For those of you that are inclined to defend the Second Vatican Council and its consequent reforms, my advice to you is to read “Open Letter to Confused Catholics” by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. It is available at the link below. You may also purchase a copy.
This website firmly believes that the Second Vatican Council and its consequent reforms will be solemnly condemned by a future pope.
https://www.sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/index.htm
Are you kidding me? Already Wikipedia says:
“A teaching of ordinary and universal magisterium is a teaching on which all bishops (including the Pope) universally agree.” You may also want to check Berry of Van Noort.
In communion with the Pope, of course. It is what a Council may do when it teaches in faith and morals in an ordinary way, i.e: not by solemn definitions.
So again, do the constitutions of V2 belong to the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Bishops, yes or no?
“Universal” does not just encompass the pope and bishops at one point in time. It means throughout time as well.
My question concerned what E. Sylvester Berry calls the ” Ordinary Universal Teaching Authority of the Bisshops” (p. 266, The Church of Christ),
.. and what Pope Leo XIII calls: “doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her Ordinary and Universal Teaching” (Sapientiae Christianae, no 24).
Again, my question was: do you believe that the decrees and constitutions of V2 are part of precisely that Magisterium?
The decrees and constitutions of Vatican II do not fall under the ordinary and universal magisterium.
But do you not contradict a Pope here? Pope PVI, who said:
“In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statement of dogmas that would be endowed with the note of infallibility.” […] Since the Second Vatican Council had no intention to bind Catholics on questions of faith and morals, it was not protected from error by the Holy Spirit. [..] However, it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document.”
No. “Ordinary Magisterium” and “Ordinary and University Magisterium” are not the same thing. The latter is infallible; the former is not.
https://sspx.org/en/clear-ideas-popes-infallible-magisterium
I don’t think this has to do with infallibility,
This has to do with obedience and authority.
Which are different things.
A person who you acknowledge as a valid Pope, says about V2:
“This is Ordinary Magisterium. You must accept this with docility. ”
My question to you was not whether it is infallible or not. My question to you was if you accept what a Pope says, namely that this (V2) is Magisterium and you must accept it.
Infallibility demands absolute obedience, so they are related. Non-infallibility does not demand absolute obedience. It is relative. That one accepts the Ordinary (authentic but not necessarily infallible) Magisterium with docility does not mean that one must accept all its acts with absolute obedience. If there is good reason to not accept a particular act, then there is no sin in doing so (i.e., not accepting).
And, if I may ask: on the basis of what authority do you make that distinction? Namely, that, when valid pope says, mind you – to the whole church: “This is Ordinary Magisterium, you must accept this with docility”, and you say: “I will not have to accept if there is good reason”.
What authority decides then whether there is good reason or not. Is it private judgement? Certainly not the Pope’s just mentioned.
Nor the CDF’s: “With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.” (OATH OF FIDELITY ON ASSUMING AN OFFICE TO BE EXERCISED IN THE NAME OF THE CHURCH)
Pkc, I know all the arguments of the Sedevacantists and their opposition (like the SSPX of Archbishop Lefebvre). This can go back and forth many times. I have chosen Archbishop Lefebvre’s position. This is not to say that the Sedevacantists will not be proven right when a holy pope ascends the Throne of Peter, but I am not convinced at this time that the Sedevacantists are correct. I will no longer respond to this conversation. Thank you.
Thank you also for this exchange. Myself, I am a NO catholic, right now definitely on his way to Tradition. This through the discovery that Bergoglio must be an antipope. I am only assessing the various traditional positions. Which is not easy. The sedevacantist position has the most inner coherency, it doesnt internally contradict itself, but is it true? Is there only a gradual difference between JP2 and Bergoglio? I think there is a fundamental difference. The recognize and resist position of Abp. L. however seems to have inner conflict, as I see it. One cannot, at the same time acknowledge an authority on the one hand and – by private judgment – deny it on the other hand. Internal contradiction cannot come from Christ Logos, as I see it. It is an attractive solution for now, but, unwillingly, the very principle of magisterial authority (Vat1) is fully undermined. I understand that you broke off the exchange, it may become personal, and we don’t want that. A pity though, because the approach-avoidance of resisting the very ecclesial authority that one accepts as binding, is the heart of the matter. Anyway, my search goes on. St. Hermenegild, pray for us.
The internal contradiction of Archbishop Lefebvre is only apparent IF you give unqualified authority to the Magisterium. If you come to better understand the three general levels of the authority of the Magisterium (extraordinary infallible, ordinary infallible, and authentic fallible), then you will see there is no internal contradiction. I suggest you read the following:
https://angeluspress.org/products/pope-or-church
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4_2fvBJaUY
I do not “defend the Second Vatican Council and its consequent reforms”. It was a modernist event.
I only ask: did V2 belong to the ordinary universal magisterium of the Bishops?
If YES, you cannot oppose it, you will have to interpret it accordance to tradition (wich is qua texts possible, thanks to its utter ambiguity, a paradox). If , in case of a YES, you nevertheless do resist it, the teaching of what the ordinary universal magisterium IS, in general, is shattered.
If NO, it is an anti-council of an anti church and its defenders JP2 and B16, ‘products of v2’ were antipopes.
There is no in between
What is the “ordinary universal magisterium of the Bishops”?