Don't you realize that you are praising Pax for citing a bunch of Novus Ordo, indult-like individuals, including Cardinal Ratzinger? If you are leaning indult, then plainly say so. At least that position is consistent. Otherwise, I do not understand your support. I mean, all these people are saying Vatican II was a pastoral, NOT infallible Council, they admit that the Council narrative may have some misworded controversial sentences here and there; yet they all remain in COMUNION WITH ROME and SUBMISSION TO THE POPE. They assent to Paul VI  when he says "all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed”.

You are praising Pax for citing the 1983 catechism? Come on!

Cantarella, did you take some course? - or who/what/group did you get involved with? - or did you attend some NO classes within the last year or so or what is it? Something happened to you within the last year or so to spin your head as it did and I would like to know what it was so that I avoid whatever it was that changed you. I hope you will at least give answer to this.

Have you ever considered the possibility that the conciliar popes themselves believe the same as you? That whatever they do is infallibly safe? That whatever he and the totality of bishops preach is infallible?

With that belief, they lived their conviction and opened up the flood gates for the salvation of everyone they possibly could, did away with fasting, sacrifice, penance and all the other Catholic treasures, replacing them with people friendly attractions. Why wouldn't they? Why would they need to define any dogma when whatever they say is infallibly safe? "We all worship the same God" is infallibly safe. "There is no hell" and poof, that's infallibly safe to believe. "Follow the dictates of your conscience" is infallibly safe. "Kissing the Koran" is infallibly safe. And on and on.

What is it that you are debating anyway?


 

That's the nail in the coffin to discredit you ... your endorsement of the inane nonsensical ramblings of Stubborn and Pax.

Indeed, the living Magisterium has gone dormant.  You're unable to comprehend that we still believe all that has been taught previously by said Magisterium.  Similarly, a LEGITIMATE pope could go 30 years without even exercising Magisterium.  I'm sure we've had a few of these during the darker periods of Church history.  This does not mean that the Magisterium is not the proximate rule of faith.

You again have ZERO comprehension of what "rule of faith" even means, and you keep babbling like an idiot with one incoherent post after another.  You fail to understand the basic terms involved, and have therefore degenerated into Protestant heresy.

Sounds to me that she is debating her own conscience.

Cantarella,  have you been going to the Greek Orthodox church?

If there WERE current Magisterium, as you claim there is, and said Magisterium were to teach something to the Universal Church, then that something cannot and does not contradict past Magisterium.

If Vatican II was a legitimate Ecuмenical Council, then I accept all of its teaching as being in harmony with Revealed Doctrine

The "Authentic Magisterium" cannot be so simply identified with the Ordinary Magisterium. In fact, the Ordinary Magisterium can be infallible and non-infallible, and it is only in this second case that it is called the "Authentic Magisterium." The Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique [hereafter referred to as DTC—Ed.] under the heading of "papal infallibility" (vol. VII, col. 1699ff) makes the following distinctions:
1.   there is the "infallible or ex cathedra papal definition in the sense defined by Vatican I" (col.1699);
2.   there is the "infallible papal teaching which flows from the pope’s Ordinary Magisterium" (col.1705);
3.   there is "non-infallible papal teaching" (col.1709).

Similarly, Salaverri, in his Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.) distinguishes the following:
1.   Extraordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 592 ff);
2.   Ordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 645 ff);
3.   Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticuм, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility (no. 659 ff)

Now, as we have already seen, doctrinal indefectibility is certainly implied in Christ's promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church, and cannot be effectively secured without doctrinal infallibility; so that if Christ's promise means anything — if Peter's successor is in any true sense the foundation and source of the Church'sindefectibility — he must by virtue of this office be also an organ of ecclesiastical infallibility.

Cantarella,
Yes? No? Sometimes?