Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

Sean Johnson,

The essence of the R&R position seems to be this.  Teachings may be proclaimed by one of the Church's organs of infallibility, in this case the Ordinary Universal Magisterium.  But those teachings are only truly infallible if they are sufficiently 'traditional'.  

But is this how infallibility works?  Surely, if a teaching is proclaimed by one of the Church's organs of infallibility, that teaching is guaranteed by the Holy Ghost to be free of error.  The mark of infallibility should remove doubt.  There should be no need to subject such teachings to an additional 'traditional' test of authenticity.

This is the guarantee given to true popes when they teach under certain conditions.  True popes cannot proclaim false and dangerous teachings through one of the Church's organs of infallibility.  It is impossible.

And yet haven't the conciliar popes been doing just that, by proclaiming Vatican II in union with the bishops of the world, this being the Ordinary Universal Magisterium which, if they are true popes, is infallible.

This.  SJ is flip-flopping the correct order of things.

Could it be that the sedes sense that acknowledging that the novelties of Vatican 2 and the postV2 reforms emanating from the fallible (I.e., authentic) magisterium totally pulls the rug out from under the sedevacantist enterprise?

Hence the novel introduction of a "numeric threshold" as if to say that if all the bishops in union with the pope teach unfounded and novel doctrines, it somehow becomes infallible (which is impossible).

So too is the reverse sedevacantist conclusion: It is infallible, therefore the worldwide heirarchy has defected (despite the promise of indefectibility).

Trapped by error in either case, ought not this indicate to you that sedevacantism is an error to he assiduously avoided and combatted.

I think this issue of the authentic (ie., fallible) magisterium exposes the errors of sedevacantism better than any other single issue.

There you go flip-flopping things again.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Sean, how do you know that something is part of Catholic Tradition?

Mithrandylan-

Because it contained in the ordinary or extraordinary infallible magisterium.

And how do you know what is in the ordinary infallible magisterium?

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Sean, how do you know that something is part of Catholic Tradition?

Mithrandylan-

Because it contained in the ordinary or extraordinary infallible magisterium.

And how do you know what is in the ordinary infallible magisterium?

Mithrandylan, ut vos quoque.  Neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos.  

...et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt.

The only word I got out of that was margarita....can I have one too?

Does anyone here have actually READ the Vatican II docuмents with their OWN EYES instead of  being misled by those with an agenda?

Does anyone here have actually READ the Vatican II docuмents with their OWN EYES instead of  being misled by those with an agenda?

Yes we have thoroughly read the "docuмents" from the Bastard Council.  

They are rotten in the vernacular and as with the Novus Ordo, they are even more odious in Latin (like unto a harlot in fine clothing - or lipstick on a pig).  

Quote from: 2Vermont

Quote from: Mithrandylan

lol.
He said don't cast your pearls before swine.

LOL.  What does margaritas mean in Latin then?  

I thought I was inviting Ambrose and Mithrandylan over for some margaritas and pork ribs. :wink:

Quote

margarita, margaritae

noun

    declension: 1st declension
    gender: feminine

Definitions:

    pearl

Yes, and I was feeling quite left out.  :wink:

Thanks.  Learn something new every day.

Sean J

You are trying to force Vatican II into the non-infallible, Ordinary (non-universal) Magisterium where it clearly doesn't belong.  The infallible, Ordinary Universal Magisterium consists precisely of the pope preaching in union with the bishops of the world.

Your claim that Vatican II belongs to the non-infallible Ordinary(non-universal) Magisterium, would hold water if only a few bishops here and there, and not in union with the pope. had been preaching Vatican II.  

There is no attempt being made to conjour up a theory to support a particular argument.  The infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is Church teaching, that's all.