Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Defender on May 23, 2014, 05:32:00 PM
-
(http://www.dinoscopus.org/images/header.jpg)
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.
-
:sleep:
Another Friday, another Mgr Williamson newsletter trying to discredit sedevacantists while completely evading their arguments.
-
:sleep:
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.
-
:sleep:
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.
Oh yeah
... and all the nonsense of all the Conciliar Popes does not oblige any Catholic to become either a liberal or a sedevacantist.
-
I wonder who has more credibility among traditional Catholics, Bishop Williamson or Peter Vere?
I think Pete belongs here about as much as Scipio.
-
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 has more credibility than Pete Vere.
-
.
: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.
:sleep:
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)
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.)
.
-
:sleep:
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.
Not really.
What argument has Mgr Williamson put forward in this newsletter against either liberalism or sedevacantism?
Nothing.
Hence there is nothing here to get angry about.
-
.
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 :sleep: but I'm not the only one....
.
-
.
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 :sleep: but I'm not the only one....
.
You listen to Yoko Ono?
:roll-laugh1:
Now THAT is worth a good laugh!
-
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.
-
Bishop Williamson wrote:
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.
This affirmation is scandalous, Your Excellency! Paul VI, whom you recognize as a legitimate Pope, confirmed ALL the Vatican II docuмents in the Holy Ghost. This is how Paul VI signed the sixteen docuмents of Vatican II. This is from Lumen Gentium:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
Each and all these items which are set forth in this dogmatic Constitution have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God.
Given in Rome at St. Peter's on November 21, 1964
I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.
If Paul VI is a true and legitimate Pope, then, Your Excellency, you are a schismatic and a heretic!
-
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.
-
Bishop Williamson wrote:
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.
This affirmation is scandalous, Your Excellency! Paul VI, whom you recognize as a legitimate Pope, confirmed ALL the Vatican II docuмents in the Holy Ghost. This is how Paul VI signed the sixteen docuмents of Vatican II. This is from Lumen Gentium:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
Each and all these items which are set forth in this dogmatic Constitution have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God.
Given in Rome at St. Peter's on November 21, 1964
I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.
If Paul VI is a true and legitimate Pope, then, Your Excellency, you are a schismatic and a heretic!
...and yet he also declared that nothing in V2 was infallible, which completely torpedoes your childish attempt to present the V2 docs as such.
How long, therefore, until your apology to +BW?
-
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)
-
:sleep:
Another Friday, another Mgr Williamson newsletter trying to discredit sedevacantists while completely evading their arguments.
:applause: :applause:
-
Bishop Williamson wrote:
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.
This affirmation is scandalous, Your Excellency! Paul VI, whom you recognize as a legitimate Pope, confirmed ALL the Vatican II docuмents in the Holy Ghost. This is how Paul VI signed the sixteen docuмents of Vatican II. This is from Lumen Gentium:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
Each and all these items which are set forth in this dogmatic Constitution have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God.
Given in Rome at St. Peter's on November 21, 1964
I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.
If Paul VI is a true and legitimate Pope, then, Your Excellency, you are a schismatic and a heretic!
It's understandable you'd subscribe to this outlook, Bernardus, but it's missing some essential ingredients. Just because Paul VI SAID (wrote) that he was doing this "in the Holy Spirit" doesn't mean that he WAS doing so.
For example, a pope is not infallible just because he says, "this is infallible." In fact, his saying "this is infallible" isn't even one of the criteria! Maybe you didn't know that.
Last week (perhaps you missed it) +W listed 4 points of necessity that are indicators of infallibility, and not one of them is that the pope has to say "this is infallible," or that he is "doing this in the Holy Ghost." (They'd say "spirit" -- which could actually mean the unclean spirit of Vatican II -- have you considered that possibility?)
One of the key aspects of the extraordinary Magisterium has always been the condemnation of anyone who would refuse it or deny it. But on October 11th, 1962 these Conciliar popes gave up the practice of condemnation of error. They might as well have admitted that they were giving up the protection of the Holy Ghost, at that time. Maybe you didn't know that.
Was Caiphas a legitimate Pope? He was the one who condemned Our Lord to death, you know (by making sure that it happened). Did the fact that he saw to it that DEICIDE was perpetrated on the world enough to make him lose his office? Why not? Are you aware that Caiphas prophesied infallibly when he said it is expedient for one man to die for the people?
When St. Peter denied Our Lord three times did Jesus abandon him? Later, when St. Peter scandalized the faithful by deliberately not eating with the uncircuмcized so as to appear to uphold the Old Covenant as if it were still in place (a heresy then and a heresy today as well), did he cease to be Pope?
Was it a scandal for St. Paul to oppose him to his face?
These are not simple times, but they are here, and it is our cross to undergo them: "he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved" (Matt. xxiv. 13).
What +W is doing is he's trying to give us what we need to persevere to the end. I think he's doing a pretty good job of it. Show me another bishop anywhere else who's doing better. Please.
.
-
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31936&min=5#p4)
You listen to Yoko Ono? :roll-laugh1: Now THAT is worth a good laugh!
I'm sorry, Petey-poo. I didn't realize you're off your rocker. You have my deepest sympathies.
Now, go back to sleep. :baby:
Lullaby, lullaby... :guitar:
.
-
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.
I can't answer for him, but that docuмent is one of the blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception, which we've been making reparation for, ever since, by our First Saturdays devotions. It was cranked out on that Feast Day in the middle of the abominable 1960's. It was a great cause of suffering for the entire Church, even though the liberals took joy in it. So did the devil.
The following year, the Oath Against Modernism was abandoned. Do you think that was another infallible act of the pope? Then they tried to make Padre Pio do the "transitional rite" but he couldn't. Was that okay with you, too? Then they changed the episcopal consecration form, for NO GOOD REASON. Was that okay too? Then they changed the priestly ordination form -- again, for no good reason. Was that okay too? Then they came out with the abominable Newmass. Again: was that okay? Were any of these acts infallible acts of the Pope? In the USA the follow-up was Roe vs. Wade, by which abortion became legal in defiance of Humane Vitae of 1966, the one thing Paul VI did sort of okay. Sort of.
.
-
.
Post (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31936&min=10#p3)
Bishop Williamson wrote:
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.
This affirmation is scandalous, Your Excellency! Paul VI, whom you recognize as a legitimate Pope, confirmed ALL the Vatican II docuмents in the Holy Ghost. This is how Paul VI signed the sixteen docuмents of Vatican II. This is from Lumen Gentium (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/docuмents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html):
Each and all these items which are set forth in this dogmatic Constitution have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God.
Given in Rome at St. Peter's on November 21, 1964
I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.
If Paul VI is a true and legitimate Pope, then, Your Excellency, you are a schismatic and a heretic!
...and yet he also declared that nothing in V2 was infallible, which completely torpedoes your childish attempt to present the V2 docs as such.
How long, therefore, until your apology to +BW?
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.
.
-
.
How could the abomination of Vat.II have been allowed to happen?
The only reasonable answer is, God withdrew His grace from the Church.
This is a spiritual chastisement.
Our Lady came at Fatima to warn the world, and left us the Third Secret which was supposed to be made public in 1960 -- but it wasn't.
This travesty of justice brought a curse on the Church, and we're still living it today.
We are living a curse.
The saints of old used to wonder how the Church could ever be brought down. Well, we're seeing it happen before our eyes, and the faithful who should be together, supporting each other are at each other's throats attacking one another, while certain elements stand at the sidelines and cheer (http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31936&min=15#p0) along the mayhem.
Pretty sad. :cry:
.
-
Was Caiphas a legitimate Pope?
No.
You're confusing high priests under the Old Covenant with Roman Pontiffs under the New Covenant.
-
There we have another weekly installment and immediately there is confusion and conflict.
It is not surprising given that the Bishop is again setting two herds in opposition, then closing the gates to the left and the right holding areas, he leaves only the middle gate open for escape from the ensuing stampede, the entrance to the R&R Corral.
-
SeanJohnson wrote:
...and yet he also declared that nothing in V2 was infallible, which completely torpedoes your childish attempt to present the V2 docs as such.
How long, therefore, until your apology to +BW?
I will apologize to Bishop Williamson when he retracts his anti-infallibilist, non catholic position . What Paul VI declared after the Council is irrelevant: he confirmed every docuмents in the Holy Ghost with the traditional pontifical signature.
-
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 therein is where I completely disagree with him.
-
I wonder who has more credibility among traditional Catholics, Bishop Williamson or Peter Vere?
I think Pete belongs here about as much as Scipio.
If you disagree with what he says then state where he is wrong and prove him wrong. Ad hominems are useless.
-
I wonder who has more credibility among traditional Catholics, Bishop Williamson or Peter Vere?
I think Pete belongs here about as much as Scipio.
If you disagree with what he says then state where he is wrong and prove him wrong. Ad hominems are useless.
Yes, I find it interesting that most of the posts in this thread are more about Peter Vere than the OP.
Based upon Peter Vere's post history, I would argue that PV would have responded the very same way even if +W hadn't mentioned "the liberals" along with the sedes.
-
There we have another weekly installment and immediately there is confusion and conflict.
It is not surprising given that the Bishop is again setting two herds in opposition, then closing the gates to the left and the right holding areas, he leaves only the middle gate open for escape from the ensuing stampede, the entrance to the R&R Corral.
It has been his and +Fellay's (et al) MO for decades.
-
Was Caiphas a legitimate Pope?
No.
You're confusing high priests under the Old Covenant with Roman Pontiffs under the New Covenant.
Neil, no Catholic ever/anywhere confused Caiphas as a Pope!
Don't believe everything you see or hear on YouTube.
Pax,
Ferdinand
-
There we have another weekly installment and immediately there is confusion and conflict.
It is not surprising given that the Bishop is again setting two herds in opposition, then closing the gates to the left and the right holding areas, he leaves only the middle gate open for escape from the ensuing stampede, the entrance to the R&R Corral.
Thank you.
-
-
edit
-
If you disagree with what he says then state where he is wrong and prove him wrong. Ad hominems are useless.
Ad hominem's are not useless at all, especially when you are dealing with someone of publicly questionable character like Pete Vere. People should know he is of questionable character when they interact with him.
-
If you disagree with what he says then state where he is wrong and prove him wrong. Ad hominems are useless.
Ad hominem's are not useless at all, especially when you are dealing with someone of publicly questionable character like Pete Vere. People should know he is of questionable character when they interact with him.
Interesting. From what I've seen PV seems to be fair in his posts/judgments despite the fact that he's NO.
-
I have two things against Pete Vere. One is that he co-wrote a book attacking all of us traditional Catholics. I have not read it, but here is the link: link (http://www.amazon.com/More-Catholic-Than-Pope-Traditionalism/dp/1931709262/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1400962685&sr=1-3)
I don't know why after writing a book attacking us he would want to interact with us, but he does.
The second thing I have against him is that he was/is an annulment lawyer.
Ad hominems or not, I think we are dealing with an enemy here and I just wanted to point that out.
-
I have two things against Pete Vere. One is that he co-wrote a book attacking all of us traditional Catholics. I have not read it, but here is the link: link (http://www.amazon.com/More-Catholic-Than-Pope-Traditionalism/dp/1931709262/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1400962685&sr=1-3)
I don't know why after writing a book attacking us he would want to interact with us, but he does.
The second thing I have against him is that he was/is an annulment lawyer.
Ad hominems or not, I think we are dealing with an enemy here and I just wanted to point that out.
I specifically dislike Pete Vere because I have read the book "More Catholic than the Pope". Ironically, it was dedicated to a prison chapel library by a Buddhist monk. I was involved in organizing the reception of a SSPX priest to offer Mass in the prison traveling from the seminary. Needless to say, the book he co-wrote with Patrick Madrid is full of lies and deceptions. Both should be burned.
-
Was Caiphas a legitimate Pope?
No.
You're confusing high priests under the Old Covenant with Roman Pontiffs under the New Covenant.
My dear pete-sqeak, YOU are the confused one.
Neil, no Catholic ever/anywhere confused Caiphas as a Pope!
Don't believe everything you see or hear on YouTube.
Pax,
Ferdinand
Caiphas was the unquestioned head of the Church at the time, the Hebrew Temple was the Church outside of which there was no salvation -- not even for the Gentiles! Why do you think they were so exclusive, with circuмcision and all that? This was their Tradition! There was as yet no Catholic Church, but the High Priest of the Jerusalem Temple was in that time for them what we in the New Testament call "the Pope." If you don't believe me, then go ask your priest. Maybe you'll believe him. Even Petey-poo can ask HIS priest, that is, if he has one.
The High Priest had the power to prophesy, and he alone was the one who could enter the Holy of Holies -- anyone else would be taking their life in their hands, literally. They would tie a rope around his waist that led outside, so that if he were to collapse or faint or be struck down by God, his assistants could then pull him out without having to go in there themselves because it was TOO DANGEROUS.
There is a lot to this. They didn't say "pope" but this is where we get the sacred Tradition of the head of the Church and the power of the Church to pass on down this office from one generation to the next.
.
-
Caiphas was the unquestioned head of the Church at the time, the Hebrew Temple was the Church outside of which there was no salvation -- not even for the Gentiles!
.
Yes, but for Pete to comprehend this we have to go through the whole discussion about the Old Covenant having been revoked, which given his liberal position and acceptance of non-Catholic doctrines like religious liberty, he may or may not accept as Catholic dogma.
-
SeanJohnson wrote:
...and yet he also declared that nothing in V2 was infallible, which completely torpedoes your childish attempt to present the V2 docs as such.
How long, therefore, until your apology to +BW?
I will apologize to Bishop Williamson when he retracts his anti-infallibilist, non catholic position . What Paul VI declared after the Council is irrelevant: he confirmed every docuмents in the Holy Ghost with the traditional pontifical signature.
Bernardus, it seems to me you have your "irrelevants" backwards.
+W is not denying papal infallibility. He is saying that Vat.II was in no way infallible, and that is common understanding. It was stated so at the time. There was no note whatsoever of infallibility. The whole thing was foisted upon the Faithful as an act of fiat, and raw authority, which could only happen if God had WITHDRAWN His grace. That's the OPPOSITE of having guaranteed His grace!
Therefore, infallibility at Vat.II is irrelevant. It wasn't there.
What Paul VI declared after the Council is FURTHER PROOF of how non-dogmatic it was (they said, "It's only a pastoral Council").
There are new teachings in Vat.II that had already been condemned previously. It's impossible for something to be anathema yesterday and dogma today. That's only the work of the devil.
.
-
Caiphas was the unquestioned head of the Church at the time; the Hebrew Temple was the Church outside of which there was no salvation -- not even for the Gentiles!
.
Yes, but for Pete to comprehend this we'd have to go through the whole discussion about the Old Covenant having been revoked, which given his liberal position and acceptance of non-Catholic doctrines like religious liberty, he may or may not accept as Catholic dogma.
Thanks, but I can't be concerned with all the nuances of a Newchurch ignoramus' erroneous intuition. The field is too huge. There is no end to the errors you get into when you depart from the truth.
It's not going to help such a one to believe that the Old Covenant was "never revoked" like the Newpopes are so fond of spouting -- a half-truth at best. Why can't we just have St. Paul drop in for a week or two and clear this up? I'm sure he's got his "head back" again.
But I do agree, we'd have to go through the whole discussion, and he would fight every inch of the way. It might never end. Hey, it's been 2,000 years and it's still going on.
.
-
Was Caiphas a legitimate Pope?
No.
You're confusing high priests under the Old Covenant with Roman Pontiffs under the New Covenant.
My dear pete-sqeak, YOU are the confused one.
Neil, no Catholic ever/anywhere confused Caiphas as a Pope!
Don't believe everything you see or hear on YouTube.
Pax,
Ferdinand
Caiphas was the unquestioned head of the Church at the time, the Hebrew Temple was the Church outside of which there was no salvation -- not even for the Gentiles! Why do you think they were so exclusive, with circuмcision and all that? This was their Tradition! There was as yet no Catholic Church, but the High Priest of the Jerusalem Temple was in that time for them what we in the New Testament call "the Pope." If you don't believe me, then go ask your priest. Maybe you'll believe him. Even Petey-poo can ask HIS priest, that is, if he has one.
The High Priest had the power to prophesy, and he alone was the one who could enter the Holy of Holies -- anyone else would be taking their life in their hands, literally. They would tie a rope around his waist that led outside, so that if he were to collapse or faint or be struck down by God, his assistants could then pull him out without having to go in there themselves because it was TOO DANGEROUS.
There is a lot to this. They didn't say "pope" but this is where we get the sacred Tradition of the head of the Church and the power of the Church to pass on down this office from one generation to the next.
.
The office of the papacy is quite different from that of the High Priest.
The papacy was established by Christ
With an apostle (or his successor) as its occupant
With the promise of infallibility
Both when exercising his supreme authority
As well as when exercising his ordinary teaching office
And in issuing general laws
With the purpose and mission of preaching the NEW Testament
These are seven (there are more) qualities of the papacy that are entirely and completely unique to it. You might as well compare the papacy to the presidency. It's a false analogy which doesn't prove what I think you are attempting to prove (can't be sure what that is, but I'm guessing something along the lines of the papacy can have an occupant who is not a Catholic).
-
Was Caiphas a legitimate Pope?
No.
You're confusing high priests under the Old Covenant with Roman Pontiffs under the New Covenant.
My dear pete-sqeak, YOU are the confused one.
Neil, no Catholic ever/anywhere confused Caiphas as a Pope!
Don't believe everything you see or hear on YouTube.
Pax,
Ferdinand
Caiphas was the unquestioned head of the Church at the time, the Hebrew Temple was the Church outside of which there was no salvation -- not even for the Gentiles! Why do you think they were so exclusive, with circuмcision and all that? This was their Tradition! There was as yet no Catholic Church, but the High Priest of the Jerusalem Temple was in that time for them what we in the New Testament call "the Pope." If you don't believe me, then go ask your priest. Maybe you'll believe him. Even Petey-poo can ask HIS priest, that is, if he has one.
The High Priest had the power to prophesy, and he alone was the one who could enter the Holy of Holies -- anyone else would be taking their life in their hands, literally. They would tie a rope around his waist that led outside, so that if he were to collapse or faint or be struck down by God, his assistants could then pull him out without having to go in there themselves because it was TOO DANGEROUS.
There is a lot to this. They didn't say "pope" but this is where we get the sacred Tradition of the head of the Church and the power of the Church to pass on down this office from one generation to the next.
.
The office of the papacy is quite different from that of the High Priest.
The papacy was established by Christ
With an apostle (or his successor) as its occupant
With the promise of infallibility
Both when exercising his supreme authority
As well as when exercising his ordinary teaching office
And in issuing general laws
With the purpose and mission of preaching the NEW Testament
These are seven (there are more) qualities of the papacy that are entirely and completely unique to it. You might as well compare the papacy to the presidency. It's a false analogy which doesn't prove what I think you are attempting to prove (can't be sure what that is, but I'm guessing something along the lines of the papacy can have an occupant who is not a Catholic).
All I'm saying is that the Jєωιѕн Temple in Jerusalem was the TRUE CHURCH at the time of the ministry of Our Lord. He regarded Himself, all the laws and traditions of the Church valid and effective. He practiced all their traditions, even to the Last Supper which was the FULFILLMENT of said traditions, in every way. It was corruptions of those true traditions (the oral tradition that would later be written down as the "тαℓмυd") that He lambasted as "traditions of men."
The Old Testament was brought to perfection in the New.
While the High Priest did not, as you correctly say, have those many perfected attributes (as well as others) that the Popes have had, nonetheless, the office of High Priest was the immediate precursor to the office of the papacy, inasmuch as it was the office of head of the One True Church of God.
Are you denying that the old Temple was the true Church?
Are you implying that the prophets of the Old Testament were not of God?
Do you think that the High Priest was incapable of pronouncing infallible truth?
Why did Our Lord drive the money changers out of the Temple, referring to it as "MY HOUSE?" (Mt. xxi. 13)
Don't ask me. Go ask a priest. Ask Fr. Pfeiffer. Ask Bishop Williamson. Ask Fr. Chazal or Fr. Patrick Girouard. Ask Fr. Hewko or Fr. Trincado or Fr. Altamira or Fr. Rioult or Fr. Faure or Fr. Gruner or Fr. Cardozo or Fr. (Paul) Kramer.
Or if you don't trust them, go ask Bishop Pivarunas or any of his CMRI priests.
Go ahead. Don't just tell me I'm wrong. Do your own homework.
Don't be so lazy.
.
-
.
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.
.
-
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.
-
.
I'm amused to see protestantism creeping in to the minds of Trads here.
Protestants say that Peter wasn't "the first pope"...
And so, apparently, do the R&R posters participating on this thread.
Unlike the sedes who have correctly distinguished between the High Priest of the Old Covenant, and the Petrine Primacy of the New.
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.
-
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.
-
.
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
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?"
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
Umm......no.
-
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
Actually, this quote is from a SiSiNoNo article titled "Clear Ideas on the Pope's Infallible Magisterium."
Dom Nau wrote a similar work.
Sorry for the confusion.
-
The full article: http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/2002_January/Popes_Infallible_Magisterium.htm
What worries Catholics most in the current crisis in the Church is precisely the "problem of the Pope." We need very clear ideas on this question. We must avoid shipwreck to the right and to the left, either by the spirit of rebellion or, on the other hand, by an inappropriate and servile obedience. The serious error which is behind many current disasters is the belief that the "Authentic Magisterium" is nothing other than the "Ordinary Magisterium."
The "Authentic Magisterium" cannot be so simply identified with the Ordinary Magisterium. In fact, the Ordinary Magisterium can be infallible and non-infallible, and it is only in this second case that it is called the "Authentic Magisterium." The Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique [hereafter referred to as DTC - Ed.] under the heading of "papal infallibility" (vol. VII, col.1699ff) makes the following distinctions: 1) there is the "infallible or ex cathedra papal definition in the sense defined by Vatican I" (col.1699); 2) there is the "infallible papal teaching which flows from the pope's Ordinary Magisterium" (col.1705); 3) there is "non-infallible papal teaching" (col.1709).
Similarly, Salaverri, in his Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.) distinguishes the following: 1) Extraordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 592ff); 2) Ordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 645ff); 3) Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticuм, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility (no.659ff).
While he always has full and supreme doctrinal authority, the pope does not always exercise it at its highest level, that is at the level of infallibility. As the theologians say, he is like a giant who does not always use his full strength. What follows is this:
1) "It would be incorrect to say that the pope is infallible simply by possessing papal authority," as we read in the Acts of Vatican I (Coll.L ac. 399b). This would be equivalent to saying that the pope's authority and his infallibility are the same thing.
2) It is necessary to know "what degree of assent is due to the decrees of the sovereign pontiff when he is teaching at a level which is not that of infallibility, i.e., when he is not exercising the supreme degree of his doctrinal authority" (Salaverri, op.cit., no.659).
Error by Excess and/or By Defect
Unfortunately this three-fold distinction between the Extraordinary Magisterium, the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, and the authentic non-infallible Magisterium, has fallen into oblivion. This has resulted in two opposite errors in the crisis situation of the Church at the present time: the error by excess of those who extend papal infallibility to all acts of the pope, without distinction; and the error by defect of those who restrict infallibility to definitions that have been uttered ex cathedra.
The error by excess actually eliminates the Ordinary Non-Infallible or "Authentic" Magisterium and inevitably leads either to Sedevacantism or to servile obedience. The attitude of the people of this second category is, "The pope is always infallible and so we always owe him blind obedience."
The error by defect eliminates the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. This is precisely the error of the neo-Modernists, who devalue the ordinary papal Magisterium and the "Roman tradition" which they find so inconvenient. They say, "The pope is infallible only in his Extraordinary Magisterium, so we can sweep away 2000 years of ordinary papal Magisterium."
Both of these errors obscure the precise notion of the Ordinary Magisterium, which includes the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the ordinary, "authentic," non-infallible Magisterium.
Confusion and Controversy
These two opposing errors are not new. They were denounced even before Vatican II. In 1954, Fr. Labourdette, O.P., wrote:
Many persons have retained very naive ideas about what they learned concerning the personal infallibility of the sovereign pontiff in the solemn and abnormal exercise of his power of teaching. For some, every word of the supreme pontiff will in some way partake of the value of an infallible teaching, requiring the absolute assent of theological faith; for others, acts which are not presented with the manifest conditions of a definition ex cathedra will seem to have no greater authority than that of any private teacher (Revue Thomiste LIV, 1954, p.196)!
Dom Paul Nau has also written about the confusion that has arisen between the pope's authority and his infallibility:
By a strange reversal, while the personal infallibility of the pope in a solemn judgment, so long disputed, was definitely placed beyond all controversy, it is the Ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Church which seems to have been lost sight of.
It all happened - as is not unheard of elsewhere in the history of doctrine - as if the very brilliance of the Vatican I definition had cast into shadow the truth hitherto universally recognized; we might almost say, as if the definition of the infallibility of the solemn judgments made these henceforth the unique method by which the sovereign pontiff would put forward the rule of faith [Pope or Church? Angelus Press, 1998, p.13].
On the temporary fading of a doctrine from Catholic consciousness, see the entry "dogme" in DTC (vol.IV).
Dom Nau also mentioned the disastrous consequences which flow from this identification of the pope's authority and his infallibility:
No place would be left, intermediate between such private acts and the solemn papal judgments, for a teaching which, while authentic, is not equally guaranteed throughout all its various expressions. If things are looked at from this angle, the very notion of the Ordinary Magisterium becomes, properly speaking, unthinkable [Pope or Church? p.4].
Dom Nau considered from where this phenomenon had developed:
Since 1870 [the year of Vatican I - Ed.], manuals of theology have taken the formulae in which their statements of doctrine have been framed from the actual wording of the Council text. None of these treated in its own right of the ordinary teaching of the pope, which has accordingly, little by little, slipped out of sight and all pontifical teaching has seemed to be reduced solely to solemn definitions ex cathedra. Once attention was entirely directed to these, it became customary to consider the doctrinal interventions of the Holy See solely from the standpoint of the solemn judgment, that of a judgment which ought in itself to bring to the doctrine all the necessary guarantees of certainty (ibid., p.13).
This is partly true, but we should not forget that liberal theology had already been advertising its reductive agenda. That is why Pius IX, even before Vatican I (1870) felt obliged to warn German theologians that divine faith's submission "must not be restricted only to those points which have been defined" (Letter to Archbishop of Munich, Dec. 21, 1863).
The naive ideas entertained by many on the question of papal infallibility after Vatican I played into the hands of the liberal theology. In fact, while the two errors are diametrically opposed, they are at one in equating papal authority and papal infallibility. What is the difference between them? The error by excess, regarding as infallible everything that comes from papal authority, stretches the pope's infallibility to the extent of his authority. The error by defect, considering only those things authorized that emanate from the ex cathedra infallibility, restricts papal authority to the scope of the infallibility of the pope's Extraordinary Magisterium. Thus both errors have the same effect, namely, to obscure the very notion of the Ordinary Magisterium and, consequently, the particular nature of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. It is essential for us to rediscover this notion and its nature because they are of the greatest importance in helping us to get our bearings in the time of crisis.
The Ordinary Magisterium in Shadow:
Humanae Vitae and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis
The lack of clear ideas on the pope's Ordinary Magisterium appeared in full with Pope Paul VI's encyclical, Humanae Vitae, and more recently with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in which Pope John Paul II repeated the Church's refusal to ordain women.
When Humanae Vitae came out, various theologians indicated that the notion of ordinary papal Magisterium was obscured. Generally speaking, those who supported the infallibility of Humanae Vitae deduced "the proof [of this infallibility - Ed.] on the basis of the Church's constant and universal Authentic Magisterium, which has never been abandoned and therefore was already definitive in earlier centuries." In other words, on the basis of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium (E. Lio, Humanae Vitae ed infallibilità, Libreria Ed. Vaticana, p.38). They should have noticed that even the notion of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and its particularity [its constancy and universality - Ed.] had been effaced from the minds not only of the ordinary faithful but also of the theologians. Cardinal Siri commented:
By presenting only two possible hypotheses for the case in question [the encyclical Humanae Vitae - Ed.], namely, an ex cathedra definition [which was avoided - Ed.] that is, proceeding from the solemn Magisterium, and that of the Authentic Magisterium [which does not of itself imply infallibility - Ed.], a grave sophism in enumeration has been committed. It is in fact a serious error, because there is another possible hypothesis, i.e., that of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. It is very strange how certain people are at pains to avoid speaking about this….It is necessary to realize that there is not only a solemn Magisterium and a simply Authentic Magisterium; between these two there is also the Ordinary Magisterium which is endowed with the charism of infallibility (Renovatio, Oct.-Dec., 1968).
The same "sophism of enumeration" was pointed out 30 years later by Msgr. Bertone, speaking against the opposition to Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. On this occasion he explicitly denounced the tendency "to substitute de facto the concept of authority for that of infallibility" (L'Osservatore Romano, Dec. 20, 1996).
In fact, it is not only the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium which has fallen into oblivion, but, since authority and infallibility have been equated, the distinction between Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the ordinary Authentic Magisterium has also been consigned to oblivion. After Vatican I, as Dom Nau wrote,
Catholics have no longer any reason for hesitating about the authority to be recognized in the dogmatic judgments pronounced by the sovereign pontiff: their infallibility has been solemnly defined in the Constitution Pastor Aeternus ....But definitions of this sort are relatively rare. The pontifical docuмents which come most frequently before the Christian today are encyclicals, allocutions, radio messages which usually derive from the Ordinary Magisterium or ordinary teaching of the Church. Unfortunately, this is where confusions remain still possible and do occur, alas! all too often (op.cit. p.3).
Thus, we will devote ourselves, not to the Extraordinary Magisterium (whose infallibility is generally acknowledged), but to the Ordinary Magisterium. Once we have illustrated the conditions under which it is infallible, it will be clear that outside these conditions we are in the presence of the "authentic" Magisterium to which, in normal times, we should accord due consideration. In abnormal times, however, it would be a fatal error to equate this "authentic" Magisterium with the infallible Magisterium (whether "extraordinary" or "ordinary").
The Point of the Question
The infallible guarantee of divine assistance is not limited solely to the acts of the Solemn Magisterium; it also extends to the Ordinary Magisterium, although it does not cover and assure all the latter's acts in the same way" (Fr.Labourdette, O.P., Revue Thomiste 1950, p.38).
Thus, the assent due to the Ordinary Magisterium "can range from simple respect right up to a true act of faith." (Msgr. Guerry, La Doctrine Sociale de l'Église, Paris, Bonne Presse 1957, p.172). It is most important, therefore, to know precisely when the Roman pope's Ordinary Magisterium is endowed with the charism of infallibility.
Since the pope alone possesses the same infallibility conferred by Jesus Christ upon his Church [i.e., the pope plus the bishops in communion with him, cf. Dz.1839), we must conclude that only the pope, in his Ordinary Magisterium, is infallible in the same degree and under the same conditions as the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church is.
Thus the truth that is taught must be proposed as already defined, or as what has always been believed or accepted in the Church, or attested by the unanimous and constant agreement of theologians as being a Catholic truth [which is therefore strictly obligatory for all the faithful ("Infaillibilité du Pape," DTC vol.VII, col.1705).
This condition was recalled by Cardinal Felici in the context of Humanae Vitae:
On this problem we must remember that a truth may be sure and certain, and hence it may be obligatory, even without the sanction of an ex cathedra definition. So it is with the encyclical Humanae Vitae, in which the pope, the supreme pontiff of the Church, utters a truth which has been constantly taught by the Church's Magisterium and which accords with the precepts of Revelation (L'Osservatore Romano, Oct. 19, 1968, p.3).
No one, in fact, can refuse to believe what has certainly been revealed by God. And it is not only those things that have been defined as such that have certainly been revealed by God; the latter also include whatever has been always and everywhere taught by the Church's Ordinary Magisterium as having been revealed by God. More recently, Msgr. Bertone reminded us that the Ordinary Pontifical Magisterium can teach a doctrine as definitive [bold emphasis in original] in virtue of the fact that it has been constantly preserved and held by Tradition.
Such is the case with Ordinatio Sacerdotalis when it repeats the invalidity of the priestly ordination of women, which has always been held by the Church with "unanimity and stability" (L'Osservatore Romano, Dec. 20, 1996).
Cardinal Siri, still speaking of Humanae Vitae in the issue of the review Renovatio to which we have referred, explains as follows:
"The question, therefore, must be put objectively thus: given that [Humanae Vitae] is not an act of the Infallible Magisterium and that it therefore does not of itself provide the guarantee of "irreformability" and certitude, would not its substance be nonetheless guaranteed by the Ordinary Magisterium under the conditions under which the Ordinary Magisterium is itself known to be infallible?
After giving a summary of the Church's continuous tradition on contraception, from the Didache to the encyclical Casti Connubii of Pope Pius XI, Cardinal Siri concludes:
This Encyclical recapitulated the ancient teaching and the habitual teaching of today. This means that we can say that the conditions for the Ordinary irreformable [i.e., infallible - Ed.] Magisterium were met. The period of widespread turbulence is a very recent fact and has nothing to do with the serene possession [of the Magisterium - Ed.] over many centuries (Renovatio, op.cit.).
It is an error, therefore, to extend infallibility unconditionally to the whole of the Ordinary Magisterium of the pope, whether he is speaking urbi et orbi or just addressing pilgrims. It is true that the infallibility of the Extraordinary Magisterium is not enough for the Church; the Extraordinary Magisterium is a rare event, whereas "faith needs infallibility and it needs it every day," as Cardinal Siri himself said (Renovatio, op.cit.). But Cardinal Siri is too good a theologian to forget that even the pope's infallibility has conditions attached to it. If the Ordinary Magisterium is to be infallible, it must be traditional (cf. Salaverri, loc.cit.). If it breaks with Tradition, the Ordinary Magisterium cannot claim any infallibility. Here we see very clearly the very special nature of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, to which we must devote some attention.
The Special Nature of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium
As we have seen, Cardinal Siri observes that the Humanae Vitae, even if it is not an act of the ex cathedra Magisterium, would still furnish the guarantee of infallibility, not "of itself," but insofar as it recapitulates "the ancient teaching and the habitual teaching of today" (Renovatio, ob.cit.). In fact, in contrast to the Extraordinary Magisterium or the Solemn Judgment, the Ordinary Magisterium
does not consist in an isolated proposition, pronouncing irrevocably on the Faith and containing its own guarantees of truth, but in a collection of acts which can concur in communicating a teaching.
This is the normal procedure by which Tradition, in the fullest sense of that term, is handed down; ...(Pope or Church? op. cit. p.10).
This is precisely why the DTC speaks of "infallible papal teaching which flows from the pope's Ordinary Magisterium" (loc.cit.). So, while a simple doctrinal presentation [by the pope] can never claim the infallibility of a definition, [this infallibility] nonetheless is rigorously implied when there is a convergence on the same subject in a series of docuмents whose continuity, in itself, excludes all possibility of doubt on the authentic content of the Roman teaching (Dom Nau, Une source doctrinale: Les encycliques, p.75).
If we fail to take account of this difference, we are obliterating all distinction between the Extraordinary Magisterium and the Ordinary Magisterium:
No act of the Ordinary Magisterium as such, taken in isolation, could claim the prerogative which belongs to the supreme judgment. If it did so, it would cease to be the Ordinary Magisterium. An isolated act is infallible only if the supreme Judge engages his whole authority in it so that he cannot go back on it. Such an act cannot be "reversible" without being plainly subject to error. But it is precisely this kind of act, against which there can be no appeal, which constitutes the Solemn [or Extraordinary] Judgment, and which thus differs from the Ordinary Magisterium" (ibid., note 1).
It follows that
the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, whether of the Universal Church or that of the See of Rome, is not that of a judgment, not that of an act to be considered in isolation, as if it could itself provide all the light necessary for it to be clearly seen. It is that of the guarantee bestowed on a doctrine by the simultaneous or continuous convergence of a plurality of affirmations or explanations, none of which could bring positive certitude if it were taken by itself alone. Certitude can be expected only from the whole complex, but all the parts concur in making up that whole (Pope or Church? op. cit., p.18).
Dom Paul Nau explains further:
In the case of the [Ordinary] universal Magisterium, this whole complex is that of the concordant teaching of the bishops in communion with Rome; in the case of the Ordinary pontifical Magisterium [i.e., the pope alone - Ed.], it is the continuity of teaching of the successors of Peter: in other words, it is the "tradition of the Church of Rome," to which Msgr. Gasser appealed at Vatican I (Collana Lacensis, col.404).
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, O.F.M. Conv., Infaillible même dans les causes de canonisation? ENMI, Rome 1994, p.37).
The same thing applies to the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium of the Roman pope on his own: this Ordinary Magisterium is infallible not because each act is uttered by the pope, but because the particular teaching of which the pope's act consists "is inserted into a totality and a continuity" (Dom P.Nau, Le encycliques, op.cit.), which is that of the "series of Roman popes over time" (Martimort, op.cit.).
We can understand why, in their Ordinary Magisterium, the Roman popes have always been careful to associate themselves with their "venerable predecessors," often quoting them at length. "The Church speaks by Our mouth," said Pope Pius XI in the Casti Connubii. Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, emphasized that "most of the time what is set forth and taught in the encyclicals is already, for other reasons, part of the patrimony of Catholic doctrine."
The very particular nature of the pope's Ordinary Infallible Magisterium was quite clear until Vatican I. While this Council was in session, La Civiltà Cattolica, which published (and still publishes) under the direct control of the Holy See, replied in these words to Fr. Gratry, who had criticized Pope Paul IV's Bull cuм ex Apostolus:
We ask Fr. Gratry, in all serenity, whether he believes that the Bull of Paul IV is an isolated act, so to speak, or an act that is comparable to others of the same kind in the series of Roman popes. If he replies that it is an isolated act, his argument proves nothing, for he himself affirms that the Bull of Paul IV contains no dogmatic definition. If he replies, as he must, that this Bull is, in substance, conformable to countless other similar acts of the Holy See, his argument says far more than he would wish. In other words, he is saying that a long succession of Roman popes have made public and solemn acts of immorality and injustice against the principles of human reason, of impiety towards God, and of apostasy against the Gospel (vol.X, series VII, 1870, p.54).
This means, in effect, that an "isolated act" of the pope is infallible only in the context of a "dogmatic definition"; outside dogmatic definitions, i.e., in the Ordinary Magisterium, infallibility is guaranteed by the complex of "countless other similar acts of the Holy See," or of a "long succession" of the successors of Peter.
Practical Application
Because it declared itself to be non-dogmatic, the charism of infallibility cannot be claimed for the last Council, except insofar as it was re-iterating traditional teaching. Moreover, what is offered as the Ordinary Pontifical Magisterium of the recent popes - apart from certain acts - cannot claim the qualification of the "Ordinary Infallible Magisterium." The pontifical docuмents on the novelties which have troubled and confused the consciences of the faithful manifest no concern whatsoever to adhere to the teaching of "venerable predecessors." They cannot adhere to them because they have broken with them. Look at the footnotes of Dominus Jesus; it's as if the Magisterium of the preceding popes did not exist. It is clear that when today's popes contradict the traditional Magisterium of yesterday's popes, our obedience is due to yesterday's popes: this is a manifest sign of a period of grave ecclesial crisis, of abnormal times in the life of the Church.
Finally, it is evident that the New Theology, which is so unscrupulous in contradicting the traditional teaching of the Roman Pontiffs, contradicts the Infallible Pontifical Magisterium; accordingly, a Catholic must in all conscience reject and actively attack it.
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. Furthermore, it is not at the level of the Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium because the Council did not wish to be a dogmatic one, and because 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). Lastly, it is not at the level of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. The turmoil and division in the Catholic world have been provoked by a break with this doctrinal continuity. Such a break is the very opposite of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. Thus Paul VI's Humanae Vitae, or John Paul II's intervention against women's ordination in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis caused no dismay to the Church's obedient sons.
The present crisis is at the level of what is presented as the simply "authentic" Magisterium, which, as Cardinal Siri reminds us, "does not of itself imply infallibility" (Renovatio, op.cit.). But are we really dealing with the "authentic" Magisterium?
The author of Iota Unum [available from Angelus Press. Price: $24.95] wrote:
Nowadays it is no longer the case that every word of the pope constitutes Magisterium. Now, very frequently, it is no more than the expression of views, ideas and considerations that are to be found disseminated throughout the Church,...and of doctrines that have spread and become dominant in much theology ("Église et Contre-Église au Concile Vatican II," Second Theological Congress of SISINONO, Jan. 1996).
The Magisterium, however, even in its non-infallible form, should always be the teaching of the divine Word, even if uttered with a lesser degree of certitude. Nowadays, it is very often the case that "the Pope does not manifest the divine word entrusted to him," but rather "expresses his personal views" which are those of the New Theology. Here we are faced with a "manifestation of the decadence of the Church's Ordinary [`authentic'] Magisterium," a decadence which "is creating a very grave crisis for the Church, because it is the Church's central point which is suffering from it" (ibid.).
Can one really speak of the "authentic" Pontifical Magisterium, or would it be more accurate to speak of an almost total eclipse of the Authentic Pontifical Magisterium in the face of an analogous crisis at the level of the episcopal Magisterium?
The Danger of Being Drawn into Error
Catholic are least prepared to meet the crisis of the Authentic Pontifical Magisterium because of the confusion in their minds regarding the distinction between the pope's Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and his simply "authentic" Ordinary Magisterium. This problem was pointed out before Vatican II; it has caused and continues to cause Catholics to be drawn into error who wrongly believe that they should give equal assent to the pope's every word, neglecting the distinctions and precise conditions which we now review.
"The command to believe firmly and without examination of the matter in hand....can be truly binding only if the authority concerned is infallible" (Billot, De Ecclesia, thesis XVII). That is why a firm and unconditional assent is demanded in the case of the Infallible Magisterium (whether Extraordinary or Ordinary).
As regards those non-infallible doctrinal decisions given by the pope or by the Roman congregations, there is a strict duty of obedience which obliges us to give an internal assent ...that is prudent and habitually excludes all reasonable doubt, but this assent is legitimized [not by infallibility, but rather] by the high degree of prudence with which the ecclesiastical authority habitually acts in such circuмstances" (entry "Église" in DTC, vol.IV, co1.2209).
This is why we owe the "authentic" Magisterium not a blind and unconditional assent but a prudent and conditional one:
Since not everything taught by the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible, we must ask what kind of assent we should give to its various decisions. The Christian is required to give the assent of faith to all the doctrinal and moral truths defined by the Church's Magisterium. He is not required to give the same assent to teaching imparted by the sovereign pontiff that is not imposed on the whole Christian body as a dogma of faith. In this case it suffices to give that inner and religious assent which we give to legitimate ecclesiastical authority. This is not an absolute assent, because such decrees are not infallible, but only a prudential and conditional assent, since in questions of faith and morals there is a presumption in favor of one's superior....Such prudential assent does not eliminate the possibility of submitting the doctrine to a further examination, if that seems required by the gravity of the question (Nicolas Jung, Le Magistère de L’Èglise, 1935, pp.153,154).
Unfortunately, all these truths have disappeared from Catholic consciousness, just as the notion of the "authentic" Magisterium has. The Catholic world is all the more in danger of being drawn into error, since it nourishes the naive and erroneous conviction that God has never permitted the popes to be mistaken, even in the Ordinary Magisterium (and here no distinctions are drawn), and so imagine that the same assent should always be given to the papal Magisterium - which in no way corresponds to the Church's teaching.
Infallibility and the "Grace of State"
Our discussion of the "grace of state" of the sovereign pontiff proceeds in the context of the Authentic Magisterium. When the pope engages his infallibility, he enjoys a divine assistance that is entirely special, over and above the grace of state. Nonetheless, even infallibility does not reduce him to the level of an automaton. In fact:
The Divine assistance does not relieve the bearer of the infallible doctrinal power of the obligation of taking pains to know the truth, especially by means of the study of the sources of Revelation (Dz 1836).
That is why, in his Infallible Magisterium, the pope enjoys: 1) the positive assistance of the Holy Spirit so that he can attain the truth, and 2) the negative assistance which preserves him from error. Ultimately, in a case where a pope, by negligence or ill will, were to fail in his duty of seeking out the truth by the appropriate means, infallibility guarantees that God, through a purely negative assistance, would prevent the proclamation ex cathedra of an error.
This guarantee does not exist in the case of the Authentic Magisterium because it does not enjoy the charism of infallibility. That is why everything is entrusted to the grace of state alone, which impels the pope to act with that "high degree of prudence" which, normally, shines forth from the Authentic Magisterium of the successors of Peter. If, however, a pope were to fail to attain this, no divine promise guarantees God will intervene and stop him.
In such a case, indeed, the Catholic world would run the risk of being drawn into error. But it would not be because the pope lacked infallibility; under the due conditions, he would enjoy infallibility just like his predecessors. Nor would it be because he was deprived of the grace of state, but rather that he had not laid hold of that grace. The risk of this is all the greater since the principles we are here setting forth have fallen into oblivion.
When the Catholic world had a clear grasp of these principles the danger of being drawn into error was far less. In the history of the Church, we find it was the justified resistance of cardinals, Catholic universities, Catholic princes, religious, and simple faithful which blocked the faux pas of a number of popes, such as Popes John XXII and Sixtus V, concerning whom St. Robert Bellarmine wrote to Clement VIII:
Your Holiness knows the danger to which Sixtus V exposed himself and all the Church, when he undertook to correct Holy Scripture according to the lights of his own personal knowledge. Truly, I do not know whether the Church has ever been subject to a more grave danger (entry "Jésuites: travaux sur les Saintes Écritures" in F. Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible, vol.III, cols.1407-1408).
This danger was identified and rejected by the Catholic world. In reality, those who attribute infallibility always to the pope are doing a service neither to themselves, nor to the Church, nor to the pope himself, as the present times are plainly showing us. A pope's faux pas are a severe trial for the entire Catholic world.
Normal Times and Abnormal Times
In normal times the faithful can rely on the "authentic" Pontifical Magisterium with the same confidence with which they rely on the Infallible Magisterium. In normal times, it would be a very grave error to fail to take due account of even the simply "authentic" Magisterium of the Roman pope. This is because if everyone were permitted, in the presence of an act of the teaching authority, to suspend his assent or even to doubt or positively reject it on the grounds that it did not imply an infallible definition, it would result in the ecclesiastical Magisterium becoming practically illusory in concrete terms, because the ecclesiastical Magisterium is only relatively rarely expressed in definitions of this kind (DTC, vol.III, col.1110).
It must not be forgotten (as it has been forgotten nowadays) that the security of the Authentic Magisterium is not linked to infallibility, but to the "high degree of prudence" with which the successors of Peter "habitually" proceed, and to the "habitual" care they take never to swerve from the explicit and tacit teaching of their predecessors. Once this prudence and care are missing, we are no longer in normal times. In such a situation it would be a fatal error to equate the Authentic Magisterium of the Roman pontiff with his Infallible Magisterium (Ordinary or Extraordinary). These abnormal times are rare, thanks be to God, but they are not impossible. If we are not to be drawn into error, we urgently need to remember that the assent due to the non-infallible Magisterium is
...that of inward assent, not as of faith, but as of prudence, the refusal of which could not escape the mark of temerity, unless the doctrine rejected was an actual novelty or involved a manifest discordance between the pontifical affirmation and the doctrine which had hitherto been taught (Dom P.Nau, Pope or Church? op.cit. p.29).
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." Is this kind of "discordance" an impossible hypothesis? Dom Nau, whose attachment to the papacy was without doubt, wrote:
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).
In the case we are examining, evidence of error is provided where an act of the Authentic Magisterium is discordant with the Extraordinary or Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, i.e., discordant with the traditional doctrine, to which the Catholic conscience is bound for eternity.
Faith Does Not Require the Abdication of Logic
In conclusion we shall excerpt the text of a theologian, whose passing is much to be regretted, who had a very clear grasp of the doctrine we are recalling here, and who knew well that it had been brought into confusion by the New Theologians. In arguing against Joseph KIeiner on the manifest contradiction between Pope Pius VI's Auctorem Fidei, which condemns concelebration, and Pope Paul VI's Instructio, which encourages it, Fr. Joseph de SainteMarie, O.C.D., wrote:
Has it ever been known for the Magisterium to intervene against a declaration of the Magisterium? In his mind [i.e., ofJoseph Kleiner - Ed.] the reply must be in the negative: No, for the sake of the infallibility of the Magisterium. This infallibility does imply, of course, that the Church cannot contradict herself, but only under a condition which our author has forgotten, namely, that she engages the fullness of her infallibility in such an act; or, in the case of the Ordinary Magisterium (and we must take great care not to minimize the latter's authority), provided that it conforms to what the Infallible Magisterium teaches, either in its solemn acts or in its constant teaching. If these conditions are not respected, there is nothing impossible about one "intervention" of the Magisterium being in contradiction with another. There is nothing to trouble one's faith here, for infallibility is not involved; but people's Catholic sensibilities are right to be scandalized at it, for such facts reveal a profound disorder in the exercise of the Magisterium. To deny the existence of these facts in the name of an erroneous understanding of the Church's infallibility, and to deny it a priori, is to fly in the face of the demands of theology, of history, and of the most elementary common sense.
The facts are there. They cannot be denied. We have given an example of them, and others could be given. It will suffice to recall...the Institutio Generalis which introduces the Novus Ordo Missae, particularly its celebrated Article 7. There the dogmas of the Eucharist and the priesthood were presented in such ambiguous terms, and so obviously orientated towards Protestantism - to say no more - that they had to be rectified. This Institutio, however, constituted an "intervention by the Magisterium." Should it be accepted on that account, when it was going in a direction manifestly contrary to that of the Council of Trent, in which the Church had engaged her infallibility? If we were to follow the approach urged by Joseph Kleiner and so many others, the answer would be: "Yes." But to do this we would have to swallow the contradiction by denying that there is a contradiction - which is in itself contradictory. This would be a real abdication of the intellect, and it would leave us defenseless in the face of a principle of authority that would be totally outside the control of truth. Such an attitude is not in conformity with what the Magisterium itself requires of the faithful....Faith demands the submission of the intellect in the face of the Mystery that transcends it, not its abdication when confronted with the demands of intellectual coherence which pertain to its sphere of competence; judgment is a virtue of the intellect. That is why, when a contradiction is evident, as in the two cases we have just cited, the believer's duty (and, even more, the duty of the theologian) is to address the Magisterium and ask for the said contradiction to be removed (L’Eucharistie, salut du monde, Paris , ed.du Cèdre, 1981, p.56ff).
To this, nothing need be added, except perhaps to invite readers to pray the Divine Pity, through the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to remove, as soon as possible, this exceedingly severe trial from the Catholic world. - Hirpinus
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was translated by Graham hαɾɾιson for Angelus Press, edited and abridged by Fr. Kenneth Novak. For a more all-encompassing study, see Pope or Church? Essays on the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium (65pp.), available from Angelus Press. Price: $7.95.
-
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.
Umm......no.
Yes, that was supposed to say "accept as a validly canonized saint" and was only meant to refer to the false canonizations.
-
Sean Johnson
I haven't worked out how to copy quotes, but Fr Kenneth Novak's article which you posted above contains a quote which contains the essence of the R&R error.
"If the Ordinary [Universal/Infallible] Magisterium is to be infallible, it must be traditional." quotes Fr Novak.
Substitute Ordinary for Extraordinary and the same principle applies - the Extraordinary Magisterium is only infallible if it is 'traditional'. In other words, infallible no longer means infallible. It means only infallible if a certain standard being 'traditional' is met. It means not infallible at all.
The infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium means that when the pope teaches in union with the bishops of the world, that teaching is guaranteed by Heaven to be free from error. But the conciliar popes have been teaching error in union with the bishops of the world all these years. True popes are guaranteed by Heaven not to do this. The conciliar popes cannot be popes.
The R&R position holds that Heaven would allow true popes to teach error through one of the organs of infallibility of the Church, and impose upon the laity the task of discerning the error.
-
Sean Johnson
I haven't worked out how to copy quotes, but Fr Kenneth Novak's article which you posted above contains a quote which contains the essence of the R&R error.
"If the Ordinary [Universal/Infallible] Magisterium is to be infallible, it must be traditional." quotes Fr Novak.
Substitute Ordinary for Extraordinary and the same principle applies - the Extraordinary Magisterium is only infallible if it is 'traditional'. In other words, infallible no longer means infallible. It means only infallible if a certain standard being 'traditional' is met. It means not infallible at all.
The infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium means that when the pope teaches in union with the bishops of the world, that teaching is guaranteed by Heaven to be free from error. But the conciliar popes have been teaching error in union with the bishops of the world all these years. True popes are guaranteed by Heaven not to do this. The conciliar popes cannot be popes.
The R&R position holds that Heaven would allow true popes to teach error through one of the organs of infallibility of the Church, and impose upon the laity the task of discerning the error.
It is not Fr Novak ' article.
It is from SiSiNoNo, and the author is anonymous, writing under the pseudonym "Hirpinus. "
So far as the alleged error is concerned, I don't have time to debate sedes.
Suffice it to say that no serious pre - Vatican 2 theologians would claim the distinction of the authentic magisterium as novel (as the article citing the DTC, Dom Paul Nau, and Salaverri, et al demonstrate).
If you choose to ignore it to protect your position, that is between you and God.
-
Awkward customer said that the universal ordinary magisterium is the bishops of the world in union with the pope teaching X. Sean, you denied this claim (preferring to say that it is the "authentic" magisterium) and your denial is what I disagreed with.
The article you linked to deals with papal infallibility, categorizing the magisterium of the papacy as extraordinary, ordinary (both of which are infallible) or merely "authentic" which is not infallible.
But the universal ordinary magisterium is not part of papal infallibility as such but part of the Church's general infallibility in teaching the faithful. That infallibility is guaranteed when the bishops of the world, united to their head (the pope) all teach X. That is the universal ordinary magisterium, and it is infallible.
-
Awkward customer said that the universal ordinary magisterium is the bishops of the world in union with the pope teaching X. Sean, you denied this claim (preferring to say that it is the "authentic" magisterium) and your denial is what I disagreed with.
The article you linked to deals with papal infallibility, categorizing the magisterium of the papacy as extraordinary, ordinary (both of which are infallible) or merely "authentic" which is not infallible.
But the universal ordinary magisterium is not part of papal infallibility as such but part of the Church's general infallibility in teaching the faithful. That infallibility is guaranteed when the bishops of the world, united to their head (the pope) all teach X. That is the universal ordinary magisterium, and it is infallible.
Pretty sure nobody is claiming the ordinary infallible magisterium is not infallible.
What is being claimed is that not all acts of the ordinary magisterium are infallible (i.e., those which belong to the authentic, or fallible, ordinary magisterium...to which the V2 and post-V2 novelties belong).
-
Awkward customer said that the universal ordinary magisterium is the bishops of the world in union with the pope teaching X. Sean, you denied this claim (preferring to say that it is the "authentic" magisterium) and your denial is what I disagreed with.
The article you linked to deals with papal infallibility, categorizing the magisterium of the papacy as extraordinary, ordinary (both of which are infallible) or merely "authentic" which is not infallible.
But the universal ordinary magisterium is not part of papal infallibility as such but part of the Church's general infallibility in teaching the faithful. That infallibility is guaranteed when the bishops of the world, united to their head (the pope) all teach X. That is the universal ordinary magisterium, and it is infallible.
Pretty sure nobody is claiming the ordinary infallible magisterium is not infallible.
What is being claimed is that not all acts of the ordinary magisterium are infallible (i.e., those which belong to the authentic, or fallible, ordinary magisterium...to which the V2 and post-V2 novelties belong).
OK, what do you think the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church is? How do we know that a teaching is part of it?
-
Awkward customer said that the universal ordinary magisterium is the bishops of the world in union with the pope teaching X. Sean, you denied this claim (preferring to say that it is the "authentic" magisterium) and your denial is what I disagreed with.
The article you linked to deals with papal infallibility, categorizing the magisterium of the papacy as extraordinary, ordinary (both of which are infallible) or merely "authentic" which is not infallible.
But the universal ordinary magisterium is not part of papal infallibility as such but part of the Church's general infallibility in teaching the faithful. That infallibility is guaranteed when the bishops of the world, united to their head (the pope) all teach X. That is the universal ordinary magisterium, and it is infallible.
Pretty sure nobody is claiming the ordinary infallible magisterium is not infallible.
What is being claimed is that not all acts of the ordinary magisterium are infallible (i.e., those which belong to the authentic, or fallible, ordinary magisterium...to which the V2 and post-V2 novelties belong).
OK, what do you think the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church is? How do we know that a teaching is part of it?
Would that be the infallible universal ordinary magisterium, or the fallible universal ordinary magisterium?
-
Awkward customer said that the universal ordinary magisterium is the bishops of the world in union with the pope teaching X. Sean, you denied this claim (preferring to say that it is the "authentic" magisterium) and your denial is what I disagreed with.
The article you linked to deals with papal infallibility, categorizing the magisterium of the papacy as extraordinary, ordinary (both of which are infallible) or merely "authentic" which is not infallible.
But the universal ordinary magisterium is not part of papal infallibility as such but part of the Church's general infallibility in teaching the faithful. That infallibility is guaranteed when the bishops of the world, united to their head (the pope) all teach X. That is the universal ordinary magisterium, and it is infallible.
Pretty sure nobody is claiming the ordinary infallible magisterium is not infallible.
What is being claimed is that not all acts of the ordinary magisterium are infallible (i.e., those which belong to the authentic, or fallible, ordinary magisterium...to which the V2 and post-V2 novelties belong).
OK, what do you think the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church is? How do we know that a teaching is part of it?
Would that be the infallible universal ordinary magisterium, or the fallible universal ordinary magisterium?
The article you linked to deals with papal infallibility, categorizing the magisterium of the papacy as extraordinary, ordinary (both of which are infallible) or merely "authentic" which is not infallible.
But the universal ordinary magisterium is not part of papal infallibility as such but part of the Church's general infallibility in teaching the faithful. That infallibility is guaranteed when the bishops of the world, united to their head (the pope) all teach X. That is the universal ordinary magisterium, and it is infallible.
I'm assuming you read the article, yes? It doesn't touch on the universal ordinary magisterium. It deals with papal infallibility, and when and under what conditions THE POPE is infallible. But we're not talking about papal infallability.
-
Awkward customer said that the universal ordinary magisterium is the bishops of the world in union with the pope teaching X. Sean, you denied this claim (preferring to say that it is the "authentic" magisterium) and your denial is what I disagreed with.
The article you linked to deals with papal infallibility, categorizing the magisterium of the papacy as extraordinary, ordinary (both of which are infallible) or merely "authentic" which is not infallible.
But the universal ordinary magisterium is not part of papal infallibility as such but part of the Church's general infallibility in teaching the faithful. That infallibility is guaranteed when the bishops of the world, united to their head (the pope) all teach X. That is the universal ordinary magisterium, and it is infallible.
Pretty sure nobody is claiming the ordinary infallible magisterium is not infallible.
What is being claimed is that not all acts of the ordinary magisterium are infallible (i.e., those which belong to the authentic, or fallible, ordinary magisterium...to which the V2 and post-V2 novelties belong).
OK, what do you think the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church is? How do we know that a teaching is part of it?
Would that be the infallible universal ordinary magisterium, or the fallible universal ordinary magisterium?
The article you linked to deals with papal infallibility, categorizing the magisterium of the papacy as extraordinary, ordinary (both of which are infallible) or merely "authentic" which is not infallible.
But the universal ordinary magisterium is not part of papal infallibility as such but part of the Church's general infallibility in teaching the faithful. That infallibility is guaranteed when the bishops of the world, united to their head (the pope) all teach X. That is the universal ordinary magisterium, and it is infallible.
I'm assuming you read the article, yes? It doesn't touch on the universal ordinary magisterium. It deals with papal infallibility, and when and under what conditions THE POPE is infallible. But we're not talking about papal infallability.
Try this part again:
It makes it pretty clear that there is a fallible and an infallible universal ordinary magisterium (which is what you are disputing):
"What worries Catholics most in the current crisis in the Church is precisely the "problem of the Pope." We need very clear ideas on this question. We must avoid shipwreck to the right and to the left, either by the spirit of rebellion or, on the other hand, by an inappropriate and servile obedience. The serious error which is behind many current disasters is the belief that the "Authentic Magisterium" is nothing other than the "Ordinary Magisterium."
The "Authentic Magisterium" cannot be so simply identified with the Ordinary Magisterium. In fact, the Ordinary Magisterium can be infallible and non-infallible, and it is only in this second case that it is called the "Authentic Magisterium." The Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique [hereafter referred to as DTC - Ed.] under the heading of "papal infallibility" (vol. VII, col.1699ff) makes the following distinctions: 1) there is the "infallible or ex cathedra papal definition in the sense defined by Vatican I" (col.1699); 2) there is the "infallible papal teaching which flows from the pope's Ordinary Magisterium" (col.1705); 3) there is "non-infallible papal teaching" (col.1709).
Similarly, Salaverri, in his Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.) distinguishes the following: 1) Extraordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 592ff); 2) Ordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 645ff); 3) Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticuм, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility (no.659ff)."
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/2002_January/Popes_Infallible_Magisterium.htm
-
Sean Johnson
Nobody is disputing that there is an Ordinary Universal Magisterium which is infallible and an Ordinary Magisterium which is not infallible.
What you and the article seem to be claiming is that Vatican II belongs to the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium.
But it doesn't. Vatican II belongs to the infallible Ordinary Universal Magisterium because it has been preached by the Conciliar popes in union with the bishops of the world for over fifty years.
-
Sean Johnson
Nobody is disputing that there is an Ordinary Universal Magisterium which is infallible and an Ordinary Magisterium which is not infallible.
What you and the article seem to be claiming is that Vatican II belongs to the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium.
But it doesn't. Vatican II belongs to the infallible Ordinary Universal Magisterium because it has been preached by the Conciliar popes in union with the bishops of the world for over fifty years.
Since none of the novelties has any basis in tradition, it is impossible for them to be part of the ordinary infallible magisterium.
I stand by the article.
-
Can someone please tell me WTF Sean Johnson is talking about?
Sounds a lot like Clintonisms.
-
Can someone please tell me WTF Sean Johnson is talking about?
Sounds a lot like Clintonisms.
He is talking about the ordinary and the extraordinary magisterium of the Church and the authentic magisterium, which is not infallible, and how this relates to the V2 docuмents i.e., not infallible or free from error.
-
Can someone please tell me WTF Sean Johnson is talking about?
Sounds a lot like Clintonisms.
He is talking about the ordinary and the extraordinary magisterium of the Church and the authentic magisterium, which is not infallible, and how this relates to the V2 docuмents i.e., not infallible or free from error.
I'm referring to this post:
Since none of the novelties has any basis in tradition, it is impossible for them to be part of the ordinary infallible magisterium.
I guess it depends on what the definition of "is" is.
-
Awkward customer said that the universal ordinary magisterium is the bishops of the world in union with the pope teaching X. Sean, you denied this claim (preferring to say that it is the "authentic" magisterium) and your denial is what I disagreed with.
The article you linked to deals with papal infallibility, categorizing the magisterium of the papacy as extraordinary, ordinary (both of which are infallible) or merely "authentic" which is not infallible.
But the universal ordinary magisterium is not part of papal infallibility as such but part of the Church's general infallibility in teaching the faithful. That infallibility is guaranteed when the bishops of the world, united to their head (the pope) all teach X. That is the universal ordinary magisterium, and it is infallible.
Pretty sure nobody is claiming the ordinary infallible magisterium is not infallible.
What is being claimed is that not all acts of the ordinary magisterium are infallible (i.e., those which belong to the authentic, or fallible, ordinary magisterium...to which the V2 and post-V2 novelties belong).
OK, what do you think the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church is? How do we know that a teaching is part of it?
Would that be the infallible universal ordinary magisterium, or the fallible universal ordinary magisterium?
The article you linked to deals with papal infallibility, categorizing the magisterium of the papacy as extraordinary, ordinary (both of which are infallible) or merely "authentic" which is not infallible.
But the universal ordinary magisterium is not part of papal infallibility as such but part of the Church's general infallibility in teaching the faithful. That infallibility is guaranteed when the bishops of the world, united to their head (the pope) all teach X. That is the universal ordinary magisterium, and it is infallible.
I'm assuming you read the article, yes? It doesn't touch on the universal ordinary magisterium. It deals with papal infallibility, and when and under what conditions THE POPE is infallible. But we're not talking about papal infallability.
Try this part again:
It makes it pretty clear that there is a fallible and an infallible universal ordinary magisterium (which is what you are disputing):
"What worries Catholics most in the current crisis in the Church is precisely the "problem of the Pope." We need very clear ideas on this question. We must avoid shipwreck to the right and to the left, either by the spirit of rebellion or, on the other hand, by an inappropriate and servile obedience. The serious error which is behind many current disasters is the belief that the "Authentic Magisterium" is nothing other than the "Ordinary Magisterium."
The "Authentic Magisterium" cannot be so simply identified with the Ordinary Magisterium. In fact, the Ordinary Magisterium can be infallible and non-infallible, and it is only in this second case that it is called the "Authentic Magisterium." The Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique [hereafter referred to as DTC - Ed.] under the heading of "papal infallibility" (vol. VII, col.1699ff) makes the following distinctions: 1) there is the "infallible or ex cathedra papal definition in the sense defined by Vatican I" (col.1699); 2) there is the "infallible papal teaching which flows from the pope's Ordinary Magisterium" (col.1705); 3) there is "non-infallible papal teaching" (col.1709).
Similarly, Salaverri, in his Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.) distinguishes the following: 1) Extraordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 592ff); 2) Ordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 645ff); 3) Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticuм, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility (no.659ff)."
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/2002_January/Popes_Infallible_Magisterium.htm
"When the bishops of the world teach X in union with their head, X is part of the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church." Awkward customer made this claim, to which I agree, and to which I believe you denied. This is what I'm interested in arguing against.
I read that part of the article, and I read the rest. So my question to you, again (in slightly different words) is:
What do you call it when the bishops of the world, in union with the pope, teach X? Make whatever qualifications you think might be necessary in answering the question.
-
The Docuмents of Vatican II are not works of the Catholic Church, they are erroneous, and they contain heresies and blasphemies.
That is all we need to know.
Trying to fit them into one or another classification of the Church's teaching has no good purpose other than to fuel the endless speculations, distractions, and confusion.
Fifty years of these arguments have accomplished nothing.
What is needed is a genuine resistance to the revolution, and to the debauchery of the Faith.
-
Awkward customer said that the universal ordinary magisterium is the bishops of the world in union with the pope teaching X. Sean, you denied this claim (preferring to say that it is the "authentic" magisterium) and your denial is what I disagreed with.
The article you linked to deals with papal infallibility, categorizing the magisterium of the papacy as extraordinary, ordinary (both of which are infallible) or merely "authentic" which is not infallible.
But the universal ordinary magisterium is not part of papal infallibility as such but part of the Church's general infallibility in teaching the faithful. That infallibility is guaranteed when the bishops of the world, united to their head (the pope) all teach X. That is the universal ordinary magisterium, and it is infallible.
Pretty sure nobody is claiming the ordinary infallible magisterium is not infallible.
What is being claimed is that not all acts of the ordinary magisterium are infallible (i.e., those which belong to the authentic, or fallible, ordinary magisterium...to which the V2 and post-V2 novelties belong).
OK, what do you think the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church is? How do we know that a teaching is part of it?
Would that be the infallible universal ordinary magisterium, or the fallible universal ordinary magisterium?
The article you linked to deals with papal infallibility, categorizing the magisterium of the papacy as extraordinary, ordinary (both of which are infallible) or merely "authentic" which is not infallible.
But the universal ordinary magisterium is not part of papal infallibility as such but part of the Church's general infallibility in teaching the faithful. That infallibility is guaranteed when the bishops of the world, united to their head (the pope) all teach X. That is the universal ordinary magisterium, and it is infallible.
I'm assuming you read the article, yes? It doesn't touch on the universal ordinary magisterium. It deals with papal infallibility, and when and under what conditions THE POPE is infallible. But we're not talking about papal infallability.
Try this part again:
It makes it pretty clear that there is a fallible and an infallible universal ordinary magisterium (which is what you are disputing):
"What worries Catholics most in the current crisis in the Church is precisely the "problem of the Pope." We need very clear ideas on this question. We must avoid shipwreck to the right and to the left, either by the spirit of rebellion or, on the other hand, by an inappropriate and servile obedience. The serious error which is behind many current disasters is the belief that the "Authentic Magisterium" is nothing other than the "Ordinary Magisterium."
The "Authentic Magisterium" cannot be so simply identified with the Ordinary Magisterium. In fact, the Ordinary Magisterium can be infallible and non-infallible, and it is only in this second case that it is called the "Authentic Magisterium." The Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique [hereafter referred to as DTC - Ed.] under the heading of "papal infallibility" (vol. VII, col.1699ff) makes the following distinctions: 1) there is the "infallible or ex cathedra papal definition in the sense defined by Vatican I" (col.1699); 2) there is the "infallible papal teaching which flows from the pope's Ordinary Magisterium" (col.1705); 3) there is "non-infallible papal teaching" (col.1709).
Similarly, Salaverri, in his Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.) distinguishes the following: 1) Extraordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 592ff); 2) Ordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 645ff); 3) Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticuм, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility (no.659ff)."
http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/2002_January/Popes_Infallible_Magisterium.htm
"When the bishops of the world teach X in union with their head, X is part of the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church." Awkward customer made this claim, to which I agree, and to which I believe you denied. This is what I'm interested in arguing against.
I read that part of the article, and I read the rest. So my question to you, again (in slightly different words) is:
What do you call it when the bishops of the world, in union with the pope, teach X? Make whatever qualifications you think might be necessary in answering the question.
Mithrandylan-
We can either keep repeating the same things to eachother, or, you can offer a refutation of the legitimacy of the distinction between the infallible Ordinary magisterium and the fallible (ie., authentic) ordinary magisterium.
Your original contention was that no such thing existed.
If you are now admitting it does, I guess we can move on?
-
Can someone please tell me WTF Sean Johnson is talking about?
Sounds a lot like Clintonisms.
He is talking about the ordinary and the extraordinary magisterium of the Church and the authentic magisterium, which is not infallible, and how this relates to the V2 docuмents i.e., not infallible or free from error.
I'm referring to this post:
Since none of the novelties has any basis in tradition, it is impossible for them to be part of the ordinary infallible magisterium.
I guess it depends on what the definition of "is" is.
What part do you disagree with?
-
I'm repeating myself because you haven't answered my question.
I agree with the article in its division of three types of papal magisterium. At least, I see no reason to disagree with it. But this is all ancillary, since awkwardcustomer said:
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.
To which you said:
No.
These teachings are not part of the Church's ordinary magisterium.
They belong to what is called the authentic magisterium.
To which I asked, the still unanswered question:
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.
By "evidence for your position" I meant "your position" that when all the bishops teach X in union with the pope, that this exercise is not of the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church. That is what I've taken your position to be, and you have not corrected me.
You would rather rely on an article which proves that not everything THE POPE (alone, without regard to the bishops) does or says falls under infallibility and this is granted. But when all of the bishops together with the pope teach something, it is part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church and as such is protected from error. Among the reasons that this is true include the fact that for the pope together with all the bishops to teach a false doctrine would properly constitute a defection of the Church.
-
I'm repeating myself because you haven't answered my question.
I agree with the article in its division of three types of papal magisterium. At least, I see no reason to disagree with it. But this is all ancillary, since awkwardcustomer said:
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.
To which you said:
No.
These teachings are not part of the Church's ordinary magisterium.
They belong to what is called the authentic magisterium.
To which I asked, the still unanswered question:
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.
By "evidence for your position" I meant "your position" that when all the bishops teach X in union with the pope, that this exercise is not of the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church. That is what I've taken your position to be, and you have not corrected me.
You would rather rely on an article which proves that not everything THE POPE (alone, without regard to the bishops) does or says falls under infallibility and this is granted. But when all of the bishops together with the pope teach something, it is part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church and as such is protected from error. Among the reasons that this is true include the fact that for the pope together with all the bishops to teach a false doctrine would properly constitute a defection of the Church.
Wrong.
If what they are teaching is not contained or consistent with the ordinary infallible magisterium (and I am certain you would agree they are not) , then clearly these teachings are part of the fallible (i.e., authentic) magisterium.
-
Mith-
Perhaps this is the sticking poiont for you:
You seem to be focusing on the numbers (i.e., the bishops dispersed in union with the pope).
Rather, it is the CONTENT of what they are teaching which should hold your attention.
If the content is not contained or compatible with the ordinary infallible magisterium (whether it be a pope, or the pope and all the bishops, or just a bishop), then it can only represent the authentic magisterium.
Otherwise, you would be saying that teachings incompatible with the faith must be believed.
In other words, your solution to this fact is to deny these men hold any office in the Church.
My solution is simply to recognize the threefold magisterial distinction, and that these novel teachings of the authentic magisterium carry no weight.
Herein lies the heart of the conflict between sedes and R&R.
-
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.
-
I'm repeating myself because you haven't answered my question.
I agree with the article in its division of three types of papal magisterium. At least, I see no reason to disagree with it. But this is all ancillary, since awkwardcustomer said:
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.
To which you said:
No.
These teachings are not part of the Church's ordinary magisterium.
They belong to what is called the authentic magisterium.
To which I asked, the still unanswered question:
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.
By "evidence for your position" I meant "your position" that when all the bishops teach X in union with the pope, that this exercise is not of the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church. That is what I've taken your position to be, and you have not corrected me.
You would rather rely on an article which proves that not everything THE POPE (alone, without regard to the bishops) does or says falls under infallibility and this is granted. But when all of the bishops together with the pope teach something, it is part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church and as such is protected from error. Among the reasons that this is true include the fact that for the pope together with all the bishops to teach a false doctrine would properly constitute a defection of the Church.
Wrong.
If what they are teaching is not contained or consistent with the ordinary infallible magisterium (and I am certain you would agree they are not) , then clearly these teachings are part of the fallible (i.e., authentic) magisterium.
You are dodging.
All agree that the Vatican II and post Vatican II heresies and errors against the Faith are not part of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. The relevant question is why.
All of the post Vatican II heresies and errors have been taught throughout the world in moral unity with the "pope."
-
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.
-
I'm repeating myself because you haven't answered my question.
I agree with the article in its division of three types of papal magisterium. At least, I see no reason to disagree with it. But this is all ancillary, since awkwardcustomer said:
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.
To which you said:
No.
These teachings are not part of the Church's ordinary magisterium.
They belong to what is called the authentic magisterium.
To which I asked, the still unanswered question:
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.
By "evidence for your position" I meant "your position" that when all the bishops teach X in union with the pope, that this exercise is not of the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church. That is what I've taken your position to be, and you have not corrected me.
You would rather rely on an article which proves that not everything THE POPE (alone, without regard to the bishops) does or says falls under infallibility and this is granted. But when all of the bishops together with the pope teach something, it is part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church and as such is protected from error. Among the reasons that this is true include the fact that for the pope together with all the bishops to teach a false doctrine would properly constitute a defection of the Church.
Wrong.
If what they are teaching is not contained or consistent with the ordinary infallible magisterium (and I am certain you would agree they are not) , then clearly these teachings are part of the fallible (i.e., authentic) magisterium.
You are dodging.
All agree that the Vatican II and post Vatican II heresies and errors against the Faith are not part of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. The relevant question is why.
All of the post Vatican II heresies and errors have been taught throughout the world in moral unity with the "pope."
Ambrose-
There are only three options, and if we both agree these novelties have one place in the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium, the authentic magisterium is the only remaining option.
-
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.
-
Ambrosius, neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos.
-
Sean, how do you know that something is part of Catholic Tradition?
-
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.
-
Sean, how do you know that something is part of Catholic Tradition?
Mithrandylan-
Because it contained in the ordinary or extraordinary infallible magisterium.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
lol.
He said don't cast your pearls before swine.
-
Does anyone here have actually READ the Vatican II docuмents with their OWN EYES instead of being misled by those with an agenda?
-
lol.
He said don't cast your pearls before swine.
LOL. What does margaritas mean in Latin then?
-
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).
-
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:
margarita, margaritae
noun
declension: 1st declension
gender: feminine
Definitions:
pearl
-
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:
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.
-
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:
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.
2Vermont, you too are invited as you seem to be a soul with good will in search of truth (a rarity in these times).
Pax,
Ferdinand
-
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.
-
PV:
What argument has Mgr Williamson put forward in this newsletter against either liberalism or sedevacantism?
Nothing.
Hence there is nothing here to get angry about.
I'm afraid I have to agree. This EC, to be perfectly honest, added nothing to my religious or theological pool of knowledge. I was not edified by the bishop's latest offering, because, basically, I really did not understand the contents of it. Nor did I feel that they helped me better deal with some deep insoluble issues concerning either liberalism or sedevacantism. I am frankly tired of both those subjects. Traditionalists on this and other information sites fiddle endlessly over them while Rome burns, IMO.
-
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).
This vulgar language speaks of ignorance.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt though so tell me which, in your opinion, was the most grave error of Vatican 2 and in what exact docuмent is found.
-
Another EC induced miasma of confusion and distraction.
-
PV: What argument has Mgr Williamson put forward in this newsletter against either liberalism or sedevacantism?
Nothing.
Hence there is nothing here to get angry about.
I'm afraid I have to agree. This EC, to be perfectly honest, added nothing to my religious or theological pool of knowledge. I was not edified by the bishop's latest offering, because, basically, I really did not understand the contents of it. Nor did I feel that they helped me better deal with some deep insoluble issues concerning either liberalism or sedevacantism. I am frankly tired of both those subjects. Traditionalists on this and other information sites fiddle endlessly over them while Rome burns, IMO.
Unfortunately, fact of the matter, even if we didn't fiddle endlessly it looks like Rome would still continue to burn.
So .... we fiddle.
-
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).
This vulgar language speaks of ignorance.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt though so tell me which, in your opinion, was the most grave error of Vatican 2 and in what exact docuмent is found.
-
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).
This vulgar language speaks of ignorance.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt though so tell me which, in your opinion, was the most grave error of Vatican 2 and in what exact docuмent is found.
You're the one who changed the topic, and who, contrary to the general consensus of traditionalists, is implying that there isn't error in the VII docuмents (why else would you enter a discussion which presupposes error and ask if people had even read the docuмents?). The onus is on YOU, topic changer, to make your case. You don't get to jump into a discussion, change the topic, and then demand proofs against the very foundation of traditionalism.
-
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).
This vulgar language speaks of ignorance.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt though so tell me which, in your opinion, was the most grave error of Vatican 2 and in what exact docuмent is found.
You're the one who changed the topic, and who, contrary to the general consensus of traditionalists, is implying that there isn't error in the VII docuмents (why else would you enter a discussion which presupposes error and ask if people had even read the docuмents?). The onus is on YOU, topic changer, to make your case. You don't get to jump into a discussion, change the topic, and then demand proofs against the very foundation of traditionalism.
Yes, why did she change the topic so abruptly? I'm guessing because the sedes were making way too much sense.
-
Maybe she thinks she's helping Sean. If there's no error in VII, then obviously there's no problem with it being taught, whether fallibly or infallibly. Of course, in taking this route, one disavows any justification whatever in attending SSPX and other traditional groups, in rejecting the Novus Ordo and everything else that makes a traditionalist a traditionalist.
If regular programming resumes, we are awaiting Sean's answer to the question "how do we know what is in the universal ordinary magisterium?"
-
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?
By using the rule of St Vincent Lerrins:
"That which has been taught always and everywhere."
Or do you say he was a heretic for teaching thusly?
-
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?
By using the rule of St Vincent Lerrins:
"That which has been taught always and everywhere."
Or do you say he was a heretic for teaching thusly?
How would Catholics living before St. Vincent's time recognize the universal ordinary magisterium?
-
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?
By using the rule of St Vincent Lerrins:
"That which has been taught always and everywhere."
Or do you say he was a heretic for teaching thusly?
How would Catholics living before St. Vincent's time recognize the universal ordinary magisterium?
Pretty sure they too would hold fast to that which has been taught always and everywhere.
-
I asked how Catholics would recognize the UOM, not what they would learn having recognized it.
How do they recognize it in the first place? To say "that which has always and everywhere been taught" is to give a non-answer, and a circular fallacy. The point of the UOM is to teach, and the point of being subject to the UOM is to learn. You are presupposing the very faith learned from the UOM in order to identify the UOM.
It doesn't work that way, it can't work that way.
-
I asked how Catholics would recognize the UOM, not what they would learn having recognized it.
How do they recognize it in the first place? To say "that which has always and everywhere been taught" is to give a non-answer, and a circular fallacy. The point of the UOM is to teach, and the point of being subject to the UOM is to learn. You are presupposing the very faith learned from the UOM in order to identify the UOM.
It doesn't work that way, it can't work that way.
No, that is the argument you are trying to maintain to support sedevacantism.
The very fact the St Vincent's "Commonitorium" instructs Catholics how to distinguish sound doctrine from novelties (ie., the infallible ordinary magisterium from the authentic/fallible ordinary magisterium) presupposes such novelties and errors from the magisterium are possible.
-
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?
Actually, Sean, I have never understood the polemical rationale behind R&R partisans attempting to dub sedevacantists "The Enterprise".
Are you suggesting that sedes "boldly go where no man has gone before"?
-
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?
Actually, Sean, I have never understood the polemical rationale behind R&R partisans attempting to dub sedevacantists "The Enterprise".
Are you suggesting that sedes "boldly go where no man has gone before"?
Hi Pete-
You are certainly correct that sedevacantists go where no Catholic has gone before.
-
I asked how Catholics would recognize the UOM, not what they would learn having recognized it.
How do they recognize it in the first place? To say "that which has always and everywhere been taught" is to give a non-answer, and a circular fallacy. The point of the UOM is to teach, and the point of being subject to the UOM is to learn. You are presupposing the very faith learned from the UOM in order to identify the UOM.
It doesn't work that way, it can't work that way.
No, that is the argument you are trying to maintain to support sedevacantism.
Ha, well, I'm not the one who spent two weeks and half a dozen threads trying to convince everyone that canonizations are fallible, even going as far to use a Novus Ordo priest from a secular news source as "proof."
I'm not interested in politics, crisis positions or retaining a status quo. If the Catholic Church teaches something, I want to know what it is and believe it.
The very fact the St Vincent's "Commonitorium" instructs Catholics how to distinguish sound doctrine from novelties (ie., the infallible ordinary magisterium from the authentic/fallible ordinary magisterium) presupposes such novelties and errors from the magisterium are possible.
It does not presuppose that error and novelty are possible from the Church, but from heretics (who attempt to hide in it).
St. Vincent is not making the juxtaposition you are, of "sound doctrine=infallible ordinary magisterium" and "heresy=fallible magisterium." He is advising Catholics how to discern Tradition from novelty, but he is not admitting that the Catholic Church can be the author of novelty, which is what you are saying by assigning it to the UOM (all of the bishops together with the pope).
-
I await Sean's eventual latest retraction. It may be in two weeks or two months, but it's coming.
-
I asked how Catholics would recognize the UOM, not what they would learn having recognized it.
How do they recognize it in the first place? To say "that which has always and everywhere been taught" is to give a non-answer, and a circular fallacy. The point of the UOM is to teach, and the point of being subject to the UOM is to learn. You are presupposing the very faith learned from the UOM in order to identify the UOM.
It doesn't work that way, it can't work that way.
No, that is the argument you are trying to maintain to support sedevacantism.
Ha, well, I'm not the one who spent two weeks and half a dozen threads trying to convince everyone that canonizations are fallible, even going as far to use a Novus Ordo priest from a secular news source as "proof."
I'm not interested in politics, crisis positions or retaining a status quo. If the Catholic Church teaches something, I want to know what it is and believe it.
The very fact the St Vincent's "Commonitorium" instructs Catholics how to distinguish sound doctrine from novelties (ie., the infallible ordinary magisterium from the authentic/fallible ordinary magisterium) presupposes such novelties and errors from the magisterium are possible.
It does not presuppose that error and novelty are possible from the Church, but from heretics (who attempt to hide in it).
St. Vincent is not making the juxtaposition you are, of "sound doctrine=infallible ordinary magisterium" and "heresy=fallible magisterium." He is advising Catholics how to discern Tradition from novelty, but he is not admitting that the Catholic Church can be the author of novelty, which is what you are saying by assigning it to the UOM (all of the bishops together with the pope).
Which UOM are you speaking of?
I notice you don't like to spell out that distinction, as you rightly sense it mitigates against the sedevacantist position.
So, when you speak of the "UOM" in the future, please indicate whether you are speaking of the universal ordinary infallible magisterium, or the universal ordinary fallible magisterium (to which Vatican 2 and the lions share of post-V2 Vatican 2 teachings belong).
PS: Please cite where I say that error is possible from the Church. The whole point (which you have conveniently missed several times) is that those novel teachings of the authentic magisterium do not come from the infallible ordinary magisterium of the Church.
-
I am glad to see that the good Bishop has settled yet another matter after another twenty five pages.
We can look forward to another potboiler by the end of the week.... :facepalm:
-
Sean Johnson,
There's no such thing as the 'universal ordinary fallible magisterium'.
There's only the Ordinary Universal Magisterium which is infallible;
and the Ordinary Magisterium which is not infallible.
-
J.Paul,
But the argument IS settled.
And here it is in a nutshell.
The Ordinary Universal Magisterium is infallible. It's teachings are therefore guaranteed by the Holy Ghost to be free of error. There is absolutely no need to subject such teachings to an additional 'Tradition' test.
The Ordinary Universal Magisterium consists of the pope teaching in union with the bishops of the world.
The Conciliar popes have been preaching Vatican II in union with the bishops of the world for over 50 years.
If the Conciliar popes are true popes, Vatican II is covered by the infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. It's teachings are therefore guaranteed by the Holy Ghost to be free of error.
-
J.Paul,
But the argument IS settled.
And here it is in a nutshell.
The Ordinary Universal Magisterium is infallible. It's teachings are therefore guaranteed by the Holy Ghost to be free of error. There is absolutely no need to subject such teachings to an additional 'Tradition' test.
The Ordinary Universal Magisterium consists of the pope teaching in union with the bishops of the world.
The Conciliar popes have been preaching Vatican II in union with the bishops of the world for over 50 years.
If the Conciliar popes are true popes, Vatican II is covered by the infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. It's teachings are therefore guaranteed by the Holy Ghost to be free of error.
Thanks for the good laugh!
-
J.Paul,
But the argument IS settled.
And here it is in a nutshell.
The Ordinary Universal Magisterium is infallible. It's teachings are therefore guaranteed by the Holy Ghost to be free of error. There is absolutely no need to subject such teachings to an additional 'Tradition' test.
Sorry awkward, but the OUM is not always infallible, Pope Pius IX's letter, Tuas Libenter, testifies to that fact. All we need to accept is that he never would have had any need to write the letter if the guarantee of infallibility, automatically extended to the Ordinary Universal Magisterium - or are we to presume he was wrong on that?
The Ordinary Universal Magisterium consists of the pope teaching in union with the bishops of the world.
The Conciliar popes have been preaching Vatican II in union with the bishops of the world for over 50 years.
If the Conciliar popes are true popes, Vatican II is covered by the infallibility of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. It's teachings are therefore guaranteed by the Holy Ghost to be free of error.
This whole "infallibility" thing is a syndrome, it's as though it consumes the thoughts and minds of those who venture into the arena of infallibility.
Here are the facts to concern yourself with:
The Church is indefectible and it will be so whether the Chair is vacant or not or if the pope is good or evil and has all the bishops with him. If this doctrine of indefectibility of the Church be true, the only One Who will prove it true is Christ the Lord in His own time.
Whether the See is vacant or not and if all the hierarchy are apostate wolves or not, the great and holy Doctrines of Infallibility and Indefectibility will remain true, and we believe them to be so because they were given to the Church for its necessary protection by Him Who knew what terrible storms it would have to survive, and Who has all power.
If these two Doctrines of Infallibility and Indefectibility be true, then whatever the popes alone or with the bishops have said or done, and whatever they ever say or do, will not be a violation of the Church' s attribute of infallibility. And no matter what anyone does, whether from within or without, he will not succeed in destroying the Church.
The enemies of Christ's Church do not believe this, which explains why they will never cease to try.
:popcorn:
-
I asked how Catholics would recognize the UOM, not what they would learn having recognized it.
How do they recognize it in the first place? To say "that which has always and everywhere been taught" is to give a non-answer, and a circular fallacy. The point of the UOM is to teach, and the point of being subject to the UOM is to learn. You are presupposing the very faith learned from the UOM in order to identify the UOM.
It doesn't work that way, it can't work that way.
No, that is the argument you are trying to maintain to support sedevacantism.
Ha, well, I'm not the one who spent two weeks and half a dozen threads trying to convince everyone that canonizations are fallible, even going as far to use a Novus Ordo priest from a secular news source as "proof."
I'm not interested in politics, crisis positions or retaining a status quo. If the Catholic Church teaches something, I want to know what it is and believe it.
The very fact the St Vincent's "Commonitorium" instructs Catholics how to distinguish sound doctrine from novelties (ie., the infallible ordinary magisterium from the authentic/fallible ordinary magisterium) presupposes such novelties and errors from the magisterium are possible.
It does not presuppose that error and novelty are possible from the Church, but from heretics (who attempt to hide in it).
St. Vincent is not making the juxtaposition you are, of "sound doctrine=infallible ordinary magisterium" and "heresy=fallible magisterium." He is advising Catholics how to discern Tradition from novelty, but he is not admitting that the Catholic Church can be the author of novelty, which is what you are saying by assigning it to the UOM (all of the bishops together with the pope).
Which UOM are you speaking of?
I notice you don't like to spell out that distinction, as you rightly sense it mitigates against the sedevacantist position.
So, when you speak of the "UOM" in the future, please indicate whether you are speaking of the universal ordinary infallible magisterium, or the universal ordinary fallible magisterium (to which Vatican 2 and the lions share of post-V2 Vatican 2 teachings belong).
PS: Please cite where I say that error is possible from the Church. The whole point (which you have conveniently missed several times) is that those novel teachings of the authentic magisterium do not come from the infallible ordinary magisterium of the Church.
I figured the term "universal" would have tipped you off.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31979#p0
That is a link to Tanquerey on the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Here is an excerpt:
"1. The Morally Unanimous Preaching (Teaching) of the Bishops
290 Bishops teach the flock entrusted and subject to them by means of catechisms, by synodal directives, mandates, and in public sermons. If it is evident from these docuмents that some doctrine is being set forth universally as an object of faith, then nothing else is required for this doctrine to be accepted de fide. Bishops spread throughout the world, but with the Roman Pontiff forming one Corporate Body, are infallible when declaring a teaching on faith or morals."
Here is Ott:
Ott, Ludwig. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Trans. Lynch. 4th ed. reprint. Tan. 1974. p 300.
"The Bishops exercise their infallible teaching power in an ordinary manner when they, in heir dioceses, in moral unity with the pope, unanimously promulgate the same teachings on faith and morals. The Vatican Council expressly declared that also the truths of Revelation proposed as such by the ordinary and general teaching office of the Church are to be firmly held with "divine and catholic faith" (D 1792). But the incuмbents of the ordinary and general teaching office of the Church are members of the whole episcopate scattered over the whole earth. The agreement of the Bishops in doctrine may be determined from the catechisms issued by them, from their pastoral letters, from the prayer books approved by them and from the resolutions of particular synods. A morally general agreement suffices, bit in this the express or tacit assent of the Pope, as the supreme head of the Episcopate, is essential."
Mgr. Van Noort, G. S.T.D. Dogmatic Theology Vol. II: Christ's Church. Trans. Castelot & Murphy. Newman. 1957. pp 330-332. (see attachments below)
These authors teach (and more can be provided, indefinitely) that all of the bishops teaching in union with their head are infallible, i.e., they are protected from error. The idea that they must also teach something traditional (and then are infallible) is perfectly circular. The very purpose of infallibility is to assure, ensure and guarantee that no other teaching is even possible given these conditions.
-
Sorry, the attachments above are sideways. I just put them up on Scribd instead: http://www.scribd.com/doc/226459823/Van-Noort-on-the-OUM
-
Another twenty five anyone???
-
Pope Pius IX's letter, Tuas Libenter, testifies to that fact. All we need to accept is that he never would have had any need to write the letter if the guarantee of infallibility, automatically extended to the Ordinary Universal Magisterium - or are we to presume he was wrong on that?
Could you please provide this letter and highlight the support for this?
-
Pope Pius IX's letter, Tuas Libenter, testifies to that fact. All we need to accept is that he never would have had any need to write the letter if the guarantee of infallibility, automatically extended to the Ordinary Universal Magisterium - or are we to presume he was wrong on that?
Could you please provide this letter and highlight the support for this?
Here (http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php/Tuas-libenter) is the most complete letter I personally have yet to see.
Below is a snip and a few examples, which is enough, I think, to exemplify as being wrong those who say the OUM is incapable of teaching error.
.....For the rest, We cannot hide from you that We have been made rather anxious: for We feared that the example of this Congress, assembled independently of the ecclesiastical authority, might little by little do damage to the right of spiritual government and legitimate teaching which, in virtue of the divine institution, belongs properly to the Roman Pontiff and to the bishops who in union and agreement with the Successor of St. Peter; and that, as a consequence of this harm done to the government of the Church, the principle of unity and obedience in matters of faith might eventually be weakened in many souls. We feared also lest, in the same Congress, opinions and systems might be aired and supported which, by reason above all of the publicity given to them, would imperil the purity of doctrine and the duty of obedience.
1) First if anything that is taught from the ordinary universal magisterium is guaranteed to be free from the possibility of error - then there would have been zero reason for Pope Pius IX to even write the letter.
2) Why would the pope have "been made rather anxious" at all if the ordinary universal magisterium is incapable of teaching error?
3) Why would he fear that the ordinary universal magisterium, "might little by little do damage to the right of spiritual government and legitimate teaching" if it is a teaching of the Church that the ordinary universal magisterium cannot err in it's teaching?
4) The reason the letter was written at all, and the reason the pope was made rather anxious and the reason he was afraid ("We feared also") was because the teaching authority that the ordinary universal magisterium have, certainly can be abused. "We feared also lest, in the same Congress, opinions and systems might be aired and supported which, by reason above all of the publicity given to them, would imperil the purity of doctrine and the duty of obedience."
-
Why to complicate matters in the pursuit of biased agendas?
Infallibility is a historical reality that exists to ensure the perpetuity of what God has divinely revealed to HIS people. The gift of infallibility to the Church will last until the end of time. The Holy Ghost enlightens and assists the people of God inasmuch as it is the Body if Christ united in a hierarchical communion, with Blessed Peter as the visible head.
How to distinguish what is infallible from what is not? No theory of infallibility can be true if the historical facts are against it. It is very simple.
-
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?"
The insanity/inanity is reaching a fever pitch.
You say very well here.
Why is it so difficult for so many to see?
By his actions we can know that +W has an agenda, and this agenda is neither the defense and propagation of the Catholic Faith nor the building up of the Christian edifice.
We also know the fruits of this agenda: endless divisions; endless hair splittings; endless wasting of precious time; endless diversions away from what is most important for the Church; endless dissolution of Catholic militancy; endless vain tinkering with immortal souls.
It's positively shameful.
-
The Docuмents of Vatican II are not works of the Catholic Church, they are erroneous, and they contain heresies and blasphemies.
That is all we need to know.
Trying to fit them into one or another classification of the Church's teaching has no good purpose other than to fuel the endless speculations, distractions, and confusion.
Fifty years of these arguments have accomplished nothing.
What is needed is a genuine resistance to the revolution, and to the debauchery of the Faith.
The sons of Williamson practice diversionism like their father.
-
It seems that R&R exists to destroy SV, rather than to destroy modernism.
That is not from God.
-
PV: What argument has Mgr Williamson put forward in this newsletter against either liberalism or sedevacantism?
Nothing.
Hence there is nothing here to get angry about.
I'm afraid I have to agree. This EC, to be perfectly honest, added nothing to my religious or theological pool of knowledge. I was not edified by the bishop's latest offering, because, basically, I really did not understand the contents of it. Nor did I feel that they helped me better deal with some deep insoluble issues concerning either liberalism or sedevacantism. I am frankly tired of both those subjects. Traditionalists on this and other information sites fiddle endlessly over them while Rome burns, IMO.
Yup.
-
I asked how Catholics would recognize the UOM, not what they would learn having recognized it.
How do they recognize it in the first place? To say "that which has always and everywhere been taught" is to give a non-answer, and a circular fallacy. The point of the UOM is to teach, and the point of being subject to the UOM is to learn. You are presupposing the very faith learned from the UOM in order to identify the UOM.
It doesn't work that way, it can't work that way.
No, that is the argument you are trying to maintain to support sedevacantism.
Ha, well, I'm not the one who spent two weeks and half a dozen threads trying to convince everyone that canonizations are fallible, even going as far to use a Novus Ordo priest from a secular news source as "proof."
I'm not interested in politics, crisis positions or retaining a status quo. If the Catholic Church teaches something, I want to know what it is and believe it.
The very fact the St Vincent's "Commonitorium" instructs Catholics how to distinguish sound doctrine from novelties (ie., the infallible ordinary magisterium from the authentic/fallible ordinary magisterium) presupposes such novelties and errors from the magisterium are possible.
It does not presuppose that error and novelty are possible from the Church, but from heretics (who attempt to hide in it).
St. Vincent is not making the juxtaposition you are, of "sound doctrine=infallible ordinary magisterium" and "heresy=fallible magisterium." He is advising Catholics how to discern Tradition from novelty, but he is not admitting that the Catholic Church can be the author of novelty, which is what you are saying by assigning it to the UOM (all of the bishops together with the pope).
Which UOM are you speaking of?
I notice you don't like to spell out that distinction, as you rightly sense it mitigates against the sedevacantist position.
So, when you speak of the "UOM" in the future, please indicate whether you are speaking of the universal ordinary infallible magisterium, or the universal ordinary fallible magisterium (to which Vatican 2 and the lions share of post-V2 Vatican 2 teachings belong).
PS: Please cite where I say that error is possible from the Church. The whole point (which you have conveniently missed several times) is that those novel teachings of the authentic magisterium do not come from the infallible ordinary magisterium of the Church.
I figured the term "universal" would have tipped you off.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31979#p0
That is a link to Tanquerey on the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Here is an excerpt:
"1. The Morally Unanimous Preaching (Teaching) of the Bishops
290 Bishops teach the flock entrusted and subject to them by means of catechisms, by synodal directives, mandates, and in public sermons. If it is evident from these docuмents that some doctrine is being set forth universally as an object of faith, then nothing else is required for this doctrine to be accepted de fide. Bishops spread throughout the world, but with the Roman Pontiff forming one Corporate Body, are infallible when declaring a teaching on faith or morals."
Here is Ott:
Ott, Ludwig. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Trans. Lynch. 4th ed. reprint. Tan. 1974. p 300.
"The Bishops exercise their infallible teaching power in an ordinary manner when they, in heir dioceses, in moral unity with the pope, unanimously promulgate the same teachings on faith and morals. The Vatican Council expressly declared that also the truths of Revelation proposed as such by the ordinary and general teaching office of the Church are to be firmly held with "divine and catholic faith" (D 1792). But the incuмbents of the ordinary and general teaching office of the Church are members of the whole episcopate scattered over the whole earth. The agreement of the Bishops in doctrine may be determined from the catechisms issued by them, from their pastoral letters, from the prayer books approved by them and from the resolutions of particular synods. A morally general agreement suffices, bit in this the express or tacit assent of the Pope, as the supreme head of the Episcopate, is essential."
Mgr. Van Noort, G. S.T.D. Dogmatic Theology Vol. II: Christ's Church. Trans. Castelot & Murphy. Newman. 1957. pp 330-332. (see attachments below)
These authors teach (and more can be provided, indefinitely) that all of the bishops teaching in union with their head are infallible, i.e., they are protected from error. The idea that they must also teach something traditional (and then are infallible) is perfectly circular. The very purpose of infallibility is to assure, ensure and guarantee that no other teaching is even possible given these conditions.
Mith-
I have all these books, and subscribe to all the teachings contained therein.
But the passages you cite do not tell the full story.
For example:
At Vatican II, we had the pope teaching in communion with all the bishops of the world.
You say that (if I accept these popes and bishops as legitimate) it makes Vatican II part of the universal infallible magisterium.
Yet we have quotes from both John XXIII and Paul VI denying infallibility for Vatican II.
To quote Salaverri:
"It is necessary to know "what degree of assent is due to the decrees of the sovereign pontiff when he is teaching at a level which is not that of infallibility, i.e., when he is not exercising the supreme degree of his doctrinal authority" (Salaverri, op.cit., no.659)."
Clearly, therefore, despite the pope teaching in communion with all the world's bishops, these popes did not wish (by their own admissions) these teachings to be infallible.
Therefore, they do not belong to the universal infallible ordinary magisterium, but to the fallible universal ordinary magisterium.
Perhaps it is just easier to distinguish between ordinary and authentic magisterium?
-
I am glad to see that the good Bishop has settled yet another matter after another twenty five pages.
We can look forward to another potboiler by the end of the week.... :facepalm:
:jester: :jester: :jester:
-
I asked how Catholics would recognize the UOM, not what they would learn having recognized it.
How do they recognize it in the first place? To say "that which has always and everywhere been taught" is to give a non-answer, and a circular fallacy. The point of the UOM is to teach, and the point of being subject to the UOM is to learn. You are presupposing the very faith learned from the UOM in order to identify the UOM.
It doesn't work that way, it can't work that way.
No, that is the argument you are trying to maintain to support sedevacantism.
Ha, well, I'm not the one who spent two weeks and half a dozen threads trying to convince everyone that canonizations are fallible, even going as far to use a Novus Ordo priest from a secular news source as "proof."
I'm not interested in politics, crisis positions or retaining a status quo. If the Catholic Church teaches something, I want to know what it is and believe it.
The very fact the St Vincent's "Commonitorium" instructs Catholics how to distinguish sound doctrine from novelties (ie., the infallible ordinary magisterium from the authentic/fallible ordinary magisterium) presupposes such novelties and errors from the magisterium are possible.
It does not presuppose that error and novelty are possible from the Church, but from heretics (who attempt to hide in it).
St. Vincent is not making the juxtaposition you are, of "sound doctrine=infallible ordinary magisterium" and "heresy=fallible magisterium." He is advising Catholics how to discern Tradition from novelty, but he is not admitting that the Catholic Church can be the author of novelty, which is what you are saying by assigning it to the UOM (all of the bishops together with the pope).
Which UOM are you speaking of?
I notice you don't like to spell out that distinction, as you rightly sense it mitigates against the sedevacantist position.
So, when you speak of the "UOM" in the future, please indicate whether you are speaking of the universal ordinary infallible magisterium, or the universal ordinary fallible magisterium (to which Vatican 2 and the lions share of post-V2 Vatican 2 teachings belong).
PS: Please cite where I say that error is possible from the Church. The whole point (which you have conveniently missed several times) is that those novel teachings of the authentic magisterium do not come from the infallible ordinary magisterium of the Church.
I figured the term "universal" would have tipped you off.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31979#p0
That is a link to Tanquerey on the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Here is an excerpt:
"1. The Morally Unanimous Preaching (Teaching) of the Bishops
290 Bishops teach the flock entrusted and subject to them by means of catechisms, by synodal directives, mandates, and in public sermons. If it is evident from these docuмents that some doctrine is being set forth universally as an object of faith, then nothing else is required for this doctrine to be accepted de fide. Bishops spread throughout the world, but with the Roman Pontiff forming one Corporate Body, are infallible when declaring a teaching on faith or morals."
Here is Ott:
Ott, Ludwig. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Trans. Lynch. 4th ed. reprint. Tan. 1974. p 300.
"The Bishops exercise their infallible teaching power in an ordinary manner when they, in heir dioceses, in moral unity with the pope, unanimously promulgate the same teachings on faith and morals. The Vatican Council expressly declared that also the truths of Revelation proposed as such by the ordinary and general teaching office of the Church are to be firmly held with "divine and catholic faith" (D 1792). But the incuмbents of the ordinary and general teaching office of the Church are members of the whole episcopate scattered over the whole earth. The agreement of the Bishops in doctrine may be determined from the catechisms issued by them, from their pastoral letters, from the prayer books approved by them and from the resolutions of particular synods. A morally general agreement suffices, bit in this the express or tacit assent of the Pope, as the supreme head of the Episcopate, is essential."
Mgr. Van Noort, G. S.T.D. Dogmatic Theology Vol. II: Christ's Church. Trans. Castelot & Murphy. Newman. 1957. pp 330-332. (see attachments below)
These authors teach (and more can be provided, indefinitely) that all of the bishops teaching in union with their head are infallible, i.e., they are protected from error. The idea that they must also teach something traditional (and then are infallible) is perfectly circular. The very purpose of infallibility is to assure, ensure and guarantee that no other teaching is even possible given these conditions.
Mith-
I have all these books, and subscribe to all the teachings contained therein.
But the passages you cite do not tell the full story.
For example:
At Vatican II, we had the pope teaching in communion with all the bishops of the world.
You say that (if I accept these popes and bishops as legitimate) it makes Vatican II part of the universal infallible magisterium.
Yet we have quotes from both John XXIII and Paul VI denying infallibility for Vatican II.
To quote Salaverri:
"It is necessary to know "what degree of assent is due to the decrees of the sovereign pontiff when he is teaching at a level which is not that of infallibility, i.e., when he is not exercising the supreme degree of his doctrinal authority" (Salaverri, op.cit., no.659)."
Clearly, therefore, despite the pope teaching in communion with all the world's bishops, these popes did not wish (by their own admissions) these teachings to be infallible.
Therefore, they do not belong to the universal infallible ordinary magisterium, but to the fallible universal ordinary magisterium.
Perhaps it is just easier to distinguish between ordinary and authentic magisterium?
The conciliar popes, assuming they were valid popes, didn't proclaim infallibility at Vatican 2 and it is not binding on any Catholic. The conciliar clergymen will tell you this, not just the popes. This is the opinion of the entire Catholic world except for a few wildcat, dogmatic sedevacantists.
-
It seems that R&R exists to destroy SV, rather than to destroy modernism.
That is not from God.
It is because in their prideful agitation and misguided animosity, most here falsely think all Church problems began overnight after Vatican II. In doing this, they fail to see how Church history demonstrates that old heresies die not and actually must exist, as st. Paul reminds us, for the testing of souls and the edification of the Elect.
In the midst of general confussion, and stuck in nostalgic fiftieism, most "trads" turn against each other and lose sight of the real enemy to fight: Modernism (current form of the old heresy of pelagiarism), which has plagued the Church for about 200 years now and has reached epidemic proportions after the heretic implementation of Vatican II.
The problem is not of doctrine, but of practice . It is also true that after breaking from Eternal Rome, only further diabolical splits and divisions will follow.
-
The Docuмents of Vatican II are not works of the Catholic Church, they are erroneous, and they contain heresies and blasphemies.
That is all we need to know.
Trying to fit them into one or another classification of the Church's teaching has no good purpose other than to fuel the endless speculations, distractions, and confusion.
Fifty years of these arguments have accomplished nothing.
What is needed is a genuine resistance to the revolution, and to the debauchery of the Faith.
The sons of Williamson practice diversionism like their father.
This sadly, is true.
"Blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel."
"They cannot restore the blind man to his sight: nor deliver a man from distress."
-
It seems that R&R exists to destroy SV, rather than to destroy modernism.
That is not from God.
Well, it does seek to destroy that which exposes its weakness, or at least to divert the focus onto the "greater" evil of SV.
-
Twenty nine......................
-
It seems that R&R exists to destroy SV, rather than to destroy modernism.
That is not from God.
I so agree! The R&R is continuously brainwashing its people not to attend sede masses or believe in sedevacantism. They even have long conferences against sedevacantism, and the whine because there is no unity.
They spend more time doing this then they do fighting modernism. That's why Ive always thought that their position is absurd!
I do feel however that the resistence priests are good , holy men who give wonderful sermons on the faith. They are just misguided, IMO.
-
Pope Pius IX's letter, Tuas Libenter, testifies to that fact. All we need to accept is that he never would have had any need to write the letter if the guarantee of infallibility, automatically extended to the Ordinary Universal Magisterium - or are we to presume he was wrong on that?
Could you please provide this letter and highlight the support for this?
Here (http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php/Tuas-libenter) is the most complete letter I personally have yet to see.
Below is a snip and a few examples, which is enough, I think, to exemplify as being wrong those who say the OUM is incapable of teaching error.
.....For the rest, We cannot hide from you that We have been made rather anxious: for We feared that the example of this Congress, assembled independently of the ecclesiastical authority, might little by little do damage to the right of spiritual government and legitimate teaching which, in virtue of the divine institution, belongs properly to the Roman Pontiff and to the bishops who in union and agreement with the Successor of St. Peter; and that, as a consequence of this harm done to the government of the Church, the principle of unity and obedience in matters of faith might eventually be weakened in many souls. We feared also lest, in the same Congress, opinions and systems might be aired and supported which, by reason above all of the publicity given to them, would imperil the purity of doctrine and the duty of obedience.
1) First if anything that is taught from the ordinary universal magisterium is guaranteed to be free from the possibility of error - then there would have been zero reason for Pope Pius IX to even write the letter.
2) Why would the pope have "been made rather anxious" at all if the ordinary universal magisterium is incapable of teaching error?
3) Why would he fear that the ordinary universal magisterium, "might little by little do damage to the right of spiritual government and legitimate teaching" if it is a teaching of the Church that the ordinary universal magisterium cannot err in it's teaching?
4) The reason the letter was written at all, and the reason the pope was made rather anxious and the reason he was afraid ("We feared also") was because the teaching authority that the ordinary universal magisterium have, certainly can be abused. "We feared also lest, in the same Congress, opinions and systems might be aired and supported which, by reason above all of the publicity given to them, would imperil the purity of doctrine and the duty of obedience."
I see no reference to the ordinary universal magisterium in the snip you keep referring to. In fact it seems to me that the Pope is referring to some "Congress, assembled independently of the ecclesiastical authority". This does not sound like the OUM to me.
-
Pope Pius IX is referring to bishops who organise themselves into groups in order to discuss theological issues, hold congresses, etc. What is the relevance of 'Tuas Libenter' to the preaching of Vatican II by the conciliar popes in union with the bishops of the world.
It must be that the conciliar popes could direct Pope Pius IX's warning to bishops who might wish to group together in order to question Vatican II.
-
I see no reference to the ordinary universal magisterium in the snip you keep referring to. In fact it seems to me that the Pope is referring to some "Congress, assembled independently of the ecclesiastical authority". This does not sound like the OUM to me.
From the link:
Even when it is only a question of the submission owed to divine faith, this cannot be limited merely to points defined by the express decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See; this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith. But, since it is a question of the submission obliging in conscience all those Catholic who are engaged in that study of the speculative sciences so as to procure for the Church new advantages by their writings, the members of the Congress must recognize that it is not sufficient for Catholic savants to accept and respect the dogmas of the Church which We have been speaking about: they must, besides, submit themselves, whether to doctrinal decisions stemming from pontifical congregations, or to points of doctrine which, with common and constant consent, are held in the Church as truths and as theological conclusions so certain that opposing opinions, though they may not be dubbed heretical, nonetheless, merit some other form of theological censure.
"Common and constant consent" means the truths have been taught and held Universally (common) and constant (since the time of the Apostles).
The novel teachings, like V2 for example, do not enjoy both the "common and constant consent", as such, they are fallible no matter how many bishops and theologians together with the real pope are doing the teaching and no mater how many catechisms contain teachings that do not enjoy both the common and constant consent of the Church.
Pope Pius IX teaches that both requirements must be met - if one or the other is missing, it does not enjoy the protection of the Holy Ghost from the possibility of error.
This is something sedevacantists I've debated reject outright, preferring to believe, like awkwardcustomer, that The Ordinary Universal Magisterium is always and everywhere automatically infallible and that it's teachings are therefore always and everywhere guaranteed by the Holy Ghost to be free of error and there is absolutely no need to subject such teachings to an additional 'Tradition' test.
-
I asked how Catholics would recognize the UOM, not what they would learn having recognized it.
How do they recognize it in the first place? To say "that which has always and everywhere been taught" is to give a non-answer, and a circular fallacy. The point of the UOM is to teach, and the point of being subject to the UOM is to learn. You are presupposing the very faith learned from the UOM in order to identify the UOM.
It doesn't work that way, it can't work that way.
No, that is the argument you are trying to maintain to support sedevacantism.
Ha, well, I'm not the one who spent two weeks and half a dozen threads trying to convince everyone that canonizations are fallible, even going as far to use a Novus Ordo priest from a secular news source as "proof."
I'm not interested in politics, crisis positions or retaining a status quo. If the Catholic Church teaches something, I want to know what it is and believe it.
The very fact the St Vincent's "Commonitorium" instructs Catholics how to distinguish sound doctrine from novelties (ie., the infallible ordinary magisterium from the authentic/fallible ordinary magisterium) presupposes such novelties and errors from the magisterium are possible.
It does not presuppose that error and novelty are possible from the Church, but from heretics (who attempt to hide in it).
St. Vincent is not making the juxtaposition you are, of "sound doctrine=infallible ordinary magisterium" and "heresy=fallible magisterium." He is advising Catholics how to discern Tradition from novelty, but he is not admitting that the Catholic Church can be the author of novelty, which is what you are saying by assigning it to the UOM (all of the bishops together with the pope).
Which UOM are you speaking of?
I notice you don't like to spell out that distinction, as you rightly sense it mitigates against the sedevacantist position.
So, when you speak of the "UOM" in the future, please indicate whether you are speaking of the universal ordinary infallible magisterium, or the universal ordinary fallible magisterium (to which Vatican 2 and the lions share of post-V2 Vatican 2 teachings belong).
PS: Please cite where I say that error is possible from the Church. The whole point (which you have conveniently missed several times) is that those novel teachings of the authentic magisterium do not come from the infallible ordinary magisterium of the Church.
I figured the term "universal" would have tipped you off.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=31979#p0
That is a link to Tanquerey on the Ordinary Universal Magisterium. Here is an excerpt:
"1. The Morally Unanimous Preaching (Teaching) of the Bishops
290 Bishops teach the flock entrusted and subject to them by means of catechisms, by synodal directives, mandates, and in public sermons. If it is evident from these docuмents that some doctrine is being set forth universally as an object of faith, then nothing else is required for this doctrine to be accepted de fide. Bishops spread throughout the world, but with the Roman Pontiff forming one Corporate Body, are infallible when declaring a teaching on faith or morals."
Here is Ott:
Ott, Ludwig. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Trans. Lynch. 4th ed. reprint. Tan. 1974. p 300.
"The Bishops exercise their infallible teaching power in an ordinary manner when they, in heir dioceses, in moral unity with the pope, unanimously promulgate the same teachings on faith and morals. The Vatican Council expressly declared that also the truths of Revelation proposed as such by the ordinary and general teaching office of the Church are to be firmly held with "divine and catholic faith" (D 1792). But the incuмbents of the ordinary and general teaching office of the Church are members of the whole episcopate scattered over the whole earth. The agreement of the Bishops in doctrine may be determined from the catechisms issued by them, from their pastoral letters, from the prayer books approved by them and from the resolutions of particular synods. A morally general agreement suffices, bit in this the express or tacit assent of the Pope, as the supreme head of the Episcopate, is essential."
Mgr. Van Noort, G. S.T.D. Dogmatic Theology Vol. II: Christ's Church. Trans. Castelot & Murphy. Newman. 1957. pp 330-332. (see attachments below)
These authors teach (and more can be provided, indefinitely) that all of the bishops teaching in union with their head are infallible, i.e., they are protected from error. The idea that they must also teach something traditional (and then are infallible) is perfectly circular. The very purpose of infallibility is to assure, ensure and guarantee that no other teaching is even possible given these conditions.
Mith-
I have all these books, and subscribe to all the teachings contained therein.
But the passages you cite do not tell the full story.
For example:
At Vatican II, we had the pope teaching in communion with all the bishops of the world.
You say that (if I accept these popes and bishops as legitimate) it makes Vatican II part of the universal infallible magisterium.
Yet we have quotes from both John XXIII and Paul VI denying infallibility for Vatican II.
To quote Salaverri:
"It is necessary to know "what degree of assent is due to the decrees of the sovereign pontiff when he is teaching at a level which is not that of infallibility, i.e., when he is not exercising the supreme degree of his doctrinal authority" (Salaverri, op.cit., no.659)."
Clearly, therefore, despite the pope teaching in communion with all the world's bishops, these popes did not wish (by their own admissions) these teachings to be infallible.
Therefore, they do not belong to the universal infallible ordinary magisterium, but to the fallible universal ordinary magisterium.
Perhaps it is just easier to distinguish between ordinary and authentic magisterium?
We're still talking about two different things.
You're talking about the pope's magisterium and ecuмenical councils. I am talking about neither. If you look at the scans from Van Noort, I actually stopped the scans at ecuмenical councils. 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.
-
Fr. Le Floch, superior of the French Seminary in Rome, announced in 1926:
"The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility."
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm
-
Error by Excess and/or By Defect
Unfortunately this three-fold distinction between the Extraordinary Magisterium, the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, and the authentic non-infallible Magisterium, has fallen into oblivion. This has resulted in two opposite errors in the crisis situation of the Church at the present time: the error by excess of those who extend papal infallibility to all acts of the pope, without distinction; and the error by defect of those who restrict infallibility to definitions that have been uttered ex cathedra.
The error by excess actually eliminates the Ordinary Non-Infallible or "Authentic" Magisterium and inevitably leads either to Sedevacantism or to servile obedience.
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm
-
I see no reference to the ordinary universal magisterium in the snip you keep referring to. In fact it seems to me that the Pope is referring to some "Congress, assembled independently of the ecclesiastical authority". This does not sound like the OUM to me.
From the link:
Even when it is only a question of the submission owed to divine faith, this cannot be limited merely to points defined by the express decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this Apostolic See; this submission must also be extended to all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith. But, since it is a question of the submission obliging in conscience all those Catholic who are engaged in that study of the speculative sciences so as to procure for the Church new advantages by their writings, the members of the Congress must recognize that it is not sufficient for Catholic savants to accept and respect the dogmas of the Church which We have been speaking about: they must, besides, submit themselves, whether to doctrinal decisions stemming from pontifical congregations, or to points of doctrine which, with common and constant consent, are held in the Church as truths and as theological conclusions so certain that opposing opinions, though they may not be dubbed heretical, nonetheless, merit some other form of theological censure.
"Common and constant consent" means the truths have been taught and held Universally (common) and constant (since the time of the Apostles).
The novel teachings, like V2 for example, do not enjoy both the "common and constant consent", as such, they are fallible no matter how many bishops and theologians together with the real pope are doing the teaching and no mater how many catechisms contain teachings that do not enjoy both the common and constant consent of the Church.
Pope Pius IX teaches that both requirements must be met - if one or the other is missing, it does not enjoy the protection of the Holy Ghost from the possibility of error.
This is something sedevacantists I've debated reject outright, preferring to believe, like awkwardcustomer, that The Ordinary Universal Magisterium is always and everywhere automatically infallible and that it's teachings are therefore always and everywhere guaranteed by the Holy Ghost to be free of error and there is absolutely no need to subject such teachings to an additional 'Tradition' test.
I still don't see how you're getting what you're getting from this letter.
-
Fr. Le Floch, superior of the French Seminary in Rome, announced in 1926:
"The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility."
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm
Are you aware that there is no record of Fr. Le Floch ever saying this? This quote is most likely false: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=714&p=7718&hilit=Le+floch&sid=4dcd437b1167fe1cb1c1e9433915d57e#p7718
In any event this is a pundit, a soundbite. Not an argument.
Error by Excess and/or By Defect
Unfortunately this three-fold distinction between the Extraordinary Magisterium, the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, and the authentic non-infallible Magisterium, has fallen into oblivion. This has resulted in two opposite errors in the crisis situation of the Church at the present time: the error by excess of those who extend papal infallibility to all acts of the pope, without distinction; and the error by defect of those who restrict infallibility to definitions that have been uttered ex cathedra.
The error by excess actually eliminates the Ordinary Non-Infallible or "Authentic" Magisterium and inevitably leads either to Sedevacantism or to servile obedience.
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm
This is from the article you've already quoted and is dealing with the teaching office of the papacy. It isn't relevant since I'm not talking about the magisterium of the papacy.
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.
-
"If the Ordinary Magisterium is to be infallible, it must be traditional (cf. Salaverri, loc. cit.). If it breaks with Tradition, the Ordinary Magisterium cannot claim any infallibility. Here we see very clearly the very special nature of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, to which we must devote some attention."
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm
-
Fr. Le Floch, superior of the French Seminary in Rome, announced in 1926:
"The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility."
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm
Are you aware that there is no record of Fr. Le Floch ever saying this? This quote is most likely false: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=714&p=7718&hilit=Le+floch&sid=4dcd437b1167fe1cb1c1e9433915d57e#p7718
In any event this is a pundit, a soundbite. Not an argument.
Error by Excess and/or By Defect
Unfortunately this three-fold distinction between the Extraordinary Magisterium, the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, and the authentic non-infallible Magisterium, has fallen into oblivion. This has resulted in two opposite errors in the crisis situation of the Church at the present time: the error by excess of those who extend papal infallibility to all acts of the pope, without distinction; and the error by defect of those who restrict infallibility to definitions that have been uttered ex cathedra.
The error by excess actually eliminates the Ordinary Non-Infallible or "Authentic" Magisterium and inevitably leads either to Sedevacantism or to servile obedience.
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm
This is from the article you've already quoted and is dealing with the teaching office of the papacy. It isn't relevant since I'm not talking about the magisterium of the papacy.
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.
It follows that the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, whether of the Universal Church or that of the See of Rome, is not that of a judgment, not that of an act to be considered in isolation, as if it could itself provide all the light necessary for it to be clearly seen. It is that of the guarantee bestowed on a doctrine by the simultaneous or continuous convergence of a plurality of affirmations or explanations, none of which could bring positive certitude if it were taken by itself alone. Certitude can be expected only from the whole complex, but all the parts concur in making up that whole (Pope or Church?, op. cit., p.18).
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm
-
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.
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 Ordinary Magisterium is to be infallible, it must be traditional (cf. Salaverri, loc. cit.). If it breaks with Tradition, the Ordinary Magisterium cannot claim any infallibility. Here we see very clearly the very special nature of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, to which we must devote some attention."
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm
The author of that article is talking about papal infallibility. Here is what immediately precedes what you quoted:
It is an error, therefore, to extend infallibility unconditionally to the whole of the Ordinary Magisterium of the pope, whether he is speaking urbi et orbi or just addressing pilgrims. It is true that the infallibility of the Extraordinary Magisterium is not enough for the Church; the Extraordinary Magisterium is a rare event, whereas "faith needs infallibility and it needs it every day," as Cardinal Siri himself said (Renovatio, op.cit.). But Cardinal Siri is too good a theologian to forget that even the pope’s infallibility has conditions attached to it. If the Ordinary Magisterium is to be infallible, it must be traditional (cf. Salaverri, loc. cit.). If it breaks with Tradition, the Ordinary Magisterium cannot claim any infallibility. Here we see very clearly the very special nature of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, to which we must devote some attention.
It is NOT talking about all of the bishops united to the pope teaching X. If it is, it is playing a word game by introducing the subject of "ordinary magisterium of the pope" and dropping "of the pope" later in the paragraph, which might lead the reader to incorrectly conflate the two. But we both know they are two different things, and I think the context from the article you linked to makes it sufficiently clear as well.
-
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
-
Fr. Le Floch, superior of the French Seminary in Rome, announced in 1926:
"The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility."
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm
Are you aware that there is no record of Fr. Le Floch ever saying this? This quote is most likely false: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=714&p=7718&hilit=Le+floch&sid=4dcd437b1167fe1cb1c1e9433915d57e#p7718
In any event this is a pundit, a soundbite. Not an argument.
Error by Excess and/or By Defect
Unfortunately this three-fold distinction between the Extraordinary Magisterium, the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, and the authentic non-infallible Magisterium, has fallen into oblivion. This has resulted in two opposite errors in the crisis situation of the Church at the present time: the error by excess of those who extend papal infallibility to all acts of the pope, without distinction; and the error by defect of those who restrict infallibility to definitions that have been uttered ex cathedra.
The error by excess actually eliminates the Ordinary Non-Infallible or "Authentic" Magisterium and inevitably leads either to Sedevacantism or to servile obedience.
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm
This is from the article you've already quoted and is dealing with the teaching office of the papacy. It isn't relevant since I'm not talking about the magisterium of the papacy.
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.
It follows that the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, whether of the Universal Church or that of the See of Rome, is not that of a judgment, not that of an act to be considered in isolation, as if it could itself provide all the light necessary for it to be clearly seen. It is that of the guarantee bestowed on a doctrine by the simultaneous or continuous convergence of a plurality of affirmations or explanations, none of which could bring positive certitude if it were taken by itself alone. Certitude can be expected only from the whole complex, but all the parts concur in making up that whole (Pope or Church?, op. cit., p.18).
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm
What do you think that quote proves?
There is nothing isolated or "taken alone" in fifty years of unanimous and constant teaching of X by all the bishops together with the pope. It's actually quite the OPPOSITE of "isolated" or "taken alone."
-
Fr. Le Floch, superior of the French Seminary in Rome, announced in 1926:
"The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility."
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm
Are you aware that there is no record of Fr. Le Floch ever saying this? This quote is most likely false: http://www.strobertbellarmine.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=714&p=7718&hilit=Le+floch&sid=4dcd437b1167fe1cb1c1e9433915d57e#p7718
In any event this is a pundit, a soundbite. Not an argument.
Error by Excess and/or By Defect
Unfortunately this three-fold distinction between the Extraordinary Magisterium, the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, and the authentic non-infallible Magisterium, has fallen into oblivion. This has resulted in two opposite errors in the crisis situation of the Church at the present time: the error by excess of those who extend papal infallibility to all acts of the pope, without distinction; and the error by defect of those who restrict infallibility to definitions that have been uttered ex cathedra.
The error by excess actually eliminates the Ordinary Non-Infallible or "Authentic" Magisterium and inevitably leads either to Sedevacantism or to servile obedience.
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm
This is from the article you've already quoted and is dealing with the teaching office of the papacy. It isn't relevant since I'm not talking about the magisterium of the papacy.
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.
It follows that the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, whether of the Universal Church or that of the See of Rome, is not that of a judgment, not that of an act to be considered in isolation, as if it could itself provide all the light necessary for it to be clearly seen. It is that of the guarantee bestowed on a doctrine by the simultaneous or continuous convergence of a plurality of affirmations or explanations, none of which could bring positive certitude if it were taken by itself alone. Certitude can be expected only from the whole complex, but all the parts concur in making up that whole (Pope or Church?, op. cit., p.18).
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm
What do you think that quote proves?
There is nothing isolated or "taken alone" in fifty years of unanimous and constant teaching of X by all the bishops together with the pope. It's actually quite the OPPOSITE of "isolated" or "taken alone."
1) The church is 2000 years old.
2) These novelties have only been taught for 50 years.
3) They have been condemned by the Church for the previous 1950 years (implicitly or explicitly).
4) Therefore, it matters not in the least that the bishops united with the pope teach these errors.
5) Because while they lay claim to universality, they have no foundation in antiquity/time.
6) Therefore, it is not possible to claim that they represent infallible teachings of the ordinary magisterium.
7) Rather, they represent novelties of the authentic magisterium.
8) And the passage clearly pertains not to the pope's ordinary magisterium, but to the ordinary magisterium of the bishops in communion with the pope.
-
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.
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?
-
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.
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?
Yes, where does it fall on the infallibility spectrum?
-
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.
-
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.
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?
Yes, where does it fall on the infallibility spectrum?
Someone cannot say in one breath that the Church is capable of teaching all manner of error in any capacity whatsoever and then in the next breath require that we believe something it teaches.
According to their own argument, the Church is not trustworthy.
-
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;
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.
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?
-
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.
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?
Yes, where does it fall on the infallibility spectrum?
Someone cannot say in one breath that the Church is capable of teaching all manner of error in any capacity whatsoever and then in the next breath require that we believe something it teaches.
According to their own argument, the Church is not trustworthy.
On the contrary, if that which you say were correct, there would be no such subdivision within the ordinary magisterium as the infallible ordinary magisterium and the fallible (i.e., authentic) ordinary magisterium.
-
I think I have said all I have to say on this subject, and so I leave you all a parting treat:
"Be like water, my friend:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7hBKwuK_Xc
-
Mith-
It appears to me that you want to reduce the rule of St. Vincent (i.e., that which has been taught always and everywhere) to merely that which has been taught everywhere (but not always).
And such teachings (which are now taught everywhere, but certainly not always) you claim belong to the infallible ordinary magisterium.
But according to the following explanation, you are wrong to do so:
"About this subject, A.C. Martimort wrote:
Bossuet’s error consisted in rejecting the infallibility of the pope’s Extraordinary Magisterium; but he performed the signal service of affirming most clearly the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium [of the pope] and its specific nature, which means that every particular act bears the risk of error... To sum up: according to the bishop of Meaux, what applies to the series of Roman popes over time is the same as what applies to the episcopal college dispersed across the world. (Le Gallicanisme de Bossuet, Paris, 1953, p.558)
In fact, we know that the bishops, individually, are not infallible. Yet the totality of bishops, throughout time and space, in their moral unanimity, do enjoy infallibility. So if one wishes to ascertain the Church’s infallible teaching one must not take the teaching of one particular bishop: it is necessary to look at the "common and continuous teaching" of the episcopate united to the pope, which "cannot deviate from the teaching of Jesus Christ" (E. Piacentini, OFM Conv., Infaillible meme dans les causes de canonisation? ENMI, Rome 1994, p.37).
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm
My claim is that when the bishops united to the pope (dispersed throughout the world [or not]) teach X, X is guaranteed to be infallible. If X is NOT infallible (as is obviously the case with the filth from VII) then we must search to find a solution to a contradiction.
The whole point is that VII could NOT have come from the ordinary magisterium. You recognize this, and are trying to find ways in which it could not, but you have not found a way-- you are merely repeating that since it is novel (and erroneous, to boot) it could not be a product of the OUM (or any organ of infallibility for that matter). But this is just restating the facts, no solution is reached to the contradiction posed by requisites for infallibility met resulting in obviously fallible teachings, teachings that are not only fallible but actually contradictory to the deposit of faith we have already received.
The whole point of infallibility is the removal of any possibility of error. To say that something is infallible if it does not contain error is perfectly circular. When infallibility is "engaged" (i.e. the conditions for it are met) then error is impossible. It (error) isn't merely unlikely, improbable or undesirable, it is promised and guaranteed by God to be completely absent from such teachings.
Mith-
1) The solution you are seeking is called the authentic (i.e., fallible) ordinary magisterium;
I never would have guessed!
2) It seems to me you do not wish to recognize the existence of the fallible/authentic ordinary magisterium, because you realize it vaporizes sedevacantism.
I recognize the distinction, I deny that it applies when a moral unanimity of the episcopacy teaches something in union with their head. That, according to the theologians, guarantees that the teaching is infallible-- not the fact that it IS infallible.
3) Yet, how did Paul VI specify that the teachings of V2 only belonged to the authentic ordinary magisterium:
"Pope Paul VI himself indicated what theological "note" it carried: "Ordinary Magisterium; that is, it is clearly authentic" (General Audience of Dec. 1, 1966: Encycliques et discours de Paul VI , Ed.Paoline,1966, pp.51,52)."
4) How do you explain that?
Who knows what that miserable heretic meant? Surely you're not going to take his word for it? But again, I'm not talking about VII as such (though I think the argument could easily be made) I'm talking about the fact that the doctrine of VII met the conditions for the OUM, i.e. all of the world's bishops taught it together with the pope. AFTER the council.
Have you considered why the OUM is infallible given these conditions (moral unanimity of the bishops together with the pope)? It is precisely because for the entire episcopacy, together with the pope, to teach something fallible would constitute a defection. The Church would not be a reliable guide to Heaven, nor a reliable guard of doctrine. In fact, we're not just talking about something that is merely "fallible," but with quite serious doctrinal error, some would even go so far as to say heresy. To say that VII is merely "fallible" is to hide the reality of the situation behind a word-- it is fallible, surely, but it is pernicious and destroying of souls, to be sure. It would be like saying that someone is feeling under the weather when they just underwent a double amputee and are suffering from kidney stones and a brain tumor-- it's a gross simplification that is so simplified it is misleading. Anyways, what you are positing (all of the bishops and the pope teaching error) constitutes a defection of the Church. We are talking about the entire hierarchy teaching souls a false doctrine-- that is manifestly opposed to the Great Commission.
You cannot "tuck that away" into the fallible ordinary magisterium with the conditions met. You couldn't with the canonizations, and you can't with this.
-
Mith-
It appears to me that you want to reduce the rule of St. Vincent (i.e., that which has been taught always and everywhere) to merely that which has been taught everywhere (but not always).
And such teachings (which are now taught everywhere, but certainly not always) you claim belong to the infallible ordinary magisterium.
But according to the following explanation, you are wrong to do so:
"About this subject, A.C. Martimort wrote:
Bossuet’s error consisted in rejecting the infallibility of the pope’s Extraordinary Magisterium; but he performed the signal service of affirming most clearly the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium [of the pope] and its specific nature, which means that every particular act bears the risk of error... To sum up: according to the bishop of Meaux, what applies to the series of Roman popes over time is the same as what applies to the episcopal college dispersed across the world. (Le Gallicanisme de Bossuet, Paris, 1953, p.558)
In fact, we know that the bishops, individually, are not infallible. Yet the totality of bishops, throughout time and space, in their moral unanimity, do enjoy infallibility. So if one wishes to ascertain the Church’s infallible teaching one must not take the teaching of one particular bishop: it is necessary to look at the "common and continuous teaching" of the episcopate united to the pope, which "cannot deviate from the teaching of Jesus Christ" (E. Piacentini, OFM Conv., Infaillible meme dans les causes de canonisation? ENMI, Rome 1994, p.37).
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm
My claim is that when the bishops united to the pope (dispersed throughout the world [or not]) teach X, X is guaranteed to be infallible. If X is NOT infallible (as is obviously the case with the filth from VII) then we must search to find a solution to a contradiction.
The whole point is that VII could NOT have come from the ordinary magisterium. You recognize this, and are trying to find ways in which it could not, but you have not found a way-- you are merely repeating that since it is novel (and erroneous, to boot) it could not be a product of the OUM (or any organ of infallibility for that matter). But this is just restating the facts, no solution is reached to the contradiction posed by requisites for infallibility met resulting in obviously fallible teachings, teachings that are not only fallible but actually contradictory to the deposit of faith we have already received.
The whole point of infallibility is the removal of any possibility of error. To say that something is infallible if it does not contain error is perfectly circular. When infallibility is "engaged" (i.e. the conditions for it are met) then error is impossible. It (error) isn't merely unlikely, improbable or undesirable, it is promised and guaranteed by God to be completely absent from such teachings.
Mith-
1) The solution you are seeking is called the authentic (i.e., fallible) ordinary magisterium;
I never would have guessed!
2) It seems to me you do not wish to recognize the existence of the fallible/authentic ordinary magisterium, because you realize it vaporizes sedevacantism.
I recognize the distinction, I deny that it applies when a moral unanimity of the episcopacy teaches something in union with their head. That, according to the theologians, guarantees that the teaching is infallible-- not the fact that it IS infallible.
3) Yet, how did Paul VI specify that the teachings of V2 only belonged to the authentic ordinary magisterium:
"Pope Paul VI himself indicated what theological "note" it carried: "Ordinary Magisterium; that is, it is clearly authentic" (General Audience of Dec. 1, 1966: Encycliques et discours de Paul VI , Ed.Paoline,1966, pp.51,52)."
4) How do you explain that?
Who knows what that miserable heretic meant? Surely you're not going to take his word for it? But again, I'm not talking about VII as such (though I think the argument could easily be made) I'm talking about the fact that the doctrine of VII met the conditions for the OUM, i.e. all of the world's bishops taught it together with the pope. AFTER the council.
Have you considered why the OUM is infallible given these conditions (moral unanimity of the bishops together with the pope)? It is precisely because for the entire episcopacy, together with the pope, to teach something fallible would constitute a defection. The Church would not be a reliable guide to Heaven, nor a reliable guard of doctrine. In fact, we're not just talking about something that is merely "fallible," but with quite serious doctrinal error, some would even go so far as to say heresy. To say that VII is merely "fallible" is to hide the reality of the situation behind a word-- it is fallible, surely, but it is pernicious and destroying of souls, to be sure. It would be like saying that someone is feeling under the weather when they just underwent a double amputee and are suffering from kidney stones and a brain tumor-- it's a gross simplification that is so simplified it is misleading. Anyways, what you are positing (all of the bishops and the pope teaching error) constitutes a defection of the Church. We are talking about the entire hierarchy teaching souls a false doctrine-- that is manifestly opposed to the Great Commission.
You cannot "tuck that away" into the fallible ordinary magisterium with the conditions met. You couldn't with the canonizations, and you can't with this.
:applause:
-
Mith-
It appears to me that you want to reduce the rule of St. Vincent (i.e., that which has been taught always and everywhere) to merely that which has been taught everywhere (but not always).
And such teachings (which are now taught everywhere, but certainly not always) you claim belong to the infallible ordinary magisterium.
But according to the following explanation, you are wrong to do so:
"About this subject, A.C. Martimort wrote:
Bossuet’s error consisted in rejecting the infallibility of the pope’s Extraordinary Magisterium; but he performed the signal service of affirming most clearly the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium [of the pope] and its specific nature, which means that every particular act bears the risk of error... To sum up: according to the bishop of Meaux, what applies to the series of Roman popes over time is the same as what applies to the episcopal college dispersed across the world. (Le Gallicanisme de Bossuet, Paris, 1953, p.558)
In fact, we know that the bishops, individually, are not infallible. Yet the totality of bishops, throughout time and space, in their moral unanimity, do enjoy infallibility. So if one wishes to ascertain the Church’s infallible teaching one must not take the teaching of one particular bishop: it is necessary to look at the "common and continuous teaching" of the episcopate united to the pope, which "cannot deviate from the teaching of Jesus Christ" (E. Piacentini, OFM Conv., Infaillible meme dans les causes de canonisation? ENMI, Rome 1994, p.37).
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm
My claim is that when the bishops united to the pope (dispersed throughout the world [or not]) teach X, X is guaranteed to be infallible. If X is NOT infallible (as is obviously the case with the filth from VII) then we must search to find a solution to a contradiction.
The whole point is that VII could NOT have come from the ordinary magisterium. You recognize this, and are trying to find ways in which it could not, but you have not found a way-- you are merely repeating that since it is novel (and erroneous, to boot) it could not be a product of the OUM (or any organ of infallibility for that matter). But this is just restating the facts, no solution is reached to the contradiction posed by requisites for infallibility met resulting in obviously fallible teachings, teachings that are not only fallible but actually contradictory to the deposit of faith we have already received.
The whole point of infallibility is the removal of any possibility of error. To say that something is infallible if it does not contain error is perfectly circular. When infallibility is "engaged" (i.e. the conditions for it are met) then error is impossible. It (error) isn't merely unlikely, improbable or undesirable, it is promised and guaranteed by God to be completely absent from such teachings.
Mith-
1) The solution you are seeking is called the authentic (i.e., fallible) ordinary magisterium;
I never would have guessed!
2) It seems to me you do not wish to recognize the existence of the fallible/authentic ordinary magisterium, because you realize it vaporizes sedevacantism.
I recognize the distinction, I deny that it applies when a moral unanimity of the episcopacy teaches something in union with their head. That, according to the theologians, guarantees that the teaching is infallible-- not the fact that it IS infallible.
3) Yet, how did Paul VI specify that the teachings of V2 only belonged to the authentic ordinary magisterium:
"Pope Paul VI himself indicated what theological "note" it carried: "Ordinary Magisterium; that is, it is clearly authentic" (General Audience of Dec. 1, 1966: Encycliques et discours de Paul VI , Ed.Paoline,1966, pp.51,52)."
4) How do you explain that?
Who knows what that miserable heretic meant? Surely you're not going to take his word for it? But again, I'm not talking about VII as such (though I think the argument could easily be made) I'm talking about the fact that the doctrine of VII met the conditions for the OUM, i.e. all of the world's bishops taught it together with the pope. AFTER the council.
Have you considered why the OUM is infallible given these conditions (moral unanimity of the bishops together with the pope)? It is precisely because for the entire episcopacy, together with the pope, to teach something fallible would constitute a defection. The Church would not be a reliable guide to Heaven, nor a reliable guard of doctrine. In fact, we're not just talking about something that is merely "fallible," but with quite serious doctrinal error, some would even go so far as to say heresy. To say that VII is merely "fallible" is to hide the reality of the situation behind a word-- it is fallible, surely, but it is pernicious and destroying of souls, to be sure. It would be like saying that someone is feeling under the weather when they just underwent a double amputee and are suffering from kidney stones and a brain tumor-- it's a gross simplification that is so simplified it is misleading. Anyways, what you are positing (all of the bishops and the pope teaching error) constitutes a defection of the Church. We are talking about the entire hierarchy teaching souls a false doctrine-- that is manifestly opposed to the Great Commission.
You cannot "tuck that away" into the fallible ordinary magisterium with the conditions met. You couldn't with the canonizations, and you can't with this.
Of course, I can always be provoked to rejoin...
Yes, I am aware, per your admission, that what you disagree with is this:
"Bossuet’s error consisted in rejecting the infallibility of the pope’s Extraordinary Magisterium; but he performed the signal service of affirming most clearly the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium [of the pope] and its specific nature, which means that every particular act bears the risk of error... To sum up: according to the bishop of Meaux, what applies to the series of Roman popes over time is the same as what applies to the episcopal college dispersed across the world. (Le Gallicanisme de Bossuet, Paris, 1953, p.558)
In fact, we know that the bishops, individually, are not infallible. Yet the totality of bishops, throughout time and space, in their moral unanimity, do enjoy infallibility. So if one wishes to ascertain the Church’s infallible teaching one must not take the teaching of one particular bishop: it is necessary to look at the "common and continuous teaching" of the episcopate united to the pope, which "cannot deviate from the teaching of Jesus Christ" (E. Piacentini, OFM Conv., Infaillible meme dans les causes de canonisation? ENMI, Rome 1994, p.37). "
Thus far, your attempts to refute this most obvious Catholic teaching have been pathetic.
-
Nothing to worry.
The only sedevacantist here that have actually READ the Vatican II docuмents in order to find objective error is Ferdinand. The rest have simply NO CLUE what they are talking about.
This brave fellow Ferdinand, who confessed that he has indeed read the whole 16 docuмents of Vatican II both in English AND Latin (very impressive, by the way) has only this erudite reply for this thread:
:applause:
A simple applause to a mediocre statement made by one of the most vocal but clueless sedevacantists in here, who surely has not even read ONE of the disputed docuмents but get his information solely from Bellarmine forums and CNN news. :jester:
-
Thirty five..........
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
This thread is unfortunately acrimonious.
Of course it is acrimonious. Rather than address and attempt to refute sedevacantist arguments, Mgr Williamson compared sedevacantists to liberals.
It's an emotion-based polemic designed to circuмvent actual rational argument.
-
This thread is unfortunately acrimonious.
Of course it is acrimonious. Rather than address and attempt to refute sedevacantist arguments, Mgr Williamson compared sedevacantists to liberals.
It's an emotion-based polemic designed to circuмvent actual rational argument.
Leave it to Pete to fan the flames...
Am I allowed to wonder whether this was your purpose in coming to CI in the first place?
You show up about 6 months ago, explain it was because you were interested in Ggregs posts, but then post about as prolifically as anyone else on the forum.
:scratchchin:
-
This thread is unfortunately acrimonious.
Of course it is acrimonious. Rather than address and attempt to refute sedevacantist arguments, Mgr Williamson compared sedevacantists to liberals.
It's an emotion-based polemic designed to circuмvent actual rational argument.
Leave it to Pete to fan the flames...
Am I allowed to wonder whether this was your purpose in coming to CI in the first place?
You show up about 6 months ago, explain it was because you were interested in Ggregs posts, but then post about as prolifically as anyone else on the forum.
:scratchchin:
For myself, I could care less about his reasons for being here. His statements stand or fall based on whether they are true or not.
Many people join a forum for an initial reason that soon passes, and their reasoning for staying changes.
If Pete Vere changed his name on here to John Smith, would that make it easier for you to deal with his arguments rather than the man, Pete Vere?
-
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?
-
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?
-
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?
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Pete Vere,
So what is the next R&R argument?
Tune in Friday evening for the next episode of RRF Smackdown.......
-
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.
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.
-
Mith-
It appears to me that you want to reduce the rule of St. Vincent (i.e., that which has been taught always and everywhere) to merely that which has been taught everywhere (but not always).
And such teachings (which are now taught everywhere, but certainly not always) you claim belong to the infallible ordinary magisterium.
But according to the following explanation, you are wrong to do so:
"About this subject, A.C. Martimort wrote:
Bossuet’s error consisted in rejecting the infallibility of the pope’s Extraordinary Magisterium; but he performed the signal service of affirming most clearly the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium [of the pope] and its specific nature, which means that every particular act bears the risk of error... To sum up: according to the bishop of Meaux, what applies to the series of Roman popes over time is the same as what applies to the episcopal college dispersed across the world. (Le Gallicanisme de Bossuet, Paris, 1953, p.558)
In fact, we know that the bishops, individually, are not infallible. Yet the totality of bishops, throughout time and space, in their moral unanimity, do enjoy infallibility. So if one wishes to ascertain the Church’s infallible teaching one must not take the teaching of one particular bishop: it is necessary to look at the "common and continuous teaching" of the episcopate united to the pope, which "cannot deviate from the teaching of Jesus Christ" (E. Piacentini, OFM Conv., Infaillible meme dans les causes de canonisation? ENMI, Rome 1994, p.37).
http://archives.sspx.org/miscellaneous/infallible_magisterium.htm
My claim is that when the bishops united to the pope (dispersed throughout the world [or not]) teach X, X is guaranteed to be infallible. If X is NOT infallible (as is obviously the case with the filth from VII) then we must search to find a solution to a contradiction.
The whole point is that VII could NOT have come from the ordinary magisterium. You recognize this, and are trying to find ways in which it could not, but you have not found a way-- you are merely repeating that since it is novel (and erroneous, to boot) it could not be a product of the OUM (or any organ of infallibility for that matter). But this is just restating the facts, no solution is reached to the contradiction posed by requisites for infallibility met resulting in obviously fallible teachings, teachings that are not only fallible but actually contradictory to the deposit of faith we have already received.
The whole point of infallibility is the removal of any possibility of error. To say that something is infallible if it does not contain error is perfectly circular. When infallibility is "engaged" (i.e. the conditions for it are met) then error is impossible. It (error) isn't merely unlikely, improbable or undesirable, it is promised and guaranteed by God to be completely absent from such teachings.
Mith-
1) The solution you are seeking is called the authentic (i.e., fallible) ordinary magisterium;
I never would have guessed!
2) It seems to me you do not wish to recognize the existence of the fallible/authentic ordinary magisterium, because you realize it vaporizes sedevacantism.
I recognize the distinction, I deny that it applies when a moral unanimity of the episcopacy teaches something in union with their head. That, according to the theologians, guarantees that the teaching is infallible-- not the fact that it IS infallible.
3) Yet, how did Paul VI specify that the teachings of V2 only belonged to the authentic ordinary magisterium:
"Pope Paul VI himself indicated what theological "note" it carried: "Ordinary Magisterium; that is, it is clearly authentic" (General Audience of Dec. 1, 1966: Encycliques et discours de Paul VI , Ed.Paoline,1966, pp.51,52)."
4) How do you explain that?
Who knows what that miserable heretic meant? Surely you're not going to take his word for it? But again, I'm not talking about VII as such (though I think the argument could easily be made) I'm talking about the fact that the doctrine of VII met the conditions for the OUM, i.e. all of the world's bishops taught it together with the pope. AFTER the council.
Have you considered why the OUM is infallible given these conditions (moral unanimity of the bishops together with the pope)? It is precisely because for the entire episcopacy, together with the pope, to teach something fallible would constitute a defection. The Church would not be a reliable guide to Heaven, nor a reliable guard of doctrine. In fact, we're not just talking about something that is merely "fallible," but with quite serious doctrinal error, some would even go so far as to say heresy. To say that VII is merely "fallible" is to hide the reality of the situation behind a word-- it is fallible, surely, but it is pernicious and destroying of souls, to be sure. It would be like saying that someone is feeling under the weather when they just underwent a double amputee and are suffering from kidney stones and a brain tumor-- it's a gross simplification that is so simplified it is misleading. Anyways, what you are positing (all of the bishops and the pope teaching error) constitutes a defection of the Church. We are talking about the entire hierarchy teaching souls a false doctrine-- that is manifestly opposed to the Great Commission.
You cannot "tuck that away" into the fallible ordinary magisterium with the conditions met. You couldn't with the canonizations, and you can't with this.
Of course, I can always be provoked to rejoin...
Yes, I am aware, per your admission, that what you disagree with is this:
"Bossuet’s error consisted in rejecting the infallibility of the pope’s Extraordinary Magisterium; but he performed the signal service of affirming most clearly the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium [of the pope] and its specific nature, which means that every particular act bears the risk of error... To sum up: according to the bishop of Meaux, what applies to the series of Roman popes over time is the same as what applies to the episcopal college dispersed across the world. (Le Gallicanisme de Bossuet, Paris, 1953, p.558)
In fact, we know that the bishops, individually, are not infallible. Yet the totality of bishops, throughout time and space, in their moral unanimity, do enjoy infallibility. So if one wishes to ascertain the Church’s infallible teaching one must not take the teaching of one particular bishop: it is necessary to look at the "common and continuous teaching" of the episcopate united to the pope, which "cannot deviate from the teaching of Jesus Christ" (E. Piacentini, OFM Conv., Infaillible meme dans les causes de canonisation? ENMI, Rome 1994, p.37). "
Thus far, your attempts to refute this most obvious Catholic teaching have been pathetic.
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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?
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?
-
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.
-
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.
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 (http://masonicpressagency.blogspot.com/2011/09/ernesto-piacentini-franciscan.html)? 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.
-
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?
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.
-
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.
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 (http://masonicpressagency.blogspot.com/2011/09/ernesto-piacentini-franciscan.html)? 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?
-
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.
-
Stubborn,
If a teaching is infallible it has already met your requirement.
Once the conditions for infallibility are met, and the OUM meets these requirements, infallibility guarantees that the teachings will be free of error.
The R&R position puts 'requirements' on infallibility, as if teachings guaranteed by the Holy Ghost have to be double checked in case they aren't 'traditional' enough.
When the pope teaches in union with the bishops of the world, those teachings have already met all the requirements that human beings can think of. The OUM cannot teach error.
-
God Bless you ! Bishop Williamson.
-
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.
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 (http://masonicpressagency.blogspot.com/2011/09/ernesto-piacentini-franciscan.html)? 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?
The theologians do not teach that the entire episcopacy together with the pope can teach all manner of error. You're not going to get away with that one. You find quotes which admit to fallibility when certain conditions are lacking, and combine that with St. Vincent Lerin's rule-- I believe you are confusing the deposit of faith with the OUM. The OUM teaches the deposit of faith, but it is not properly identical to it. It makes the deposit of faith known, and Christ protects it from preaching a false gospel. Identifying the false gospel and then claiming that it was not taught by the OUM because it is false doesn't resolve the serious problem of all the bishops in the world together with the pope teaching a false gospel. That bishops can individually err is granted, that they can collectively err is granted, that they can collectively and unanimously not only err but preach a false gospel together with the pope is impossible. Does a moral unanimity together with the pope preach a false gospel?
-
Mithrandylan wrote:
The theologians do not teach that the entire episcopacy together with the pope can teach all manner of error. You're not going to get away with that one. You find quotes which admit to fallibility when certain conditions are lacking, and combine that with St. Vincent Lerin's rule-- I believe you are confusing the deposit of faith with the OUM. The OUM teaches the deposit of faith, but it is not properly identical to it. It makes the deposit of faith known, and Christ protects it from preaching a false gospel. Identifying the false gospel and then claiming that it was not taught by the OUM because it is false doesn't resolve the serious problem of all the bishops in the world together with the pope teaching a false gospel. That bishops can individually err is granted, that they can collectively err is granted, that they can collectively and unanimously not only err but preach a false gospel together with the pope is impossible. Does a moral unanimity together with the pope preach a false gospel?
Mythrandylan,
Great post, and your thinking is in line with every authority and is supported by them.
It is a heresy to deny the infallibility of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.
-
.
We live in a time when the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is made out to APPEAR to be teaching definitively when it is only appearances at stake and not substance. For in order for infallibility to be invoked it has to be intended as definitive. There is a recent case that exemplifies this, when JPII said that a woman cannot be ordained into the clerical state, some defenders of his curious action claimed it was infallible. All the marks of infallibility APPEARED to be present, but for one detail that never made the headlines anywhere: JPII never said it was infallible, and after he died, Benedict XVI explained what had happened, by saying that JPII had not intended it to be infallible. We are left with the impression that JPII had FAKED it, and had deliberately acted in a way that would APPEAR to traditionalists as defining doctrine but in fact it was all a GAME, because the Pope had no intention of defining anything.
There is no rule that says a pope is incapable of playing the Faithful for a bunch of fools. That doesn't mean he ceases to be pope or never was in the first place. All it means is he's digging himself a big deep hole in the bottom of hell for his deliberate deception of the Faithful.
.
-
Neil,
Don't suppose you happened to read any of the preceding forty pages?