CathInfo.com

This NO ladism has already been exposed and you've already been corrected on this. For convenience.....


I had to look this ladism up -  just as I thought, not only is such a thing ["Disciplinary Infallibility"]*not* "held by all theologians" at all, it was never even discussed by any of them. This means Disciplinary infallibility is a new term and like all things NO, has multiple, novel meanings.  It did not even exist prior to 19th/20th century. "Disciplinary infallibility" is another NO innovation, a product of the unanimous vote of NO authors that poor Lad is promoting again as if it is something traditionally Catholic.


From the CE:
"What connexion is there between the discipline of the Church and her infallibility? Is there a certain disciplinary infallibility?

It does not appear that the question was ever discussed in the past by theologians unless apropos of the canonization of saints and the approbation of religious orders. It has, however, found a place in all recent [NO] treatises on the Church.

The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favor of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility blah blah blah..."

Ladism: "Again, this is nothing more than the Disciplinary Infallibility of the Church ... which is held to be theologically certain by all theologians."

CE: It does not appear that the question was ever discussed in the past by theologians...

CE: It has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church.

Recent treaties = not of tradition =  began with 19th / 20th century theologians speculations, which is the only place such an idea is found - per the CE. Likely it is also found among V2 docuмents or other false teachings of the NO.

The Church's Disciplines, depending on one's opinion of what that even is, the Church changes with cultures and over time - that is just a fact. Anything that is subject to change, is subject to corruption, not infallibility, therefore, there is no divine guarantee of safety regarding the Church's disciplines.

This particular Ladism attempts to extend the Church's infallibility to the general discipline of the Church as if that false idea actually is teaching of the Church. But this is wrong. There is no teaching of the Church agreeing with him on this.

As the CE states, prior to  V1 there was no such thing even discussed at all. Per the CE, this idea is a recent, aka not traditional idea that ladism raises to the level of "theologically certain" because he wrongfully states that "all theologians" held it, but by default, being a recent idea it is not traditional.

All this ladism is, is a false idea that NOers wrongly believe to be a teaching of the Church - which if it actually is a Church teaching, then we are all wrong for not being NO and all trads are at least stupid for being trads in the first place.

Disciplinary infallibility is no "Ladism", idiot.

Here are the parts of CE that you left out (since you cite CE as an authority):

All this article was saying is that disciplinary infallibility is a negative and indirect infallibility ... to the extent that discipline has doctrinal implications.