Classical Theist

The idea that someone as subtle and theologically erudite as Benedict XVI would write Summorum Pontificum for such a boring reason as to placate traditionalists is just disrespectful and insulting to his intelligence, to which David Gordon can’t even hold a candle

The fact is, Pope Benedict XVI issued that motu proprio primarily for a reason that was thoroughly theological, that is, to display outwardly the inner continuity of the Church’s current liturgical life with that of Her long-standing past

What this would have done is ensure that liturgical reform (which should be an ongoing enterprise, not a static product of 1970) would be adequately enriched and continuously informed by a constant witness to the Church’s perennial liturgical patrimony living side by side with it.

THIS is the only way to bring about an optimal unification of the Roman rite, which Pope Francis rightly desires but is unable to prudently execute

basically if Pope Francis’ views on sexual ethics are more conservative than yours, you’re NOT conservative

adhering to what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about homosexual and contraceptive acts being intrinsically evil (promulgated in 1992, mind you) should be a baseline prerequisite for any political movement that wants to call itself “conservative”, not an added bonus

Attempting to reconcile Ed Feser’s and Lofton’s position on whether a Pope can teach heresy at the level of his non-definitive Magisterial teaching capacity

It seems that what Lofton wants to safeguard is the integral safety of all magisterial teachings that seems to tie in with the Church’s indefectibility

It seems that what Feser wants to safeguard is a dose of realism for approaching verifiably troublesome Pontificates, as it would seem that if Lofton’s position is taken to its logical conclusion, you’d either have to engage in mental gymnastics or essentially leave the Faith

What I propose is the following:

You can still hold that all truly authoritative (or authentic) magisterial teachings are safe (ie, not opposed to definitive Catholic teaching) while also acknowledging that a Pope could attempt a magisterial teaching that does in fact contradict definitive teaching

How can this happen?

Well, a teaching is magisterial in the Catholic Church only if it is authoritative. That is to say, taught on behalf of the Church authentically exercising Her apostolic authority

Now if a Pope were to attempt a magisterial teaching that does in fact contradict definitive teaching, then such an act must be considered null and void because it is already overruled by the Church’s teaching authority. Therefore, the “attempted magisterial teaching” would thereby be relegated to the level of a papal private opinion. This is because, of necessity, it could not be authoritative because it would already be overruled by the Church’s definitive teaching authority.

It would be akin to a Pope attempting to celebrate a sacrament outside the rubrics essential for sacramental validity

What this does is safeguard the integral safety of the authentic Magisterium as an essential organ of the Church’s constitution, while also acknowledging that a Pope could make an attempt to exercise it in a heretical way, but would be prevented from successfully doing so.


This does not lead to the indefectibility of the Church becoming unfalsifiable because I also believe that if the Church has made no magisterial pronouncement on something, we can be assured that if the Pope teaches on it authoritatively, it will be safe (I.e., not opposed to other infallible rules of faith) because at that point it would not be running into something the Church has already taught by way of the Magisterium, and so there would be nothing to prevent it from being a genuine product of the authentic Magisterium, and the Holy Spirit protects all genuine products of the authentic Magisterium from becoming unsafe.

To preempt an objection, the infallibility of disciplinary decrees are another matter entirely, because there is no built-in ecclesial mechanism by which a Pope is bound by his predecessors in governing the discipline of the Church. Therefore, every universal disciplinary decree of the Holy See is per se unbounded by papal predecessors and for that reason we extend infallibility generally to these.

I realize this post has become absurdly long and hyper qualified, but I hope it made sense to some people

The Church has absolutely no competency whatsoever to judge whether this or that official seized power legitimately. This is entirely outside the scope of faith or morals, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Whether the election was stolen or not is a matter entirely discernible through natural reason, and if it was as we all know it was, we have no moral duty whatsoever to extend deference to the usurpers

if any clerics try to gaslight you about how uniquely morally reprehensible the storming of the Capitol was just quote them what St. Thomas Aquinas says about the obedience (or lack thereof) due to usurpers