ordinary Universal Magisterium consists of the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See.

When a pope teaches in union with the bishops of the world, surely those teachings are guaranteed by the infallible Ordinary Universal Magisterium.

Doesn't it follow that if the Conciliar popes truly are popes, then their teachings in union with the bishops of the world, which have been Vatican II teachings all the way, are also guaranteed by the infallibility of the OUM.

No.

These teachings are not part of the Church's ordinary magisterium.

They belong to what is called the authentic magisterium.

If the ordinary magisterium is not the bishops throughout the world teaching union with the Holy See, then what is it?

I hope you provide some evidence for your position. It seems very novel to me.

Traditionally, theologians before Vatican II, and those whom the Society has cited in defense of its position have always said we may resist non-infallible acts and teaching under some circuмstances, ordinary magisterium that is merely "authentic". In this article, the Society expressly teaches that it is impossible that God allow errors in something the Pope declares infallibly.

From a PM sent to me a while back cites the work of Dom Paul Nau:

The Almost Total Eclipse of the "Authentic" Magisterium

The Church's current crisis is not at the level of the Extraordinary or Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. This would be simply impossible.

Normal Times and Abnormal Times

Dom Nau makes it clear that this prudential assent does not apply in the case of a teaching that is "already traditional," which would belong to the sphere of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. However, in the case of a teaching which is not "already traditional," the reservation which interests us does apply: "unless the doctrine rejected...involved a manifest discordance between the pontifical affirmation and the doctrine which had hitherto been taught." Such a situation would legitimize the doctrine's rejection and would imply no "mark of temerity."

This is not a case which can be excluded a priori since it does not concern a formal definition. But, as Bossuet himself says, "It is so extraordinary that it does not happen more than twice or thrice in a thousand years" (Pope or Church? p.29).

In such a case, refusing one's assent does not only not manifest temerity: it is a positive duty. The "discordance" with "doctrine which had hitherto been taught" dispenses the Catholic from all obligation to obedience on this point:

The general principle is that one owes obedience to the orders of a superior unless, in a particular case, the order appears manifestly unjust. Similarly, a Catholic is bound to adhere interiorly to the teachings of legitimate authority until it becomes evident to him that a particular assertion is erroneous (DTC, vol.III, col.1110).

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/2002_January/Popes_Infallible_Magisterium.htm

If you accept John Paul 2 as a pope you'll accept whatever besteira this "pope" spews out.