Quote

[Condemned proposition of Martin Luther, no. 28 from Exsurge Domine] If the pope with a great part of the Church thought so and so, he would not err; still it is not a sin or heresy to think the contrary, especially in a matter not necessary for salvation, until one alternative is condemned and another approved by a general Council. (Denz. 768 )

I was unaware of this condemnation until recently and am surprised to see that, so far as I can tell, it is never mentioned in these discussions.  I would be curious to see how you or those in agreement with you understand the condemnation.

Isn't this a condemnation of the idea that it is not a sin or heresy for disagreeing with the teaching of the Church? Or that we may freely disagree with the Church? Something along those lines is what I think.

 

"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God or in Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in solemn judgment or in its ordinary and universal teaching office, as divinely revealed truths which must be believed." (First Vatican Council, 1870)

Pretty clear.

It is pretty clear, in fact it is crystal clear when you have the correct understanding of what the Church's ordinary and universal teaching office, aka Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is.......

"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written Word of God as found in Scripture and Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in 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.

I saw the opinions of St. Robert, but after his opinions were published, there came the infallible teaching of V1 that decreed only the pope is infallible and only when he speaks ex cathedra. Remember that the NO updated the liturgy by adapting into the new liturgy many ancient, discontinued practices - this did not make the NO traditional.

Again, if it is a teaching of the Church, if it is a dogma of faith that the pope or pope in unison with the bishops cannot teach heresy of error, then they cannot teach heresy or error - period - and all trads, especially sedes, are pretty stupid for not being NO.

And that is how the masses were fooled into abandoning the true faith for the new faith of their own free will - because they believed whatever the pope or bishops in union with him taught, was infallible.

.
You said that the infallibility of the OUM (what all the bishops universally teach) was a Novus Ordo doctrine.  I provided Bellarmine, who was writing at the time of Trent, teaching the same thing, and he cites authors from a thousand years before him who he believes support the same thing.  I took time out of what I was doing to transcribe it at length for you per your request, so I think that I'm at least mildly entitled to securing your answer: Do you still think it's a Novus Ordo doctrine?  Note that this is not the same question as "do you think it's true?"

.
You said that the infallibility of the OUM (what all the bishops universally teach) was a Novus Ordo doctrine.  I provided Bellarmine, who was writing at the time of Trent, teaching the same thing, and he cites authors from a thousand years before him who he believes support the same thing.  I took time out of what I was doing to transcribe it at length for you per your request, so I think that I'm at least mildly entitled to securing your answer: Do you still think it's a Novus Ordo doctrine?  Note that this is not the same question as "do you think it's true?"

First, I also take time out of work to post so I understand what you are saying - I also asked a very specific question in this post that you never answered or acknowledged when I asked: "Am I being clear with this?" - well, was I clear? Assuming I was clear, where is the disagreement?

And yes, the doctrine we are discussing is a NO doctrine. Being that the only place that doctrine is "defined" is in Lumen Gentium. The NO doctrine has it's own, new OUM, which I think you will agree, stands for the "Ordinary Unanimous Magisterium" and the lie that whatever the unanimity of bishops teach in union with the pope is infallible.

The true OUM is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. "Universal" necessarily includes the element of time, i.e. since the time of the Apostles - our OUM includes this element and is always infallible. Per Pius XI, the OUM is, "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."

Can you see the difference?

Your quote showing St. Robert's opinion is subject to the judgement of the Church and at V1, the Church judged that only the pope is infallible and only when he teaches ex cathedra. No mention was made of the totality of bishops in union with the pope being infallible, that idea is only defined in Lumen Gentium - perhaps also in some other V2 council ramblings.