To SemperFidelis

[Necrohol]

Due to the thread we were talking in was closed, I’ll answer your question in this one.

SemperFidelis wrote:
“Yes, certain parts of Vatican II would seem to fall under the authority of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. I have never made any argument to the contrary. However there are many parts that would fall under the authority of the merely authentic Ordinary Magisterium. You have to apply each document according to the norms for theological interpretaton as it relates to the authority of said documents (as stated by Cardinal Felici in the Nota Praevia to Lumen Gentium). You are “proof-texting” here and ascribing meaning to Paul VI’s words that which is not there. Do you mean to tell me that a document on “Media and Social Communications” could possibly fall under the authority of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium? Please answer this question in a simple yes or no fashion.”

Listen to this: could the article Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (Lumen Gentium) fall under your category of not Infallible? Of course not, it is dealing directly with the Constitution of the Church, but in this document it gives a false and erroneous meaning of the Constitution of the Church, saying it “subsists” in the Church but it is not limited by her boundaries and all that stuff.

 

[Necrohol]

SemperFidelis wrote:

“A pastoral council can nevertheless reiterate teachings that fall under the category of faith and morals. All such reiterations that are in continuity with the Dogmas of the Faith are infallible due to the fact that they are already infallible Dogmas. If it was found to be that a certain document of Vatican II did not explain something in continuity with previous teachings, then it undoubtedly would fall under the authentic Ordinary Magisterium, as it could not possibly be the Universal Ordinary Magisterium due to its failure to be in continuity with said previous teachings. “Continuity” and “time” are the key words here. I am not however, accusing any document of Vatican II of actually having error, but am arguing that it is possible due to what we know of the authority of Vatican II.”

You are simply trying to excuse the documents where V2 clearly is not in continuity with past teachings. I already proved to you it was an Infallible council, it met the conditions, and even so it intended to teach with the authority of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium, which is granted infallibility.

Paul VI in his audience of the closing of Vatican II:

“…it [the Council] still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual documents.”

 

[SemperFidelis]

Listen to this: could the article Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (Lumen Gentium) fall under your category of not Infallible?

You still didn’t answer my question, which stated:

SemperFidelis:

Do you mean to tell me that a document on “Media and Social Communications” could possibly fall under the authority of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium? Please answer this question in a simple yes or no fashion."

Necrohol:

but in this document it gives a false and erroneous meaning of the Constitution of the Church, saying it “subsists” in the Church

I am not yet aware of any anathema from any Council, Encylical, Counter Syllabus, etc. that states “if anyone uses the word subsists in, in refering to the Catholic Church, let him be anathema.” I would agree with you that “subsists” blurs the meaning and is ambigious, but it is not heresy to say such. Regardless your whole point is moot anyway, as Pope Benedict XVI clarified its meaning in favor of the Traditional meaning. Also note elsewhere, where Vatican II actually did use the word “is.”

but it is not limited by her boundaries and all that stuff

Such precise language here. Once again you are reading into something that which is not there. The term “Dogmatic” is not used here in the sense that Vatican II is attempting to define anything new, only in the sense that the document in question is refering to or reiterating previous defined Dogmas of the Church. In so far as this is the case, it is impossible to prescribe infallibility even to all parts of Lumen Gentium. Where the Council is in continuity with Tradition, you have the exercising of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium. Where the Council seems to take a different approach, you have authentic (non-infallible) Ordinary Magisterium. So take the “Dimond Brothers blinder” off, which lacks any semblance of logic, and read up on the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium (both Universal and authentic) and how such would apply to the Council. I suggest starting here:

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/ordinary.htm

 

[SemperFidelis]

“…it [the Council] still provided its teaching with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium. This ordinary magisterium, which is so obviously official, has to be accepted with docility, and sincerity by all the faithful, in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual documents.”

Your own quote here condemns you. The last sentence: “in accordance with the mind of the Council on the nature and aims of the individual documents”; in other words: some parts of some documents constitute Universal Ordinary Magisterium (of which the requirement is continuity with Tradition in time and manner), while the rest only meets the requirements for authentic Ordinary Magisterium. Are you taking all your quotes and reasoning straight from the Dimond Brother’s website? If so that is really sad and unfortunate.

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Due to the thread we were talking in was closed, I’ll answer your question in this one.

This is something that must be done by private message and not on the public boards, especially after the closure of a thread.

Note:

This thread is closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion.