We are dealing here with the possibility of heresy in an Ecunemical Council,

Cantarella/Ladislaus,
You ignored these quotes the first time, will you ignore them again?

From V2's footnotes:

In view of the conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so.

As a matter of fact, nowhere in the council docuмents does the Synod openly declare that such and such a doctrine is being defined.

----

You dodged this quote too:   (From Sylvester Berry's The Church of Christ (1927), pp. 458-9.)
"Bishops assembled in council are infallible only when exercising their supreme authority as teachers of faith or morals by a definite and irrevocable decree that a doctrine is revealed and, therefore, to be accepted by every member of the Church. (1)  But since the bishops need not intend such an irrevocable decision at all times, it is necessary that an infallible definition be so worded as to indicate clearly its definitive character.  For this purpose no set formula is necessary; it is sufficient to mention the doctrine as an article of faith, a dogma of faith, a Catholic dogma, a doctrine always believed in the Church, or a doctrine handed down by the Fathers.  Anathema pronounced against those who deny a doctrine is also sufficient evidence of a dogmatic definition.

A large majority of the acts of councils are not infallible definitions, because they are not intended as such.  "Neither the discussions which precede a dogmatic decree, nor the reasons alleged to prove and explain it, are to be accepted as infallibly true.  Nothing but the actual decrees are of faith, and these only if they are intended as such."

----

St Bellarmine:
For Bellarmine infallibility is restricted to the decrees of the councils that are proposed as such: The greater part of the acta of councils does not be-long to the faith. For the discussions which precede a decree are not of the faith, nor are the reasons adduced for them, nor are those things brought forward to illus-trate or explain them, but only those actual decrees, which are proposed as of the faith 53.

Oh, Pius IX condemned Religious Liberty?  Well, it didn't have all the notes of infallibility, so it's a flip of the coin whether I accept it or not.  I like Pius IX and don't like Vatican II, so I'll go with Pius IX.

Anyone with an 8th grade understanding can read encyclicals pre and post V2 and see the difference in use of the english language.  Your sweeping-generalizations, emotional rants, and childish name-calling are becoming more and more normal for your posts.  I wish you'd deal in facts, but that might be asking too much.

In fact, it is mostly through Pius IX's 'syllabus of errors' (which was authoritative and clear) that we know V2's philosophy (non authoritative and ambiguous) is wrong.  Pius IX condemned almost all of V2's errors.  To say that one cannot read both and see the difference in authoritative-tone, clarity and purpose is a lie.  Again, you have no integrity.

So you're saying that the teachings of Pius IX were infallible, right?

No, not everything.  The Syllabus of Errors was binding, yes.  The Immaculate Conception, obviously, and any canons from V1.  And any of his non-infallible magisterium, which I don't have memorized because it would've been a RE-TEACHING of a dogma ALREADY IN EXISTENCE, therefore it was already in the catechism.

I didn't ask whether the Syllabus was binding but whether it was infallible.

The syllabus contains many errors that have been previously and infallibly condemned.  Yet the Syllabus is not regarded as an infallible statement, no.  It could fall under the non-infallible magisterium, if such errors are shown to have been ALWAYS condemned (which is problematic, since most of those errors have only been around since the 16th century with modern philosophers).  Yet, such a condemnation must be given 'religious conditional assent' and presumed to be correct, unless we find errors.

I believe that we are not dealing with human authority, Mr. Drew; but in the figure of the Pope, DIVINE authority coming from God. Otherwise, the foundation of St. Peter that Our Lord envisioned for His Church is quite meaningless. That changes everything of course, and it is why the example of father and son falls short. We part from the premise that the Holy Father, on account of having authority from God, will NOT and CANNOT command something harmful to the Faith.

The Vicar of Christ on earth does not issue unjust commands to the Faithful or lead souls to Hell by promulgating error. As simple as that. If someone has doubts on the reason for this, please read Vatican I Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus.

Cantarella,

All authority comes from God.  All authority that is delegated from God is conditionally exercised subject to the higher authority.  Ultimately, all delegated authority is conditional on it being consonant with the will of God.  Obedience to all human authority is regulated by the virtue of Religion.  If any command violates the virtue of Religion such as a command against natural law, eternal law, divine positive law, revealed truth, etc. it cannot be obeyed without sin. This principle is true for all delegated authority no matter who is exercising it. The pope is the highest human authority but still he is a man exercising human authority and the same moral principles apply to him as to every other human.

The claim that the pope “will NOT and CANNOT command something harmful to the Faith” is what everyone believes who holds the pope as their rule of faith.  You may not like to admit this but this is exactly what you are claiming. It is this rule of faith the leads to conservative Catholicism and Sedevacantism.

Those that do this, like Ladislaus, believe in the lollipop doctrine of “Infallible Security.”  This doctrine believes that the Attribute of Indefectibility Christ endowed His Church means that the pope “will NOT and CANNOT command something harmful to the Faith.”  “Infallible Security” means that the pope has an infallible infallibility and a non-infallible infallibility. They also believe that each pope possess a personal "never-failing faith," and therefore whatever he says or does can be a safe guide for all the faithful.  It distills down to papolatry.

Pastor Aeternus, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church from Vatican I, defines four doctrines of Catholic faith: 1) The apostolic primacy conferred on Peter, 2) The perpetuity of the Petrine Primacy in the Roman pontiffs, 3) The meaning and power of the papal primacy, 4) Papal infallibility – the infallible teaching authority  (magisterium) of the Pope. (Wikipedia)

By defining exactly what criteria are necessary for the pope to be infallible, it necessarily indirectly defines when he is not infallible. Nothing from Pastor Aeternus says the pope, “will NOT and CANNOT command something harmful to the Faith” except when he engages the Attributes of Infallibility and Authority which Jesus Christ endowed His Church.


But Pastor Aeternus does say that there will be perpetual successors in the papal office.  Sedevacantism does not have a pope, and what is worse, they have no possibility to ever get one.  In Sedevacantism the material and instrumental causes necessary to make a pope do not exist.  Sedevacantism has constructed a church that CANNOT be the Church founded by Jesus Christ because it does not possess the necessary attributes.  Can’t you see the absurdity of appealing to Pastor Aeternus which condemns Sedevacantism?

The whole position is a mass of contradictions.  If the pope “will NOT and CANNOT command something harmful to the Faith” how did this current mess ever happen?  How could it have ever happened?  

For you, the “magisterium is the rule of faith” – but only sometimes.  Without dogma as your proximate rule of faith, you have no criteria by which to judge if the authentic ordinary magisterium of the pope based upon his grace of state has made any error.  Since Vatican II was a magisterial work, you must accept it and in the end, I would not be surprised if you do.  I know other sedevacantists who have done just that.  They went from traditional Catholicism, to sedevacantism, to the Novus Ordo.  It is hard to say whether it is the isolation of sedevacantism or just the inner logic of the situation that resolves itself in this way.  The isolation is pathognomonic of the disease.  I actually know sedevacantists who, not wishing to be associated in the company with heretics, did not attend their children’s weddings or receptions because Indult priests officiated.  Since the pope is really their rule of faith (even though some like to plead that is the “magisterium”) either way, when they get rid of the pope, they get rid of any access to the magisterium, and they necessarily get rid of their rule of faith. The inner logic drives them into the Novus Ordo.  You will have to take the 1989 Profession of Faith to be reconciled with Novus Ordo and swear unconditional obedience to the “authentic magisterium” (that is, unconditional obedience to the pope), but this fact Ladislaus has said again and again that he has no problem with it.  I understand why.  The pope really is his rule of faith.  But what is insufferable, he wants to make himself the "lord of the harvest."

Drew

but “also be submissive to him in matters of liturgy and discipline.”

Cantarella, same answer as above.  The pope/magisterium HAVE NOT REQUIRED SUBMISSION therefore no one is REFUSING SUBMISSION.  

You falsely attribute to V2 authority which it does not have, which it never claimed to have, and which Paul VI and all V2 theologians agree CANNOT claim to have.  

Also Samuel, it is not like we are talking about the latest imprudent interview Bergolio just made, or a silly error here and there caused by distraction or something minor. That would not make him a false pope. We are dealing here with the possibility of heresy in an Ecunemical Council, a schismatic liturgy, modernized catechism, a complete swift in the Magisterium, a demolition of the Catholic dogmas of salvation, etc.

And this is not even about a single pope promulgating error like in the times of Arch. Lefebvre. R&R really keeps adhering to the idea that after more than half a century, the consecution of the last 5 - 6 latest "popes" have all become heretics and enemies of the Faith. The legitimate successor of St. Peter keep becoming heretics one after another one.

Impossible.

Cantarella,

Which of these two mutually exclusive positions do you believe is the correct one:

1. A validly elected pope can fall into heresy.

2. A validly elected pope can not fall into heresy.

Keep in mind that in #1 we're not talking about what happens if or when he falls into heresy, we're only talking about whether it is possible or not that a pope can fall into heresy.

Tell that to +Lefebvre, +Fellay, et al.  

No, I'm telling you.  This is a fact.  The reason +Lefebvre continued to separate from new-rome is the same reason that Fr Chazal outlines - they don't have the faith; they are dangerous.  We must separate from them to keep the Faith.