Good statement for Sedevacantism

[Michael Wilson]

We can narrow this down a bit:
1. Good
2. not infallible or binding.
3. ditto.
4. ditto.
5. Binding, 'negatively infallible' i.e. Cannot contain anything that is harmful to faith or morals; and can safely be accepted and followed by all Catholics.
6. Not binding, not infallible.
The reason the list is so long is that you needlessly introduced the acts of a private person not those official acts of the Pope.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

We can narrow this down a bit:
1. Good
2. not infallible or binding.
3. ditto.
4. ditto.
5. Binding, 'negatively infallible' i.e. Cannot contain anything that is harmful to faith or morals; and can safely be accepted and followed by all Catholics.
6. Not binding, not infallible.
The reason the list is so long is that you needlessly introduced the acts of a private person not those official acts of the Pope.

Do you have any definitive sources for #5?

[Michael Wilson]

Sure; Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, "The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals"
posted here on S.D. https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=30831.0

It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic's duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father's responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ's fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church's membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ's vicar on earth.

[Khalid]

Sure; Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, "The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals"
posted here on S.D. https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=30831.0

It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic's duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father's responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ's fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church's membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ's vicar on earth.

I've read many theologians who teach this; however, do you know the exact theological note attached to this teaching? Pious Opinion? Probable Opinion? Common teaching of theologians? Unanimous teaching of Theologians? Theologically certain? Catholic Doctrine?

[Michael Wilson]

I'm not certain as Msgr. Fenton does not give this thesis a "theological note"; but given the "unanimity of theologians" on this, it is at least "certain".
Here is Msgr. Fenton, same article:

Despite the divergent views about the existence of the infallible pontifical teaching in the encyclical letters, there is one point on which all theologians are manifestly in agreement. They are all convinced that all Catholics are bound in conscience to give a definite internal religious assent to those doctrines which the Holy Father teaches when he speaks to the universal Church of God on earth without employing his God-given charism of infallibility.

[Khalid]

I'm not certain as Msgr. Fenton does not give this thesis a "theological note"; but given the "unanimity of theologians" on this, it is at least "certain".
Here is Msgr. Fenton, same article:

Despite the divergent views about the existence of the infallible pontifical teaching in the encyclical letters, there is one point on which all theologians are manifestly in agreement. They are all convinced that all Catholics are bound in conscience to give a definite internal religious assent to those doctrines which the Holy Father teaches when he speaks to the universal Church of God on earth without employing his God-given charism of infallibility.

Thanks. Do you know of any theologians who discuss the theological note for the teaching on "infallible safety of the authentic magisterium" (as distinct from its in principle authoritative nature)? I've seen proponents of this teaching often claim it is theologically certain and that the denial of this teaching is at least erroneous in theology, but I can't say I've ever read an actual theologian who has explicitly stated this, and I know a handful of theologians (mostly modern, but at least one pre-conciliar) who deny this teaching (or at least seem to deny it).

[Stubborn]

Sure; Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, "The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals"
posted here on S.D. https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=30831.0

It might be definitely understood, however, that the Catholic's duty to accept the teachings conveyed in the encyclicals even when the Holy Father does not propose such teachings as a part of his infallible magisterium is not based merely upon the dicta of the theologians. The authority which imposes this obligation is that of the Roman Pontiff himself. To the Holy Father's responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ's fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church's membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ's vicar on earth.

I've read many theologians who teach this; however, do you know the exact theological note attached to this teaching? Pious Opinion? Probable Opinion? Common teaching of theologians? Unanimous teaching of Theologians? Theologically certain? Catholic Doctrine?

Khalid,
The idea above which Fr. Fenton preaches is firmly and truly believed and embraced by all the conciliar popes as though it has the highest of theological notes. This explains why they've all done what they've done. OTOH, it is not truly believed at all by sedes, rather, it serves the sedes' purpose in only one way, i.e. in that they use it as a subterfuge. I find it rather remarkable that they blind themselves to this....or do they? That is the question.

[Michael Wilson]

Khalid,
I not sure as to the "theological note"; I have read Franzelin's "On Divine Tradition" in which he discusses the issue in depth; apart from affirming that this is the "general consensus: of theologians, and is a corollary of the very obedience demanded by the Pope's themselves to their ordinary magisterium. I cannot find a theological note.
He does state the following on page. 173:

This then forms the basis for what immediately follows, the promise of infallibility to safeguard the deposit of faith is extended to the fullest extent of safeguarding the deposit, i.e. to truths even if they are not revealed "per se", insofar as they are bound up with revelation, and thus their safeguarding, proposition, explication and defense are required. Therefore, this extension of infallibility to all unanimous theologians is a truth so certain theologically, that its denial would be a most grave error or in the opinion of many even a heresy, irrespective of whether the heresies have been explicitly condemned. (see Cardinal de Lugo de Fide disp. etc.etc.)

The unanimous opinion of theologians on a matter of Catholic doctrine, is equivalent of this doctrine being held by the ordinary magisterium of the Church.
pg. 179:

Principium VII. The Holy Apostolic See, to which the divinely constituted custody of the deposit was consigned, as well as the office and duty of feeding the universal Church for the salvation of souls, can prescribe theological decrees, or insofar as they are bound with theological matters, when they must be followed or to forbid that something be followed, not especially from the intention of infallibly deciding a truth with a definitive judgment, but rather, apart from necessity or intention either simply or for certain circumstances to provide for the security of Catholic doctrine. I say security, both the objective of declared doctrine (either simply or for such certain circumstances), and subjective insofar as it is safe for all to embrace it, it cannot happen that they would refuse to embrace ti, because it is not safe and not without a violation of due submission toward the divinely constituted Magisterium. 

Cardinal Franzenlin then brings forward examples from doctrinal decisions handed on by the Congregation of the Inquisition: 184,

a) It was inquired from the Sacred Congregation of the Inquistion, whether seven propositions there described (considering ontologism), "could be handed down safely." On Wednesday 18 September 1861 i the general congregation of eminent and reverend bishops, after the vote of the consultors was held for each and every proposition by careful assessment, they responded to the dubium: "negative". Certainly, no theologian will have said that this declaration of the holy Congregation is a definition ex cathedra. On the other hand, it does not merely indicate silence, rather, it is altogether a doctrinal decision, which is enunciated in these propositions, to contain doctrine which is not safe (non tuta); and therefore, that due obedience should be given to this Magisterium, by those to whom it pertains, not only in speech, but also in thought.

He goes on to explain: 187:

No more will one prove a 'locution ex cathedra' in that which is said in the letter of Cardinal Patritius on 30 August 1866:"Through the responses of the Congregations of the Holy Office and the Index both in the year 1864 and in the year 1866 the supreme Pontiff definitively sanctioned by his authority the question (of Louvain);" or which the Belgian Bishops on 17 December 1866 said in a letter to the Professors: "on the question long agitated and now defined, nothing remains  to be desired and expected". Certainly, by this decree of the Holy See the end has been imposed for the question because of this very, thing, that the obedience that was to be given to the same doctrinal decisions, for  which obligation a definition ex cathedra was neither necessary nor promulgated.

pg. 189:

Cardinal Patritius Letter 30 Aug. 1866.."Moreover, Catholic men, and much more ecclesiastics, have it as a duty to fully, perfectly and absolutely subject themselves to the decrees of the Holy See, with all contentions abolished from their midst that would impede genuine assent." after this the professors were bid to subscribe to those things that it considered, and all accepted obedience in the most praiseworthy manner by this formula: "Obeying your commands (of the Bishops) I hasten to show filial obedience to this document, asking most humbly, that through your hands it be placed at the feet of our most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX. To the decisions of the Holy Apostolic See on 2 March and 30 August of this year I subject myself most fully, perfectly and absolutely and I submit in mind. Therefore I condemn ex corde, and reject the opposite doctrine."

Cardinal Franzenlin goes on to cite the Letter of Pius IX of Dec. 21, 1863, "Tuas Lebenter Accepimus"

We wish to persuade Our person that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all....it is hardly sufficient for wise Catholics, that they should receive and venerated recited dogmas, for truly it behooves them, that they subject themselves both to the decisions, which are advanced pertaining to doctrine by Pontifical Congregations, and also those chapters of doctrine, which are upheld by the common and constant consensus of Catholics as theological truths and likewise certain conclusions, that unfavorable doctrinal opinions to these same chapters although they can't be said to be heretical, nevertheless they merit some theological censure."

I hope this helps.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense

Which is it, then?

Does "infallible" mean "an irreformable and certain truth of our faith"?

Or does "infallible" mean merely "I can believe this without risk of damnation"?

[Michael Wilson]

It means the second or more precisely; I can believe this proposition with a interior and religious assent, confident that this belief or teaching will not cause me spiritual harm. Also the contrary, I must not hold to that belief, theory or  practice that the Church tells me that is not "safe" or contrary to some other "theological note" that is below heresy; but which will cause me spiritual harm.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

This is explicitly contradicted by Donum Veritatis.

I know that you consider Ratzinger to have been an antipope, and I'm not going to argue that point.  What I would propose, instead, is that he was no slouch.

Your line of argument depends on accepting Monsignor Fenton's assertion.  He asserts that theologians throughout time unanimously held that disciplinary decisions are subject to something more or less equivalent to the charism of infallibility.

Cardinal Ratzinger contradicts him:  "17. [...] For this same reason, magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful."

Again, I know that document wouldn't in itself hold any weight for a Catholic who believes that it was issued during an interregnum, but I would suggest that it hints that Monsignor Fenton's view was not universally held, and that further study is warranted.

[Khalid]

Khalid,
I not sure as to the "theological note"; I have read Franzelin's "On Divine Tradition" in which he discusses the issue in depth; apart from affirming that this is the "general consensus: of theologians, and is a corollary of the very obedience demanded by the Pope's themselves to their ordinary magisterium. I cannot find a theological note.
He does state the following on page. 173:

This then forms the basis for what immediately follows, the promise of infallibility to safeguard the deposit of faith is extended to the fullest extent of safeguarding the deposit, i.e. to truths even if they are not revealed "per se", insofar as they are bound up with revelation, and thus their safeguarding, proposition, explication and defense are required. Therefore, this extension of infallibility to all unanimous theologians is a truth so certain theologically, that its denial would be a most grave error or in the opinion of many even a heresy, irrespective of whether the heresies have been explicitly condemned. (see Cardinal de Lugo de Fide disp. etc.etc.)

The unanimous opinion of theologians on a matter of Catholic doctrine, is equivalent of this doctrine being held by the ordinary magisterium of the Church.
pg. 179:

Principium VII. The Holy Apostolic See, to which the divinely constituted custody of the deposit was consigned, as well as the office and duty of feeding the universal Church for the salvation of souls, can prescribe theological decrees, or insofar as they are bound with theological matters, when they must be followed or to forbid that something be followed, not especially from the intention of infallibly deciding a truth with a definitive judgment, but rather, apart from necessity or intention either simply or for certain circumstances to provide for the security of Catholic doctrine. I say security, both the objective of declared doctrine (either simply or for such certain circumstances), and subjective insofar as it is safe for all to embrace it, it cannot happen that they would refuse to embrace ti, because it is not safe and not without a violation of due submission toward the divinely constituted Magisterium. 

Cardinal Franzenlin then brings forward examples from doctrinal decisions handed on by the Congregation of the Inquisition: 184,

a) It was inquired from the Sacred Congregation of the Inquistion, whether seven propositions there described (considering ontologism), "could be handed down safely." On Wednesday 18 September 1861 i the general congregation of eminent and reverend bishops, after the vote of the consultors was held for each and every proposition by careful assessment, they responded to the dubium: "negative". Certainly, no theologian will have said that this declaration of the holy Congregation is a definition ex cathedra. On the other hand, it does not merely indicate silence, rather, it is altogether a doctrinal decision, which is enunciated in these propositions, to contain doctrine which is not safe (non tuta); and therefore, that due obedience should be given to this Magisterium, by those to whom it pertains, not only in speech, but also in thought.

He goes on to explain: 187:

No more will one prove a 'locution ex cathedra' in that which is said in the letter of Cardinal Patritius on 30 August 1866:"Through the responses of the Congregations of the Holy Office and the Index both in the year 1864 and in the year 1866 the supreme Pontiff definitively sanctioned by his authority the question (of Louvain);" or which the Belgian Bishops on 17 December 1866 said in a letter to the Professors: "on the question long agitated and now defined, nothing remains  to be desired and expected". Certainly, by this decree of the Holy See the end has been imposed for the question because of this very, thing, that the obedience that was to be given to the same doctrinal decisions, for  which obligation a definition ex cathedra was neither necessary nor promulgated.

pg. 189:

Cardinal Patritius Letter 30 Aug. 1866.."Moreover, Catholic men, and much more ecclesiastics, have it as a duty to fully, perfectly and absolutely subject themselves to the decrees of the Holy See, with all contentions abolished from their midst that would impede genuine assent." after this the professors were bid to subscribe to those things that it considered, and all accepted obedience in the most praiseworthy manner by this formula: "Obeying your commands (of the Bishops) I hasten to show filial obedience to this document, asking most humbly, that through your hands it be placed at the feet of our most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX. To the decisions of the Holy Apostolic See on 2 March and 30 August of this year I subject myself most fully, perfectly and absolutely and I submit in mind. Therefore I condemn ex corde, and reject the opposite doctrine."

Cardinal Franzenlin goes on to cite the Letter of Pius IX of Dec. 21, 1863, "Tuas Lebenter Accepimus"

We wish to persuade Our person that they did not wish to confine the obligation, by which Catholic teachers and writers are absolutely bound, only to those decrees which are proposed by the infallible judgment of the Church as dogmas of faith to be believed by all....it is hardly sufficient for wise Catholics, that they should receive and venerated recited dogmas, for truly it behooves them, that they subject themselves both to the decisions, which are advanced pertaining to doctrine by Pontifical Congregations, and also those chapters of doctrine, which are upheld by the common and constant consensus of Catholics as theological truths and likewise certain conclusions, that unfavorable doctrinal opinions to these same chapters although they can't be said to be heretical, nevertheless they merit some theological censure."

I hope this helps.

Thanks, this is very helpful. Do you have a link to Franzelin's treatise? I've only ever seen it in Latin online.

[Khalid]

Also, there is an important difference between a teaching being the common opinion of theologians and a teaching being the unanimous opinion of theologians; one can go against a common opinion for weighty reasons. For example, the proposition that the souls in limbo experience perfect natural happiness is a common opinion of theologians, but one could deny this proposition for weighty reasons without incurring the censure of rashness. But to deny the unanimous opinion of theologians would always be gravely sinful. So I would very much like to know the precise note to be attached to the teaching of Cardinal Franzelin on this point! On this question hinges a good deal of how to interpret the post-conciliar doctrinal chaos, imo

[Baylee]

This is explicitly contradicted by Donum Veritatis.

I know that you consider Ratzinger to have been an antipope, and I'm not going to argue that point.  What I would propose, instead, is that he was no slouch.

Your line of argument depends on accepting Monsignor Fenton's assertion.  He asserts that theologians throughout time unanimously held that disciplinary decisions are subject to something more or less equivalent to the charism of infallibility.

Cardinal Ratzinger contradicts him:  "17. [...] For this same reason, magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful."

Again, I know that document wouldn't in itself hold any weight for a Catholic who believes that it was issued during an interregnum, but I would suggest that it hints that Monsignor Fenton's view was not universally held, and that further study is warranted.

I'd like to see more of that portion of the document, but does this really "explicitly contradict"?

Wouldn't "charism of infallibility" = "infallibility in the strict sense"? And "are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful" = "a kind of infallibility distinct from...."? 

In addition, both require the adherence of the Faithful to decisions made by the Roman Pontiff in matters of discipline.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

Wouldn't "charism of infallibility" = "infallibility in the strict sense"? And "are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful" = "a kind of infallibility distinct from...."?

No, because words matter.

If he had wanted to imply that disciplines are subject to something like "a kind of infallibility," he would have used that language. 

In addition, both require the adherence of the Faithful to decisions made by the Roman Pontiff in matters of discipline.

Servility is not obedience.