Gerard's view on disciplinary safety

[St. Columba]

To be Catholic, you don't have to assent to "his teaching" regarding the Pope, you have to assent to the Church's teaching, which is complete.  Since nothing can be added to Revelation, you don't need a Pope as far as that is concerned.  Popes are there to guard the deposit of faith above all. 

Except that you can only know the Church's teaching because a chain of certain Popes taught or approved the dogmas we need to believe as revealed by God. If Popes are not certainly knowable, then the content of Catholicism is unknowable too.  If the content of Catholicism is unknowable, we cannot know revelation.  And if we cannot know revelation, how can we have faith?

When Pope Pius XII issued Munificentissimus Deus, defining the assumption "as revealed by God", how can we know it was revealed by God if we do not have certainty he was the Pope?

And let me ask this: why exactly would it be a sin to doubt the assumption of our Lady, if we cannot be certain it was revealed by God?

My Friend,

I think that saying it is the only way we know something is of the faith seems off.  Trent (Fourth Session) and Vatican I (Dogmatic Decrees of Vatican I, Chapter 2) did teach that the unanimous teaching of the Fathers was also infallible.

Hi nmoerbeek!  Always a pleasure to see you pop up! 

Yes, I have no problem with what you wrote friend.  But the data of revelation, either orally transmitted or in scripture, is not always perspicuous in itself (contrary to the oft-used protestant claim), which would imply for them that the Catholic teaching office is redundant (at best).  This lack of perspicuity is even evident in core, foundational, aspects of the Christian religion.

What I mean is, we need the Church to properly interpret revelation --- and this is necessary so that we can know the faith and assent to it.  And to do this we need valid Popes, that is, Popes that can be known to be true Popes.

Agreed, my esteemed friend?

[Xavier]

SC, do you agree with the Oath against Modernism? Do you agree that nobody can change a defined dogma of faith, as traditionally understood? Pope St. Pius X commanded all clergy to swear, "I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously".

Do you agree if somebody - anybody - says hell does not exist, all Catholics are bound to reject that?

[nmoerbeek]

To be Catholic, you don't have to assent to "his teaching" regarding the Pope, you have to assent to the Church's teaching, which is complete.  Since nothing can be added to Revelation, you don't need a Pope as far as that is concerned.  Popes are there to guard the deposit of faith above all. 

Except that you can only know the Church's teaching because a chain of certain Popes taught or approved the dogmas we need to believe as revealed by God. If Popes are not certainly knowable, then the content of Catholicism is unknowable too.  If the content of Catholicism is unknowable, we cannot know revelation.  And if we cannot know revelation, how can we have faith?

When Pope Pius XII issued Munificentissimus Deus, defining the assumption "as revealed by God", how can we know it was revealed by God if we do not have certainty he was the Pope?

And let me ask this: why exactly would it be a sin to doubt the assumption of our Lady, if we cannot be certain it was revealed by God?

My Friend,

I think that saying it is the only way we know something is of the faith seems off.  Trent (Fourth Session) and Vatican I (Dogmatic Decrees of Vatican I, Chapter 2) did teach that the unanimous teaching of the Fathers was also infallible.

Hi nmoerbeek!  Always a pleasure to see you pop up! 

Yes, I have no problem with what you wrote friend.  But the data of revelation, either orally transmitted or in scripture, is not always perspicuous in itself (contrary to the oft-used protestant claim), which would imply for them that the Catholic teaching office is redundant (at best).  This lack of perspicuity is even evident in core, foundational, aspects of the Christian religion.

What I mean is, we need the Church to properly interpret revelation --- and this is necessary so that we can know the faith and assent to it.  And to do this we need valid Popes, that is, Popes that can be known to be true Popes.

Agreed, my esteemed friend?

I agree, I am just afraid that we are looking at this in a way so technical that it distorts what happens in practice.  In practice people who of good will can fall into material heresy and not incur guilt from it (often times as the result of their own particular circumstances).  Many people in the past (Like St. Boniface) and in the present seem to fall into donatism around times of great clerical corruption, no doubt many believe these things based on their own formation and conscience, and while they are wrong as long as their conscience is as such they don't incur a damnable guilt. 

More examples of course could be brought up, real contradictions do exist, and we are allowed to hold certain divergent opinions with one another and still remain free from sins of heresy, or a guilty conscience.  I think it is more important that people are docile to the Church, and maintain a desire to believe what the Church teaches whole and entire. 

[nmoerbeek]

To be Catholic, you don't have to assent to "his teaching" regarding the Pope, you have to assent to the Church's teaching, which is complete.  Since nothing can be added to Revelation, you don't need a Pope as far as that is concerned.  Popes are there to guard the deposit of faith above all. 

Except that you can only know the Church's teaching because a chain of certain Popes taught or approved the dogmas we need to believe as revealed by God. If Popes are not certainly knowable, then the content of Catholicism is unknowable too.  If the content of Catholicism is unknowable, we cannot know revelation.  And if we cannot know revelation, how can we have faith?

When Pope Pius XII issued Munificentissimus Deus, defining the assumption "as revealed by God", how can we know it was revealed by God if we do not have certainty he was the Pope?

And let me ask this: why exactly would it be a sin to doubt the assumption of our Lady, if we cannot be certain it was revealed by God?

My Friend,

I think that saying it is the only way we know something is of the faith seems off.  Trent (Fourth Session) and Vatican I (Dogmatic Decrees of Vatican I, Chapter 2) did teach that the unanimous teaching of the Fathers was also infallible.

This is the only thing from the fourth session of Trent that comes close to your assertion and it doesn't claim what you do.
"Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one
relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals
pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy
Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions,[5] presume to interpret
them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs
to judge of their true sense and interpretation,[6] has held and holds, or
even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, even though such
interpretations should never at any time be published.  Those who act
contrary to this shall be made known by the ordinaries and punished in
accordance with the penalties prescribed by the law."

Here is what Vatican I chapter II paragraph 9 says "9. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.

Again no mention of infalibility

There were was more than that at Vatican I.

3. Likewise I accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers. (From the Profession of Faith, Session 2 : 6 January 1870)

Also in the Council of Trent itself it points to the uanimous consent of the Fathers before teaching such as this on the sacrament of Holy Orders:
"CHAPTER III.

That Order is truly and properly a Sacrament.

Whereas, by the testimony of Scripture, by Apostolic tradition, and the unanimous consent of the Fathers, it is clear that grace is conferred by sacred ordination, which is performed by words and outward signs, no one ought to doubt that Order is truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of holy Church. For the apostle says; I admonish thee that thou stir up the grace of God, which is in thee by the imposition of my hands. For God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power and of love of sobriety."

Perhaps there are more examples?  I just did a little searching.

Could you define for me how what word we should use to describe the unanimous consent of the Fathers if not infallible?  Do you confess and believe that the collective testimony of the Fathers on a point of doctrine or scripture could be wrong on something?

[St.Justin]

To be Catholic, you don't have to assent to "his teaching" regarding the Pope, you have to assent to the Church's teaching, which is complete.  Since nothing can be added to Revelation, you don't need a Pope as far as that is concerned.  Popes are there to guard the deposit of faith above all. 

Except that you can only know the Church's teaching because a chain of certain Popes taught or approved the dogmas we need to believe as revealed by God. If Popes are not certainly knowable, then the content of Catholicism is unknowable too.  If the content of Catholicism is unknowable, we cannot know revelation.  And if we cannot know revelation, how can we have faith?

When Pope Pius XII issued Munificentissimus Deus, defining the assumption "as revealed by God", how can we know it was revealed by God if we do not have certainty he was the Pope?

And let me ask this: why exactly would it be a sin to doubt the assumption of our Lady, if we cannot be certain it was revealed by God?

My Friend,

I think that saying it is the only way we know something is of the faith seems off.  Trent (Fourth Session) and Vatican I (Dogmatic Decrees of Vatican I, Chapter 2) did teach that the unanimous teaching of the Fathers was also infallible.

This is the only thing from the fourth session of Trent that comes close to your assertion and it doesn't claim what you do.
"Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one
relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals
pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy
Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions,[5] presume to interpret
them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs
to judge of their true sense and interpretation,[6] has held and holds, or
even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, even though such
interpretations should never at any time be published.  Those who act
contrary to this shall be made known by the ordinaries and punished in
accordance with the penalties prescribed by the law."

Here is what Vatican I chapter II paragraph 9 says "9. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.

Again no mention of infalibility

There were was more than that at Vatican I.

3. Likewise I accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers. (From the Profession of Faith, Session 2 : 6 January 1870)

Also in the Council of Trent itself it points to the uanimous consent of the Fathers before teaching such as this on the sacrament of Holy Orders:
"CHAPTER III.

That Order is truly and properly a Sacrament.

Whereas, by the testimony of Scripture, by Apostolic tradition, and the unanimous consent of the Fathers, it is clear that grace is conferred by sacred ordination, which is performed by words and outward signs, no one ought to doubt that Order is truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of holy Church. For the apostle says; I admonish thee that thou stir up the grace of God, which is in thee by the imposition of my hands. For God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power and of love of sobriety."

Perhaps there are more examples?  I just did a little searching.

Could you define for me how what word we should use to describe the unanimous consent of the Fathers if not infallible?  Do you confess and believe that the collective testimony of the Fathers on a point of doctrine or scripture could be wrong on something?

Vatican I describes only two methods of extraordinary forms of infallible teaching and they are 1. Pope speaking excathedra, 2. Ecumenical Councils, approved by the Pope, and one method of of Ordinary universal Magisterium, which also includes the Pope.

There is  as far as I can find no other solemnly defined methods of the Church teaching infallibly and all three of the above require the Pope to be involved.

I am lost has to how you think that there are any others especially as what you quoted are not solemn decrees or canons of a council.

Just to be clear I am not sure all of the Fathers ever agreed collectively on anything.

[St. Columba]

SC, do you agree with the Oath against Modernism? Do you agree that nobody can change a defined dogma of faith, as traditionally understood? Pope St. Pius X commanded all clergy to swear, "I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously".

Do you agree if somebody - anybody - says hell does not exist, all Catholics are bound to reject that?

Xavier, yes, I agree with what Pope St Pius X wrote.  But the Church, and valid popes, are needed to know the correct meaning in every age.  The Church gives us certainty as to how to interpret the data of revelation.  I am surprised you, or any Catholic, would contest this.

Thank you friend.

[Gerard]

Gerard, if you are saying we can (1) doubt the dogma of the Assumption or (2) doubt the legitimacy of Pope Pius XII, you are mistaken. Both are infallibly certain.

Van Noort I have doubts about, not the Assumption nor Pius XII. 

First you need to distinguish concepts of "doubt" being a difficulty in belief or a rejection of belief. 

I don't doubt Pius XII or the Assumption because there is no reason to doubt. 

I doubt Van Noort because there is a reason to doubt Van Noort.

According to Van Noort, One must give "absolute" assent to Pope Formosus being the successor of St. Peter.  Okay.  Let's run with it. 

We give "absolute" assent that Formosus is the successor of St. Peter.  That is until Pope Stephen comes along and you must give "absolute" assent to Stephen ruling that Formosus was not a successor of St. Peter.  And you hold that until Stephen's ruling is overruled by Theodore II and you give 'absolute" assent that Stephen was wrong and Formosus was a valid Pope, until  Sergius III comes along and validates Stephen's ruling and it keeps going. 

None of these Popes were anti-Popes.  None of them retracted their own rulings.  Formosus was either a valid Pope or not.  These Popes can't all be infallibly declaring the "dogmatic fact" of the legitimacy of the successor of St. Peter because they are contradicting each other. 

This is the main problem with these Neo-Ultramontanist theologians prior to Vatican II.  They are every bit as slippery and dishonest as the post-Vatican II liberals. 

"Universal Church" means the entire Catholic Church except when it doesn't.  It can also mean a "branch" of the Church, so it's the whole Church and not the whole Church at the same time. 

The "unanimous consent of the Fathers" means not unanimous.  If some of the Fathers are silent or if a minority disagree, that's still "unanimous."  It's ultimately all a power grab on the part of theologians to push the non-Catholic elements of their agenda, not unlike the liberals that followed them. 

[nmoerbeek]

To be Catholic, you don't have to assent to "his teaching" regarding the Pope, you have to assent to the Church's teaching, which is complete.  Since nothing can be added to Revelation, you don't need a Pope as far as that is concerned.  Popes are there to guard the deposit of faith above all. 

Except that you can only know the Church's teaching because a chain of certain Popes taught or approved the dogmas we need to believe as revealed by God. If Popes are not certainly knowable, then the content of Catholicism is unknowable too.  If the content of Catholicism is unknowable, we cannot know revelation.  And if we cannot know revelation, how can we have faith?

When Pope Pius XII issued Munificentissimus Deus, defining the assumption "as revealed by God", how can we know it was revealed by God if we do not have certainty he was the Pope?

And let me ask this: why exactly would it be a sin to doubt the assumption of our Lady, if we cannot be certain it was revealed by God?

My Friend,

I think that saying it is the only way we know something is of the faith seems off.  Trent (Fourth Session) and Vatican I (Dogmatic Decrees of Vatican I, Chapter 2) did teach that the unanimous teaching of the Fathers was also infallible.

This is the only thing from the fourth session of Trent that comes close to your assertion and it doesn't claim what you do.
"Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one
relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals
pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy
Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions,[5] presume to interpret
them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs
to judge of their true sense and interpretation,[6] has held and holds, or
even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, even though such
interpretations should never at any time be published.  Those who act
contrary to this shall be made known by the ordinaries and punished in
accordance with the penalties prescribed by the law."

Here is what Vatican I chapter II paragraph 9 says "9. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.

Again no mention of infalibility

There were was more than that at Vatican I.

3. Likewise I accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers. (From the Profession of Faith, Session 2 : 6 January 1870)

Also in the Council of Trent itself it points to the uanimous consent of the Fathers before teaching such as this on the sacrament of Holy Orders:
"CHAPTER III.

That Order is truly and properly a Sacrament.

Whereas, by the testimony of Scripture, by Apostolic tradition, and the unanimous consent of the Fathers, it is clear that grace is conferred by sacred ordination, which is performed by words and outward signs, no one ought to doubt that Order is truly and properly one of the seven sacraments of holy Church. For the apostle says; I admonish thee that thou stir up the grace of God, which is in thee by the imposition of my hands. For God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power and of love of sobriety."

Perhaps there are more examples?  I just did a little searching.

Could you define for me how what word we should use to describe the unanimous consent of the Fathers if not infallible?  Do you confess and believe that the collective testimony of the Fathers on a point of doctrine or scripture could be wrong on something?

Vatican I describes only two methods of extraordinary forms of infallible teaching and they are 1. Pope speaking excathedra, 2. Ecumenical Councils, approved by the Pope, and one method of of Ordinary universal Magisterium, which also includes the Pope.

There is  as far as I can find no other solemnly defined methods of the Church teaching infallibly and all three of the above require the Pope to be involved.

I am lost has to how you think that there are any others especially as what you quoted are not solemn decrees or canons of a council.

Just to be clear I am not sure all of the Fathers ever agreed collectively on anything.

Your last point about not being sure that the Fathers  ever agreed collectively on anything, did you overlook the citation of Trent that said they did in regards to the Sacrament of Holy Orders?  Also

The first ecumenical council was not even held until 325, do you not see the problem that you are creating for the teaching of the Church if we do not regard the Fathers collectively teaching as infallible?

If you can answer my questions directly, I was not asking them for rhetoical flourish.

Could you define for me how what word we should use to describe the unanimous consent of the Fathers if not infallible?  Do you confess and believe that the collective testimony of the Fathers on a point of doctrine or scripture could be wrong on something?

If you would like I could provide a citation from a Theology manual on this point (on the infallibility of the Fathers), but you don't seem to hold the opinion of those authors as import, so I am not providing the citation.

[St. Columba]

More examples of course could be brought up, real contradictions do exist, and we are allowed to hold certain divergent opinions with one another and still remain free from sins of heresy, or a guilty conscience.  I think it is more important that people are docile to the Church, and maintain a desire to believe what the Church teaches whole and entire.

True popes are necessary to know what the Church teaches, whole and entire.  That is my point.  For example, if a false pope (imposter) were to ratify a council, or a false pope made an ex cathedra statement, then the faithful would not be able to assent. 

How is it sufficient to say that the dogma of the assumption is "probably true"?

But let us get back to discipline, the topic of this thread. 

Maybe the Church is wrong to allow Petrine priviledges, in principle.  Maybe the Church was wrong to change the formula for absolution, at least in the West, from deprecatory to indicative.  etc., etc, etc....in just these two cases (there are tons more), the data of revelation is totally ambiguous....so, it seems to me, valid popes are needed, at a minimum, when significant changes in discipline are introduced that are at odds with long-standing (small t) tradition, or not directly dealt with in revelation.

(BTW, I think Petrine priviledges are fine...  Why?  Not because I searched the fathers of the Church and found the answer; not because of the witness of centuries of traditional praxis; not because a doubtful pope made an ex cathedra statement on the matter.....but because a validly elected pope legislated that the discipline is fine...hence it is safe to follow for that reason alone).

[St.Justin]

Your last point about not being sure that the Fathers  ever agreed collectively on anything, did you overlook the citation of Trent that said they did in regards to the Sacrament of Holy Orders?  Also

The first ecumenical council was not even held until 325, do you not see the problem that you are creating for the teaching of the Church if we do not regard the Fathers collectively teaching as infallible?

If you can answer my questions directly, I was not asking them for rhetoical flourish.

Could you define for me how what word we should use to describe the unanimous consent of the Fathers if not infallible?  Do you confess and believe that the collective testimony of the Fathers on a point of doctrine or scripture could be wrong on something?

If you would like I could provide a citation from a Theology manual on this point (on the infallibility of the Fathers), but you don't seem to hold the opinion of those authors as import, so I am not providing the citation.

I love the Fathers of the Church. I even have several books covering them. In any case I can assure you that even St. Jerome and St. Augustine couldn't agree on the Scriptures and their are several discourses between them proving that point, St Cyprian and universal salvation is another point. So know I don't believe the Fathers of the Church are collectively infallible.

From New advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06001a.htm
"There are a few cases in which a general council has given approbation to the work of a Father, the most important being the two letters of St. Cyril of Alexandria which were read at the Council of Ephesus. But the authority of single Fathers considered in itself, says Franzelin (De traditione, thesis xv), "is not infallible or peremptory; though piety and sound reason agree that the theological opinions of such individuals should not be treated lightly, and should not without great caution be interpreted in a sense which clashes with the common doctrine of other Fathers." The reason is plain enough; they were holy men, who are not to be presumed to have intended to stray from the doctrine of the Church, and their doubtful utterances are therefore to be taken in the best sense of which they are capable. If they cannot be explained in an orthodox sense, we have to admit that not the greatest is immune from ignorance or accidental error or obscurity. But on the use of the Fathers in theological questions, the article TRADITION and the ordinary dogmatic treatises on that subject must be consulted, as it is proper here only to deal with the historical development of their use. "

[St. Columba]

We give "absolute" assent that Formosus is the successor of St. Peter.  That is until Pope Stephen comes along and you must give "absolute" assent to Stephen ruling that Formosus was not a successor of St. Peter.  And you hold that until Stephen's ruling is overruled by Theodore II and you give 'absolute" assent that Stephen was wrong and Formosus was a valid Pope, until  Sergius III comes along and validates Stephen's ruling and it keeps going. 

None of these Popes were anti-Popes.  None of them retracted their own rulings.  Formosus was either a valid Pope or not.  These Popes can't all be infallibly declaring the "dogmatic fact" of the legitimacy of the successor of St. Peter because they are contradicting each other. 

The opinions of Popes on dogmatic facts are not infallible.  A fact is a fact is a fact.  A pope can get a fact wrong (Galileo?, Laudato Si?), which can be tolerable, provided no spiritual harm to souls ensues.

But, if competing popes started using their respective offices to promulgate disciplines and dogmas, etc, and the faithful could not tell who the pope was, then the faithful could not assent, or safely follow the disciplines, since they might be following an imposter.

If you are using the Pope Formosus case to prove that we can never know that we have a true Pope, then you may be unwittingly arguing against one of the basic premises of the Catholic faith.

Thanks G.

[nmoerbeek]

More examples of course could be brought up, real contradictions do exist, and we are allowed to hold certain divergent opinions with one another and still remain free from sins of heresy, or a guilty conscience.  I think it is more important that people are docile to the Church, and maintain a desire to believe what the Church teaches whole and entire.

True popes are necessary to know what the Church teaches, whole and entire.  That is my point.  For example, if a false pope (imposter) were to ratify a council, or a false pope made an ex cathedra statement, then the faithful would not be able to assent. 

How is it sufficient to say that the dogma of the assumption is "probably true"?

But let us get back to discipline, the topic of this thread. 

Maybe the Church is wrong to allow Petrine priviledges, in principle.  Maybe the Church was wrong to change the formula for absolution, at least in the West, from deprecatory to indicative.  etc., etc, etc....in just these two cases (there are tons more), the data of revelation is totally ambiguous....so, it seems to me, valid popes are needed, at a minimum, when significant changes in discipline are introduced that are at odds with long-standing (small t) tradition, or not directly dealt with in revelation.

(BTW, I think Petrine priviledges are fine...  Why?  Not because I searched the fathers of the Church and found the answer; not because of the witness of centuries of traditional praxis; not because a doubtful pope made an ex cathedra statement on the matter.....but because a validly elected pope legislated that the discipline is fine...hence it is safe to follow for that reason alone).

What role does conscience make in this consideration?

[St. Columba]

Delete

[Miriam_M]

If we lose the ability to know who is Pope, even if the man is extremely evil, we lose the ability to know the truths of our most august and sublime Catholic faith, the true faith revealed by God.

Methinks it's more a question of the Pope losing his ability to recognize who he is and the Truth of what he represents, or is supposed to.  Lost popes, true or false, cannot lead any flock, small or large.  Same is true of the local parish priest.  If the shepherd is lost, he cannot find his sheep and properly protect them.

[Gerard]

We give "absolute" assent that Formosus is the successor of St. Peter.  That is until Pope Stephen comes along and you must give "absolute" assent to Stephen ruling that Formosus was not a successor of St. Peter.  And you hold that until Stephen's ruling is overruled by Theodore II and you give 'absolute" assent that Stephen was wrong and Formosus was a valid Pope, until  Sergius III comes along and validates Stephen's ruling and it keeps going. 

None of these Popes were anti-Popes.  None of them retracted their own rulings.  Formosus was either a valid Pope or not.  These Popes can't all be infallibly declaring the "dogmatic fact" of the legitimacy of the successor of St. Peter because they are contradicting each other. 

The opinions of Popes on dogmatic facts are not infallible.  A fact is a fact is a fact.  A pope can get a fact wrong (Galileo?, Laudato Si?), which can be tolerable, provided no spiritual harm to souls ensues.

But, if competing popes started using their respective offices to promulgate disciplines and dogmas, etc, and the faithful could not tell who the pope was, then the faithful could not assent, or safely follow the disciplines, since they might be following an imposter.

If you are using the Pope Formosus case to prove that we can never know that we have a true Pope, then you may be unwittingly arguing against one of the basic premises of the Catholic faith.

Thanks G.

I'm not arguing at all that we can never know who the Pope is.  I'm arguing that the knowledge of who the Pope is, is not a dogmatic fact covered by an "extended" papal infallibility.  That is the argument of Van Noort and the manualists.  The example of Formosus' status and the rulings of his successors proves that to be false.  It's pretty easy to know who the Pope is, occasionally it's not so easy as in the Great Western Schism.  It got sorted out in the end and probably most of the good Catholics didn't fret about it too much since the Pope didn't affect their day to day lives that much.  They knew what their parents taught and practiced and the clergy taught.  There may have even been errors in their formation, but God is the ultimate judge and I'm sure He didn't abandon people and leave them without grace to respond to. 


It's not an either /or  situation.  Just because something isn't guaranteed infallibly doesn't mean you can't know something and accept it as true.  Similarly to knowing that canonizations do not invoke infallilbity, isn't a denial and claim that all canonizations are wrong.  St. Joseph was never "canonized infallibly" so does that mean St. Joseph is in Hell?  No. Do we really need St. Joseph canonized in a supposedly infallible manner?  No. If we did, what does that say of faith?