From
Fr. Gleize (2011):
(The sedevacantists and sedeprivationists (boy can we use a different name?) are arguing in the same manner as Bishop Ocáriz (a conservative Conciliar bishop))
(Translation from DeepL)
AN INSUFFICIENT PROBLEM
These general references would not present any difficulty if Bishop Ocáriz did not apply them to the teachings of Vatican II.
In fact, according to him, even if the last Council did not want to define any dogma, the charism of truth and the magisterial authority were certainly present, to the point that to deny them to the whole of the episcopate gathered cuм Petro et sub Petro to give a teaching to the universal Church would mean to deny a part of the very essence of the Church. [With all due respect, Cantarella, you are arguing in the same manner] So that the Council's affirmations recalling truths of faith evidently require the adherence of theological faith, not because they were taught by this Council, but because they had already been taught as such in an infallible way by the Church, either by virtue of a solemn decision, or by ordinary and universal teaching. The same full and definitive assent is required for the other doctrines recalled by the Council and already proposed with a definitive act by previous magisterial interventions. The other doctrinal teachings of the Council require the faithful to give religious assent of will and intelligence.
Without doubt, one could be pleased to see finally a theologian of the Holy See introduce all these nuances and with this oppose the more formal, albeit implicit, refusal to all the unilateral expositions that until today have presented Vatican Council II in a maximalist perspective, as if it were an absolutely untouchable dogma, "even more important than that of Nicaea"[4]. However, however seductive it may be in terms of the nuances and distinctions it makes, such an analysis conveys a postulate at its root that is far from evident. In this way, the study of Bishop Ocáriz avoids answering the crucial question, which is still pending between the Saint Pius X Fraternity and the Holy See. More precisely, in the eyes of the Opus Dei prelate it seems that the answer to this question is entirely implicit, as if it had never been necessary to deal with the issue or as if no debate had ever taken place.
It is more necessary than ever.
In fact, it is far from evident that the charism of truth and the authority of the Magisterium were certainly present in the last Council and that the whole of the episcopate gathered cuм petro et sub Petro benefited from the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit to teach the universal Church. Whether we like it or not,
it is not obvious that the last Council can impose itself in the eyes of Catholics, in everything and for everything as the exercise of a true Magisterium, such as to require their adherence to the different degrees indicated. We deny this, for serious reasons. In fact, if one refers to the traditional definition of the Magisterium (§ 3-5) one is obliged to observe that the procedures of Vatican II do not conform to it (§ 6-7). All the more so since this integral novelty of the 21st Ecuмenical Council is explained in depth by absolutely new assumptions (§ 8-12).3
THE REASON FOR THE MAGISTERIUM'S EXISTENCE
The unity of the Church and unity in faith are inseparable, and rightly the Magisterium has the task of safeguarding them. To this end he needs the charism of truth, as the means required to preserve the common good of the Church, which is the good of unity in the profession of the same faith. This is the reason given by the Pastor Aeternus Constitution of Vatican Council I: "Therefore this charism of truth and faith, already indefectible, was granted by God to Peter and his successors in this Chair, so that [...] after eliminating what leads to the schism, the whole Church might be kept one"[5]. In the same way, St. Thomas explains why the pope, when he teaches dogma, must be divinely assisted, and must be so precisely because he acts as head, to safeguard the unity of the Church: "And the reason for this lies in the fact that the Church must have one faith, according to the admonition of St. Thomas, the Pope is the one who is the most important person in the world. Paul (1 Cor 1:10): "Say the same thing to all of you, and there should be no schisms among you.
But this cannot be observed if, when a question of faith arises, it is not defined by those who preside over the whole Church, so that its decision may be accepted by the whole Church with firm consent"[6]. This is therefore the final cause of the activity of the Magisterium, which explains its indefectibility in the faith. The Magisterium is assisted by God to the extent that it must ensure the unity of the Church, which is the unity of the common profession of faith. This assistance is not absolute, therefore, but limited: it accompanies the transmission of Revelation and nothing else. Christ told his Apostles that the Holy Spirit would assist them to teach everything that he himself had taught them, no more, no less[7].
Therefore, far from constituting doctrine,
the act of the Magisterium does nothing but preserve and declare it[8]:
the Magisterium is defined as such in an objective dependence on divine revelation, the transmission of which it must ensure. In the discussions leading up to the adoption of the Constitution Lumen Gentium, the main representatives of the "Coetus internationalis patrum", including Mons. Lefebvre, proposed a significant amendment[9]. This modification of the text gave the understanding that, if the definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable for themselves and not because the Church would give them the assent, it is because the assistance of the Holy Spirit does not allow them to ever contradict the common faith of the Church or to depart from it. The reason for this amendment was precisely to show (especially in the presence of the Eastern schismatics) that the pope does not have the power to arbitrarily define every kind of truth, even outside the deposit of faith. On the occasion of the first Vatican Council, the speaker charged with explaining, on behalf of the Holy See, the exact meaning of the text of Pastor Aeternus, insisted in the same sense: since the exercise of the Magisterium has the raison d'être of being the common good of the unity of the faith, assistance is given to the Pope so that he may preserve the common faith of the Church[10].
As has rightly been pointed out[11], if, from a false perspective, one loses sight of the right relationship that makes the Magisterium dependent on objective Tradition, the Deus revelans risks taking second place to the advantage of the custos et magistra. The means to avoid this risk consists in remembering the essential definition of the Magisterium: a power ordered to its object.Since the unity of a power derives from that of its object, the unity of the Magisterium is that of revealed truth[12]. One recalls the other, since the revealed doctrine is the principle and foundation of the Magisterial teachings, as the specific object of an act.