Tradition, Heresy and the Infallibility of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium

[SanctusPeccator]

I am not advocating for anyone to disobey the pastoral statements of Vatican II or any other council. All I meant by that was that an ecumenical council’s pastoral statements are fallible and that they can teach error, and that in the future, should a pope or another ecumenical council find it necessary to do so, a pastoral statement of an ecumenical council can be effectively reversed or ignored. Even history can make it necessary to ignore an ecumenical council’s pastoral statements if they are no longer relevant. For example, no one talks about the statements of the Council of Vienne against the Knights Templar, even though it is still part of the Magisterium of the Church.

I did not say, nor did I intend to imply, that the faithful are not bound to the pronouncements of an ecumenical council. They most certainly are. But if a pope or a subsequent ecumenical council reverses a previous ecumenical council’s pastoral statements, then the faithful are no longer bound to those pastoral statements.

Since Gaudium et Spes did not infallibly proclaim the intrinsic immorality of artificial contraception, what prevents any non-infallible teaching [of the Ordinary Authentic Magisterium] from being externally assented to in the first place?

 

[ready]

Heresy applies to rejecting infallible teachings and not to non-infallible teachings.

Rejecting an infallible teaching = heresy and a sin of grave matter (mortal if you know that).
Rejecting a non-infallible teaching = a sin of grave matter (mortal if you know that) but not heresy.

I’m talking about infallible statements, like everything taught on faith and morals by the Universal Ordinary Magisterium (the hierarchy of the Church whether in a council or dispersed throughout the world concerning faith and morals) and the Solemn Extraordinay Magisterium (Pope and Council in union defining dogma).

I sent my post without even reponding properly. I wanted to delete it, but it was too late. What I wanted to include in my simplistic answer is that if I found that a Universal Ordinary Magisterium contradicted a previous one, I would have to reject the heresy. It would be a sin for me to accept what I found in my heart to be heretical.

 

[po18guy]

When I said I did not find anything heretical in Vatican II I meant that I still do not see clear cases of heresy, just ambiguities. But I do not like how the Latin Mass was changed to the Novus Ordo Mass. Such a major change in the Mass was not allowed.

None of V2 changed the catechism, as I understand it. It only changed the ways in which the Church seeks to accomplish God’s mission. The Church is not going to declare a certain form of mass to be infallible, or else we will all return to Aramaic and reclining at table. There are 20+ rites of the mass. Is only one of them correct and the rest heresy?

 

[ready]

None of V2 changed the catechism, as I understand it. It only changed the ways in which the Church seeks to accomplish God’s mission. The Church is not going to declare a certain form of mass to be infallible, or else we will all return to Aramaic and reclining at table. There are 20+ rites of the mass. Is only one of them correct and the rest heresy?

The Mass, as part of the Deposit of Faith, was supposed to be preserved … only minor changes to the Mass were allowed. A traditional pope (or maybe several of them) absolutely prohibited major changes to be made to the Mass. Even Christ’s words of consecration changed. His words, too, are part of the Deposit of Faith and should have been preserved (“many” was changed to to “all” which some people think could have even invalidated the Mass. I won’t even mention what one pope said would happen to one who made big changes to the Traditional Mass.

 

[po18guy]

The Mass, as part of the Deposit of Faith, was supposed to be preserved … only minor changes to the Mass were allowed. A traditional pope (or maybe several of them) absolutely prohibited major changes to be made to the Mass. Even Christ’s words of consecration changed. His words, too, are part of the Deposit of Faith and should have been preserved (“many” was changed to to “all” which some people think could have even invalidated the Mass. I won’t even mention what one pope said would happen to one who made big changes to the Traditional Mass.

Some of it was clearly a translation problem - since it occurred only in the English-speaking Church. Yet, Christ did not speak Latin, or English, so neither the OF nor EF use the exact words He spoke. What complaint is left? That the error was corrected?

 

[ready]

Some of it was clearly a translation problem - since it occurred only in the English-speaking Church. Yet, Christ did not speak Latin, or English, so neither the OF nor EF use the exact words He spoke. What complaint is left? That the error was corrected?

The complaint that is left for some is that the Novus Ordo Mass said in English was possibly invalid for a great number of years because the consecration may have lacked proper form. Thanks be to God, our Holy Father had the sense to make the correction to the words! Thanks be to God he set this matter right!

 

[po18guy]

The complaint that is left for some is that the Novus Ordo Mass said in English was possibly invalid for a great number of years because the consecration may have lacked proper form. Thanks be to God, our Holy Father had the sense to make the correction to the words! Thanks be to God he set this matter right!

You have a critical eye! What I think that the Holy Father addressed was not validity, but accuracy. I seriously doubt that, as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, he tolerated invalid masses for decades. Doesn’t this almost parallel the (implied) protestant and explicit LDS/JW claim that the gates of hell prevailed?

 

[thistle]

The Mass, as part of the Deposit of Faith, was supposed to be preserved … only minor changes to the Mass were allowed. A traditional pope (or maybe several of them) absolutely prohibited major changes to be made to the Mass. Even Christ’s words of consecration changed. His words, too, are part of the Deposit of Faith and should have been preserved (“many” was changed to to “all” which some people think could have even invalidated the Mass. ** I won’t even mention what one pope said would happen to one who made big changes to the Traditional Mass**.

The form of the Mass is not a doctrine or dogma. It is part of the disciplinary laws of the Church and it can be changed. The only part that cannot be changed are the words of consecration.

In case you are referring to QUO PRIMUM by Pope St. Pius V - July 14, 1570 and the statement therein “Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul” this has nothing to do with doctrine.

Popes cannot change dogmas and doctrines but they can change laws, including those passed by previous popes. Popes know that disciplinary laws are not eternal.

With Quo Primum the Pope is saying that no one may alter the decree that he was issuing. In other words, if some King or Bishop made changes to the Papal decree, he would incur the penalties threatened. The Pope was dealing with a situation where there was much confusion caused by the protestant revolt, which began in 1517, and by lack of education among some Catholic clergy, including even some Bishops. Therefore he forbid anyone to alter his decree. He did not, and could not, forbid future Popes to do what he himself was doing and that was passing disciplinary laws for the good of the Church.

 

[ready]

You have a critical eye! What I think that the Holy Father addressed was not validity, but accuracy. I seriously doubt that, as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, he tolerated invalid masses for decades. Doesn’t this almost parallel the (implied) protestant and explicit LDS/JW claim that the gates of hell prevailed?

No, some traditionalists have made arguments that I could not dismiss as merely stupid. Besides, Christ himself has said that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Chruch so anyone who says that the gates of helll prevails is a liar (because Christ sure isn’t one). St. Thomas Aquinas and I believe other saints were used in the arguments I mention and the arguments appeared to be reasonable and sound. I chose to believe the Mass was valid, despite the possibility that lurked in the back of my mind that it may not have been. There are different things in the Mass that were prohibited by the Traditional Popes that were introduced (eg. tables were prohibited, etc.). After reading about these things being introduced into the Mass you could say I felt a loss in my confidence in the people who made these changes occur. I am not referring to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger either.

 

[ready]

The form of the Mass is not a doctrine or dogma. It is part of the disciplinary laws of the Church and it can be changed. The only part that cannot be changed are the words of consecration.

In case you are referring to QUO PRIMUM by Pope St. Pius V - July 14, 1570 and the statement therein “Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul” this has nothing to do with doctrine.

Popes cannot change dogmas and doctrines but they can change laws, including those passed by previous popes. Popes know that disciplinary laws are not eternal.

With Quo Primum the Pope is saying that no one may alter the decree that he was issuing. In other words, if some King or Bishop made changes to the Papal decree, he would incur the penalties threatened. The Pope was dealing with a situation where there was much confusion caused by the protestant revolt, which began in 1517, and by lack of education among some Catholic clergy, including even some Bishops. Therefore he forbid anyone to alter his decree. He did not, and could not, forbid future Popes to do what he himself was doing and that was passing disciplinary laws for the good of the Church.

Thistle, the Mass is part of the Deposit of faith, it is not merely a disciplinary law. The Mass was handed down by Christ to his Apostles. I’m sorry but I must disagree with you. We must both be referring to different sources.

 

[ready]

Thank you all for your responses, but I do not want to get banned for being too controversial. I can not respond to anymore of your posts. I have just read something from Vatican II about religious liberty which leaves me unsettled. I don’t know how best to respond to what I have read and I will not allow myself to get in trouble with the Moderator. Peace and God bless you all! Thanks again for your participation!

Also, Thistle, I was wrong in saying the Traditional Mass comes only from Christ, it comes not only from Christ but also from Sacred Tradition. I read in the “City of God” what the first Masses were like.

It was the Deposit of Faith preserved by the Apostles and Bishops that kept the Traditional Mass intact.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Since Gaudium et Spes did not infallibly proclaim the intrinsic immorality of artificial contraception, what prevents any non-infallible teaching [of the Ordinary Authentic Magisterium] from being externally assented to in the first place?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the immorality of contraception already was infallibly taught before Gaudium et Spes discussed it.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the immorality of contraception already was infallibly taught before Gaudium et Spes discussed it.

Those magisterial citation(s) for the infallible condemnation of using progesterone pills as a method of artificial contraception [before *Gaudium et spes] would be?

 

[Alfonsus]

Thistle, the Mass is part of the Deposit of faith, it is not merely a disciplinary law. The Mass was handed down by Christ to his Apostles. I’m sorry but I must disagree with you. We must both be referring to different sources.

The Mass is, the form is not.
This is evident if you see how differing liturgies, all came from the apostles, can have very differing forms.

You need to show, how much is too much as established by the Church herself regarding the form of the Roman-Rite-Latin-Church Mass.

 

[po18guy]

No, some traditionalists have made arguments that I could not dismiss as merely stupid. Besides, Christ himself has said that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Chruch so anyone who says that the gates of helll prevails is a liar (because Christ sure isn’t one). St. Thomas Aquinas and I believe other saints were used in the arguments I mention and the arguments appeared to be reasonable and sound. I chose to believe the Mass was valid, despite the possibility that lurked in the back of my mind that it may not have been. There are different things in the Mass that were prohibited by the Traditional Popes that were introduced (eg. tables were prohibited, etc.). After reading about these things being introduced into the Mass you could say I felt a loss in my confidence in the people who made these changes occur. I am not referring to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger either.

A crisis of confidence is nearly always caused by spiritual attack. This is what strikes me.

 

[Dom_Passeri]

Those magisterial citation(s) for the infallible condemnation of using progesterone pills as a method of artificial contraception [before *Gaudium et spes

] would be?

This is a perennial teaching of the Church that stretches waaaaay back into the Old Testament. Even in the New Testament I have read that in Galatians, ch. 5 (talks about the sins of the flesh) the word “witchcrafts” refers to abortion.

In regard to the OP, consider the use of the word “universal” in Universal Ordinary Magisterium, and also consider what both John XXIII and Paul VI said about infallibility and the council.

Kinda reminds me of a friend of mine who informed me that he had going back to school.

“oh yeah” I said, “what are you taking up?”

“Time and space”

It’s a joke, folks…relax.

 

[thistle]

Thistle, the Mass is part of the Deposit of faith, it is not merely a disciplinary law. The Mass was handed down by Christ to his Apostles. I’m sorry but I must disagree with you. We must both be referring to different sources.

If you read my post carefully you would see I said the FORM of the Mass falls under the disciplinary law of the Church.
Apart from the words of consecration anything in the Mass can be changed. I repeat the FORM of the Mass is not doctrinal.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Those magisterial citation(s) for the infallible condemnation of using progesterone pills as a method of artificial contraception [before *Gaudium et spes

] would be?
Why would progesterone pills when used as a contraceptive not be covered by prior pronouncement against contraception in principle?

Every time some new fancy kind of contraceptive is invented, does it have to be specifically banned by the Church by some new decree? I’m not sure, but I think not. Contraception–not condoms and pills and implants individually–has been categorically declared to be immoral already, so why would it be necessary to do so?

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;9402704:

Those magisterial citation(s) for the infallible condemnation of using progesterone pills as a method of artificial contraception [before *Gaudium et spes

] would be?

Why would progesterone pills when used as a contraceptive not be covered by prior pronouncement against contraception in principle?

Every time some new fancy kind of contraceptive is invented, does it have to be specifically banned by the Church by some new decree? I’m not sure, but I think not. Contraception–not condoms and pills and implants individually–has been categorically declared to be immoral already, so why would it be necessary to do so?
When the F.D.A. originally approved Enovid on 10 June 1957 for menstrual disorders, it was unclear if this medical innovation was morally licit for regulating the birth of children. Hence, the reason Blessed Pope John XXIII established the Pontifical Commission on Population, Family, and Birth-rate on 27 April 1963: to officially advise if oral progesterone pills fell within the prior moral parameters against artificial contraception.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;9402704:

Those magisterial citation(s) for the infallible condemnation of using progesterone pills as a method of artificial contraception [before *Gaudium et spes

] would be?

This is a perennial teaching of the Church that stretches waaaaay back into the Old Testament. Even in the New Testament I have read that in Galatians, ch. 5 (talks about the sins of the flesh) the word “witchcrafts” refers to abortion.

Believe the original Greek is φαρμακεία (pharmakeia) in Galatians 5:20?