A Sedevacantist Argument

+

JMJ

I've been discussing an issue with a Catholic who adheres to the Sedevacantist thesis.  As rational discussions help to bring forth the truth on a matter, I have decided to publish some key aspects here.

As is my wont, I will attempt to provide relevant authorities prior to delving into the argument put forth.


In this case, I such that you should read an article posted here: Tradicat: Magisterium and Levels of Assent to provide the context for this article.


Authorities Cited by M:

1. Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man. "Lord, if we be in error, we are being deceived by Thee" (Richardus de S. Victore, De Trin., lib. i., cap. 2). In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy?-without separating himself from the Church?-without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. (Satis Cognitum)
2. (On the Infallibility of Councils): C)Bishops assembled in council are infallible only when exercising their supreme authority as teachers of the 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. 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." On the necessity of "Invoking the Holy Ghost" Fr.. Sylvester Berry:pg. 261
3. The "ordinary" teaching authority of the bishops is that which they exercise in teaching the faithful of their respective diocese by pastoral letters, by sermons delievered by themselves or by instruction edited or approved by them. When the bishops of the Church, thus engaged in the duty of instructing their people, are practically unanimous in proclaiming a doctrine of faith or morals, they are said to exercise a universal teaching authority, and are then infallible in regard to that doctrine. In other words, a doctrine of faith or morals in which practically all the bishops of the Church agree, is infallibly true. (Fr. Berry)
4. There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions engaging the infallibility of the ecclesiastical Magisterium. The answer is known by whoever remembers the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964: given the Council’s pastoral character, it avoided pronouncing, in an extraordinary manner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility. ...“But it [the Council] has invested its teachings with the authority of the supreme ordinary magisterium, which ordinary magisterium is so obviously authentic that it must be accepted with docility and sincerity by all the faithful, according to the mind of the Council as expressed in the nature and aims of the individual documents.” (Pope Paul VI)
5. Each and every one of the things set forth in this [here the type of document is named] has won the consent of the fathers. We too, by the Apostolic Authority conferred on us by Christ, join with the venerable Fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in Synod be published to God’s glory…I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.(Footnote at end of docs)

Tradicat Commentary: All of this is consistent with Church doctrine concerning how the various levels of Magisterial authority is applied.

Here are some key points:

1. Satis Cognitum is referring to the definition of dogma as noted in the article I referenced at the beginning of this article.
2. Fr. Berry #1: Infallible teaching has a 'definitive character' to distinguish it from the ordinary teaching.
3. Fr. Berry #2: Ordinary and Universal occurs when the bishops in their dioceses teach in unison. 
4. Paul VI: The council avoided pronouncing dogmas.  Full stop. Everything else still have the general authority that requires acceptance unless there is contradiction with prior teaching.

Objections Raised by M:

1. the Church doesn't "invoke" infallibility, it possesses infallibility as the perennial gift given to her by Our Lord. The Vatican II documents were ratified by practically all the bishops in union with the Pope. They are therefore a product of the Universal Magisterium they cannot contain error precisely because the whole Church cannot teach error at any time; this is part of the gift of indefectibility. 
2. Universal disciplinary laws and sacramental rites are also protected by the Holy Ghost from containing error or causing harm to souls (negative infallibility).
3. the very fact that the Pope and the bishops together,  teach that a doctrine belongs to the deposit of faith or that it must be held by Catholics; is all that is necessary for it to be binding. The teaching of Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum ...
4. "The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself.(2) This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right." ... The Council is clearly stating that Religious Liberty is found in Sacred Scripture; if so it is part of the deposit of the faith and cannot be denied without falling into heresy. 
5. However for argument's sake I could say that the Council did not intend to use its supreme authority in issuing this definition; yet this same error has been taught by almost the moral unanimity of the bishops throughout the world since Vatican II. Again If the bishops throughout the world  in union with the Pope, teach that a doctrine is part of the deposit of faith then this constitutes the Universal Ordinary Magisterium which in its turn is also infallible.
6. Anathema pronounced against those who deny a doctrine: Given the fact that the SSPX  cannot be considered “in full communion” with the Church, unless they accept the teachings of Vatican II, including that of Religious Liberty. Its about as close as the Conciliar Church comes to pronouncing “anathema”.
7. Each and every one of the things set forth in this [here the type of document is named] has won the consent of the fathers. We too, by the Apostolic Authority conferred on us by Christ, join with the venerable Fathers in approving, decreeing, and establishing these things in the Holy Spirit, and we direct that what has thus been enacted in Synod be published to God’s glory…I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church.

Answers to Objections:

1. I used the work invoke, I meant it is clear when they are exercising the full extent of their magisterial authority.
2. I agree and it would be up to M to demonstrate that negative infallibility has been breached in the laws and rites.
3. This does not appear to be consistent with Fr. Berry's definition of Ordinary and Universal Magisterium as he stated they had to be in their dioceses.  It also doesn't fall under the O&UM defined by V2 as it lacks at least facet #4: "That they propose this as something to be held definitively by the  faithful."
4. Root example.  The only problem is:
1. What the council fathers are indicating is that the dignity of the human person is 'known through the revealed word of God ...'
2. The council fathers are not asserting that religious liberty is found in the 'revealed word of God' but that it is based upon this .
3. Conclusion: Faced with ordinary magisterium as it lacks the character of 'needing to be held' by all the faithful.
5. The question is not whether or not the bishops are in moral unanimity teaching religious liberty. The question is whether or not they meet all four conditions to support O&U magisteriuim.  Following the line of reasoning in assertion #5, then the Arian heresy would be part of the infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
6. It is not for us to assume an anathema has been declared when it has not.  This would be the error of Michael Voris et al.
7. This is simply the Pope's ratification of the document.  It is not an exercise of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, as it lacks the conditions.

Question: Are the requirements for Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (O&UM) absent from the Second Vatican Council?

Answer: The necessary conditions for O&UM are:

1. though dispersed through the world, 
2. still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, 
3. authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, 
4. they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.

At the council the Bishops were not dispersed, and were not in agreement on a position as definitively to be held.  

If the Bishops in council were to propose a teaching to be definitively held, then we'd have an exercise of the extra-ordinary authority of the Church.

Now as to the level of assent due to authoritative teachings of the Church, that would be the subject of another posting.

P^3