Number CCCLVIII (358) 24th May 2014

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHURCH INFALLIBILITY -- IV
 


To Cardinal Newman is attributed a wise comment on the 1870 definition of the Pope’s infallibility: “It left him as it found him.” Indeed that definition will have changed nothing in the Pope’s power to teach infallibly, because it belongs to the unchanging nature of God’s true Church that God will protect it from error, at least when its supreme teaching authority is engaged. All such engagement is now called the Church’s “Extraordinary Magisterium”, but only the name can have been new in 1870, just like the name of the “Ordinary Universal Magisterium”. If Vatican I declared the latter also to be infallible, it must also have been so from the beginning of the Church. To discern the realities behind the two names, let us go back to that beginning.

By the time Our Lord ascended to Heaven, he had with his divine infallibility entrusted to his Apostles a body of doctrine which they were to hand down intact to his Church to the end of the world (Mt. XXVIII, 19-20), doctrine which all souls were to believe on pain of damnation (Mk. XVI, 15-16). This Deposit of the Faith, or public Revelation, God was bound to make recognisable and accessible to souls of good will, because obviously the true God could never condemn eternally a soul for refusing to believe in an untruth. By the death of the last Apostle this Deposit was not only infallible but also complete.

Then from the Apostles onwards would God protect all churchmen from ever teaching error ? By no means. Our Lord warned us to beware of “false prophets” (Mt. VII, 15), and St Paul likewise warned against “ravening wolves” (Acts, XX, 29-30). But how could God permit such a danger to his sheep from erring pastors ? Because he wants for his Heaven neither robot pastors nor robot sheep, but pastors and sheep that will both have used the mind and free-will he gave them to teach or follow the Truth. And if a mass of pastors betray, he can always raise a St Athanasius or an Archbishop Lefebvre, for instance, to ensure that his infallible Truth remains always accessible to souls.

Nevertheless that Deposit will be unceasingly exposed to ravening wolves, adding error to it or subtracting truth from it. So how will God still protect it ? By guaranteeing that whenever a Pope engages all four conditions of his full teaching authority to define what does and does not belong to it, he will be divinely protected from error – what we call today the “Extraordinary Magisterium”. (Note how this Extraordinary Magisterium presupposes the infallible Ordinary Magisterium, and can add to it no truth or infallibility, but only a greater certainty for us human beings.) But if the Pope engages any less than all four conditions, then his teaching will be infallible if it corresponds to the Deposit handed down from Our Lord – today called the “Universal Ordinary Magisterium”, but fallible if it is not within that Deposit handed down, or Tradition. Outside of Tradition, his teaching may be true or false.

Thus there is no vicious circle (see EC 357 of last week) because Our Lord authorised Tradition and Tradition authorises the Magisterium. Indeed it is the function of the Pope to declare with authority what belongs to Tradition, and he will be divinely protected from error if he engages his full authority to do so, but he can make declarations outside of Tradition, in which case he will have no such protection. Now the novelties of Vatican II such as religious liberty and ecuмenism are way outside of Church Tradition. So they come under neither the Pope’s Ordinary nor his Extraordinary Magisterium, and all the nonsense of all the Conciliar Popes does not oblige any Catholic to become either a liberal or a sedevacantist.

Kyrie eleison.

Tradition is of Popes the measuring-rod Because it came at first only from God.
 

Another Friday, another Mgr Williamson newsletter trying to discredit sedevacantists while completely evading their arguments.

That was a nice way of diverting our attention from the fact that you're a liberal and think that Catholics should be forced to choose between being a liberal or a sede vacantists. The last line must've gotten under your skin.

I wonder who has more credibility among traditional Catholics, Bishop Williamson or Peter Vere?

I think Pete belongs here about as much as Scipio.

.

 :whistleblower:    Hey, whistling Pete:  

...So they come under neither the Pope’s Ordinary nor his Extraordinary Magisterium, and all the nonsense of all the Conciliar Popes does not oblige any Catholic to become either a liberal or a sedevacantist.

Kyrie eleison.

Tradition is of Popes the measuring-rod    Because it came at first only from God.

Quote from: Pete Vere

Another Friday, another Mgr Williamson newsletter trying to discredit sedevacantists while completely evading their arguments.

That was a nice way of diverting our attention from the fact that you're a liberal and think that Catholics should be forced to choose between being a liberal or a sede vacantists. The last line must've gotten under your skin.

 

Must have reminded him of his childhood:  


All the king's horses and all the kings men
Couldn't put liberalism back together again . . . . . . . . . . . . .  :shocked:

(I'd say "WAKE UP" but I don't want to disturb his beauty sleep... HAHAHAHAHA)

Quote from: Matto

I wonder who has more credibility among traditional Catholics, Bishop Williamson or Peter Vere?

I think Pete belongs here about as much as Scipio.

Bill Clinton is more credible than Pete Vere.

Doesn't that depend on what you mean by the word "is?"  


(You won't mind, Centro, I'm sure.)

.

.


Yes, really.    .   .   .   just keep telling yourself, "I'm not angry... I'm not angry... I'm not angry..."  -------- like Yoko Ono would advise you at a time like this.  

Imagine all the people, living life in peace ... you may say I'm a dreamer    but I'm not the only one....  


.

Now the novelties of Vatican II such as religious liberty and ecuмenism are way outside of Church Tradition. So they come under neither the Pope’s Ordinary nor his Extraordinary Magisterium, and all the nonsense of all the Conciliar Popes does not oblige any Catholic to become either a liberal or a sedevacantist.

Even if these things are not declared under these forms of  Magisterium, they are still taught by these popes as truths of the Catholic religion. They are heretical ideas which these men expound, and it is well known that they consider much of it binding upon the Catholic soul.
Teaching heresy under the guise of truth and authority, what does that make these men?

Without leaving out the full reality of the left side of the equation, all of the nonsense does not oblige any Catholic to become a liberal, a lesser liberal (R&R=Conciliar/SSPX/resistance), or a sedevacantist.

And, Your Excellency, what do you think about this docuмent?

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6closin.htm (the conclusion of the page)

APOSTOLIC BRIEF "IN SPIRITU SANCTO' FOR THE CLOSING OF THE COUNCIL DECEMBER 8, 1965 read at the closing ceremonies of Dec. 8 by Archbishop Pericle Felici, general secretary of the council.

The Second Vatican Ecuмenical Council, assembled in the Holy Spirit and under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom we have declared Mother of the Church, and of St. Joseph, her glorious spouse, and of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul, must be numbered without doubt among the greatest events of the Church. In fact it was the largest in the number of Fathers who came to the seat of Peter from every part of the world, even from those places where the hierarchy has been very recently established. It was the richest because of the questions which for four sessions have been discussed carefully and profoundly. And last of all it was the most opportune, because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above all it sought to meet the pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family.

At last all which regards the holy ecuмenical council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us. Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecuмenical council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.

We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.

Given in Rome at St. Peter's, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.

Vatican II was pastoral, not infallible. Of the 16 docuмents of Vatican II, only two are entitled “dogmatic” but neither involves any definitive dogmatic pronouncements. This is the only council with neither dogmatic nor disciplinary canons.  

“Taking into account conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the Council Vatican II, this Sacred Synod intends to issue in matters of Faith and Morals only the definitions it openly declares as such.” (p. 155)

“The salient point of this council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all. For this a council was not necessary. [...] The substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.” (Opening Address, October 11, 1962; Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Docuмents of Vatican II, p. 715)

Even Paul VI himself stated that Vatican II was not infallible!. He declared the Council as non-infallible, in an audience one year later:

“There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church’s infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility.” (General Audience, December 1, 1966, published in the L’Osservatore Romano 1/21/1966)