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.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: Stubborn

Quote from: 2Vermont

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.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

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?  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?

.

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.  

.