Worse than deja vu all over again: Vatican caves

Since when is it Catholic to believe that EVERYTHING popes and councils do and say is infallible? That is not a Catholic teaching. Once again you make dumb claims--and personally attack me for saying what is true, that some of what is said by popes and bishops is flat-out wrong. Was the Pope infallible, for instance, when he declared in a speech that human dignity prohibited capital punishment? Not for a second. He was dead wrong--and in saying what he did, he contradicted two thousand years of Church teaching.

I weasel out of nothing. You are the one who weasels. My position has been consistent--but yours is all over the place. I argue from a clear position and have not wavered one iota. You began by claiming Vatican II was infallible. When pressed to specify what definitions it had declared infallibly--you changed the subject. In fact, your error is the same one repeated over and over. It is this--you attribute infallibility to popes and councils in everything they say, however banal or wrong-headed. Such a position is not really Catholic. It illustrates you do not understand the doctrine of infallibility.

Check with others on this site. I have been saying for two years that the Novus Ordo, while valid and licit, is nevertheless dangerous to the faith because it suppresses and subverts the Catholic dogmas of the Real Presence and sacrificial atonement.

You obviously believe that if a Mass is valid and legal, it must therefore be good. Not true. It may be valid and legal--and be a bad liturgy as well, especially if it was introduced for all the wrong reasons and damages the faith.

A well-tuned Mercedes and a klunker with a bad transmission are both valid and legal cars. But I wouldn't want to drive the klunker cross-country. The old and new Masses are both valid and legal. But one supports the faith, the other destroys it.

I weasel out of nothing. You are the one who weasels. My position has been consistent--but yours is all over the place. I argue from a clear position and have not wavered one iota. You began by claiming Vatican II was infallible. When pressed to specify what definitions it had declared infallibly--you changed the subject.
--ultima ratio
Don't talk nonsense. When have I ever denied the infallibility of councils?
--ultima ratio, 12/28/2002

You are hilarious.

Ecumenical councils don't have to make definitive statements to be infallible and binding. I didn't change the subject. Here are a few of my citations and remarks in that regard:

Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and in a particular way, to the Roman Pontiff as Pastor of the whole Church, when exercising their ordinary Magisterium, even should this not issue in an infallible definition or in a "definitive" pronouncement ...
--Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him ...
--Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
If you believe a legitimately assembled council can err and has erred, then you are to me as a heathen and publican.
--Eck in his debate against Luther at Leipzig, after Luther admitted he believed an ecumenical council was fallible
It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I, but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils ...
--Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
All the arguments which go to prove the infallibility of the Church apply with their fullest force to the infallible authority of general councils in union with the pope.
--GENERAL COUNCILS, Section VIII. INFALLIBILITY OF GENERAL COUNCILS, Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910
You are confused. You seem to think that a pastoral council has no authority. It does: the same authority as Vatican I and Trent. It has the authority to change the liturgy.
You don't like Vatican II's liturgical changes, so you throw up this smoke screen claiming its being pastoral makes it non-binding. Its being pastoral does not inhibit its authority in any way.
What makes you think authorised liturgical changes have to be accompanied by dogmatic statements? Find me the dogmatic statements that accompanied the transition from a Greek liturgy to a Latin liturgy under Pope Damasus, or admit that according to your own logic the Latin liturgy was never authorised.
--nika

As for some of your other remarks:

Since when is it Catholic to believe that EVERYTHING popes and councils do and say is infallible? That is not a Catholic teaching.Once again you make dumb claims--and personally attack me for saying what is true ...
--ultima ratio

The reason you keep debating your straw man is because that is the only opponent you can successfully refute.

Was the Pope infallible, for instance, when he declared in a speech that human dignity prohibited capital punishment? Not for a second. He was dead wrong--and in saying what he did, he contradicted two thousand years of Church teaching.
--ultima ratio

I see you are among those who are actually think the Pope "reversed" Catholic teaching on capital punishment. Somehow I am not suprised.

Just a few more of your priceless remarks:

The Pope himself is heterodox, unclear, inconsistent--and liberal. He is in opposition to his preconciliar predecessors.
--ultima ratio
SSPX does not deny the Novus Ordo is valid! Of course it is valid! But what does it mean to say this? ... Even black Masses are valid.
--ultima ratio
keep your vitriol in check.
--ultima ratio

nika, I believe you are erroneous when you state "Ecumenical councils don't have to make definitive statements to be infallible". The statement which you introduce from Cardinal Ratzinger simply states that divine assistance is given. The very fact that he distinguishes this assistance from cases of an infallible definition shows that he doesn't consider this assistance to make the non-definitive statement infallible. Consider the following:

That the Church is infallible in her definitions on faith and morals is itself a Catholic dogma, which, although it was formulated ecumenically for the first time in the Vatican Council, had been explicitly taught long before and had been assumed from the very beginning without question down to the time of the Protestant Reformation. (Catholic Encyclopedia, "Infallibility")

From this teaching we obtain an authoritative notion of the meaning of definition in its theological, as distinct from its philosophical, or canonical, sense. It is an irrevocable decision, by which the supreme teaching authority in the Church decides a question appertaining to faith or morals, and which binds the whole Church. From this explanation it will be seen that four conditions are required for a theological definition.
(1) It must be a decision by the supreme teaching authority in the Church
...
(2) The decision must concern a doctrine of faith or morals
...
(3) The decision must bind the Universal Church
Decrees which bind only a part of the Church are not definitions; but only those which command the assent of all the faithful. It is not, however, absolutely necessary that the decree should be directly sent or addressed to the whole Church; it is quite sufficient if it is made clear that the supreme teaching authority means to bind the Universal Church. Thus, St. Leo addressed his famous dogmatic definition to Flavian, yet it was rightly considered as binding the Universal Church; and Pope Innocent sent his decree to the African Church alone, yet St. Augustine exclaimed: Causa finita est, utinam aliquando finiatur error! (Serm. ii, de Verb. Ap., c. vii).
(4) The decision must be irrevocable or, as it is called, definitive
Arguments contained in conciliar definitions are proposed by the supreme teaching authority in the Church, they concern faith and morals, and they bind the Universal Church; yet they are not definitions, because they lack this fourth condition — they are not definitively proposed for the assent of the whole Church. Two things are implied by the statement that a decree, to be a definition, must be final and irrevocable. The decree must be the last word of supreme teaching authority; there must be no possibility of re-opening the question in a spirit of doubt; the decree must settle the matter for ever. The decree must also, and in consequence of its final nature, bind the whole Church to an irrevocable internal assent. This assent is at least an assent of ecclesiastical faith; and in doctrines which are formally revealed it is also an assent of Divine faith. When the definition commands an irrevocable assent of Divine faith as well as of ecclesiastical faith, the defined dogma is said to be de fide in the technical sense of this phrase. It is well to note that the definitive nature of a decree does not prevent the defined doctrine from being examined anew and defined again by the pope or a general council; what it excludes is a re-opening of the question in a spirit of doubt about the truth of the doctrine which has been already definitively settled.
It has been sometimes said that it is impossible to know whether or not a theological definition has been issued; but very few words are needed to show that the assertion is without foundation. At times, doubt will remain about the definitive nature of a decree, but as a rule no possibility of doubt is consistent with the terminology of a definitive decree. Thus in the doctrinal teaching of a general council, anathema attached to condemned errors is a certain sign of an infallible definition. Words also like those in which Pius IX solemnly defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin give irrefutable proof of the definitive nature of the decree: "By the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority, We declare, pronounce and define the doctrine . . . to be revealed by God and as such to be firmly and immutably held by all the faithful." No set form of words is necessary; any form which clearly indicates that the four requisite conditions are present suffices to show that the decree is a definition in the strict sense. It should be noted that not everything contained in a definition is infallibly defined. Thus, arguments from Scripture, tradition, or theological reason, do not come under the exercise of definitive authority. Incidental statements, called obiter dicta, are also examples of non-definitive utterances. Only the doctrine itself, to which those arguments lead and which these obiter dicta illustrate, is to be considered as infallibly defined. (ibid., "Theological Definition")

The decrees of Vatican II in general fulfill (1), (2), and (3), but only in very restricted cases, perhaps only in the case of the sacramentality of the episcopate and the re-proposal of "all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium" in LG 18 to be "firmly believed" do they fulfill (4).

On the other hand, just because the teachings of Vatican II aren't infallible doesn't mean we can refuse assent to them with impunity. The Nota Praevia is clear:

The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church's supreme magisterium, ought to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ's faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council.

As is the teaching of the Church on the assent owed to the Ordinary Magisterium:

Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world. (Pastor Aeternus cap. 3 §2)

8. They are free from all blame who treat lightly the condemnations passed by the Sacred Congregation of the Index or by the Roman Congregations. (Lamentabili Sane)

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. (Lumen Gentium §25)

Thank you for your calm and thoughtful remarks. Let
me consider them and I will get back with you.

I have been saying for two years that the Novus Ordo, while valid and licit, is nevertheless dangerous to the faith because it suppresses and subverts the Catholic dogmas of the Real Presence and sacrificial atonement.

ultima, just curious. Why do you consider these passages from the Novus Ordo to subvert and suppress the Real Presence and sacrificial atonement?

We beseech You therefore, O Lord, that having been appeased you might accept this offering of our humble familial service: and that you might give order to our days in Your peace, and also that you might bid that we be snatched away from eternal condemnation and be numbered in the flock of your elect. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
Which sacrificial offering, O God, may you deign in every way to make blessed, accepted, ratified, spiritually dedicated, and acceptable: so that it may be made for us the Body and Blood of your most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. Through Christ our Lord. Amen. (Eucharistic Prayer I)

Wherefore, O Lord, mindful of the blessed Passion of the same Christ Thy Son, our Lord, and likewise mindful of His resurrection from the nether realm of the dead, but also His glorious ascension into the heavens, we Your servants but also Your holy people, offer up unto Your beautiful majesty from Your own gifts and grants, the sacrificial victim which is pure, the holy victim, the victim stainless, the holy Bread of life everlasting, and the Chalice of eternal salvation.
With a propitious and tranquil countenance deign to look with consideration upon them, and regard them as acceptable, just as You deigned to regard as acceptable the gifts of Your just servant Abel, and the sacrifice of Abraham, our Patriarch, and the holy sacrifice, the unblemished sacrificial victim which your high priest Melchisedech offered up to You (ibid.)

And so, Father, we bring you these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become the Body + and Blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate these mysteries. (Eucharistic Prayer III)

Father, calling to mind the death Thy Son endured for our salvation, his glorious resurrection and ascension into heaven, and ready to greet him when he comes again, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice. (ibid.)

Look with favor on your Church's offering, and see the Victim whose death has reconciled us to yourself. Grant that we, who are nourished by the Body and Blood of Thy Son, may be filled with his Holy Spirit, and become one body, one spirit in Christ. (ibid.)

Lord, may this Victim, which has made our peace with you, advance the peace and salvation of all the world. (ibid.)

Father, we now celebrate this memorial of our redemption. We recall Christ's death, his descent among the dead, his resurrection, and his ascension to your right hand; and, looking forward to his coming in glory, we offer you His Body and Blood, the acceptable sacrifice which brings salvation to the whole world.
O Lord, look upon this Victim which you have given to your Church, and generously grant to all who will share this one bread and chalice in order that, having been collected into one body by the Holy Spirit, they are made perfect in Christ the living victim, to the praise of Thy glory. (Eucharistic Prayer IV)

O God, who bequeathed to us a memorial of Thy Passion under a wondrous sacrament, grant, we implore, that we may venerate the sacred mysteries of Thy Body and Blood, in such a way as to sense within us constantly the fruit of Thy redemption. (Collecta, Corpus Christi)

Cause us, we beseech you, O Lord, to be filled with the eternal enjoyment of your divinity, which the worldly reception of Your precious Body and Blood prefigures. ( Post communionem, Corpus Christi)

Attend, we beg you, O Lord, so that, according to the promise of your Son, the Holy Spirit will reveal to us more abundantly the hidden sacred mystery of this sacrifice, and will graciously unlock for us all truth. (Super oblata, Pentecost)

Let this sacrificial offering cleanse our sins, we beg, O Lord, and for celebrating the paschal feasts let it sanctify the bodies and minds of Thy faithful. (Super oblata, 2nd Sunday of Lent)

We are bringing in to place upon your altars, O Lord, the gifts of our service, which, having been appeased and as you take them up, you make into the sacrament of our redemption. (Super oblata, 4th Sunday of Ordinary Time)

O Lord, having been appeased, receive our gifts and, we beg, grant that by sanctifying them they will be for us the means of salvation. (Super oblata, 3rd Sunday of Ordinary Time)

Grant to us, we beg, O Lord, to make frequent use of these mysteries worthily, for, as often as the commemoration of this sacrifice is celebrated, the work of our redemption is carried on. (Super oblata, 2nd Sunday of Ordinary Time)

Lord, receive the gifts brought for the revelation of your beloved Son, so that the oblation of your faithful may transform into His sacrifice, who having felt compassion desired to wash away the sins of the world. (Super oblata, Baptism of the Lord)

Be Thou appeased, O Lord, we beseech Thee, by the prayers of our humility and by our sacrificial offerings, and, where no favorable points of merits suffice for us, succor us by the helps of Thy indulgence. (Super oblata, 2nd Sunday of Advent)

As far as I can tell no one could reasonably say that these passages do not clearly teach that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice and that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

P.S. I translated the excerpts from EP III-IV myself, and ICEL sure made a mess of them! They managed to twist the second paragraph from EP IV so that it can be interpreted that the sacrifice given to the Church is in fact the faithful, "a living sacrifice of praise". Good thing the ICEL mess will be replaced with a REAL translation soon.

"Ecumenical councils don't have to make definitive statements to be infallible and binding."

Wrong. Councils cannot bind unless they formulate definitions which are comprehensible and which clearly intend to bind.

"Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely, the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him"

What has authority got to do with the question I raised about infallibility? These are separate issues. I never said Vatican II did not have the authority to define something, just that it chose not to. Hence we are not bound. That is a fact. You are the one who is confused.

Hi ultima,

I am going to be really busy for a while. But I will get back to you as soon as I can.

Say a prayer for me.

nika

I will. Please do likewise.

I believe you are erroneous when you state "Ecumenical councils don't have to make definitive statements to be infallible". The statement which you introduce from Cardinal Ratzinger simply states that divine assistance is given. The very fact that he distinguishes this assistance from cases of an infallible definition shows that he doesn't consider this assistance to make the non-definitive statement infallible.
--gbcdoj

Divine assistance can never be fallible; on the contrary, it is Truth Itself. It is the long-standing belief of the Church that its infallibility is derived from the assistance of the Holy Spirit Who is within it. The belief that the Holy Spirit assists the apostles assembled in a council in union with Peter was there from the beginning. At the council of Jerusalem (a pastoral council), it is apparent that the apostles believed their decisions were guaranteed by the Holy Spirit:

For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication: from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well. Fare ye well.
--Acts 15:28-29

Most of the individual truths that compose the infallibly taught deposit of faith have never been the subject of a statement made "ex cathedra" by a Pope or the subject of a canonical declaration. The distinction made by Cardinal Ratzinger is between the infallibility that is accompanied by a definitive statement and the infallibility that isn't. He is not saying divine assistance is fallible in one case and infallible in the other!

An excerpt from your Catholic Encyclopedia citation:

Arguments contained in conciliar definitions are proposed by the supreme teaching authority in the Church, they concern faith and morals, and they bind the Universal Church; yet they are not definitions, because they lack this fourth condition -- they are not definitively proposed for the assent of the whole Church.
--Catholic Encyclopedia

As you can see, I emphasized different phrases than you did. The citation is not saying that because a conciliar teaching is not, strictly speaking, a "definition" it is not "proposed by the supreme teaching authority of the Church," and does not "bind the Universal Church." On the contrary, the citation makes clear that non definitive conciliar teachings are still promulgated by the "supreme teaching authority of the Church" and still "bind the Universal Church."

Definitive statements are not the only teachings of the Church that are binding. Non definitive statements "bind the Universal Church," and, because they are non definitive, it is of course true that "they are not definitively proposed for the assent of the whole Church." This does not, as the quote make clear, lessen their authority as they are "proposed by the supreme teaching authority of the Church" and it does not lessen their binding nature as "they bind the Universal Church."

Another excerpt:

It should be noted that not everything contained in a definition is infallibly defined. Thus, arguments from Scripture, tradition, or theological reason, do not come under the exercise of definitive authority. Incidental statements, called obiter dicta, are also examples of non-definitive utterances. Only the doctrine itself, to which those arguments lead and which these obiter dicta illustrate, is to be considered as infallibly defined.
--Catholic Encyclopedia

This is saying that "not everything contained" in a definitive statement is infallible, not that only definitive statements are infallible. The Council of Jerusalem, which was obviously disciplinary rather than dogmatic, and therefore made no "definitive" statements, still explicitly claimed its decisions had the approval of the Holy Spirit. All officially assembled ecumenical councils can and do make this claim. That is why Ratzinger says you have to buy into Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II and that it is nonsensical to reject one council and accept others. Catholics believe the Holy Spirit assists and guarantees ecumenical councils.

1. Divine assistance isn't ever wrong - but that doesn't mean divine assistance can't be rejected. Grace is divine assistance, yet Trent defined:

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man's free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema. (Sess. 6, Decree on Justification)

The pastors of the Church are granted divine assistance by God in all their magisterial teachings, in order that they may find the truth:

Till I come, attend unto reading, to exhortation and to doctrine. Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood. Meditate upon these things, be wholly in these things: that thy profiting may be manifest to all. Take heed to thyself and to doctrine: be earnest in them. For in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee. (1 St. Timothy 4:13-16)

However, it is only when a sentence by the Supreme Authority is definitive that complete protection from any error whatsoever is guaranteed by the Holy Ghost:

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. (Pastor aeternus, cap. 4, 9)

2. On the contrary, the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem were definitive - "it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost" makes that clear.

3. Simply the fact that a decision binds the whole Church doesn't make it infallible - it must be definitive. The decisions of the Roman Congregations are binding (cf. Lamentabili Sane condemned prop. 8), as are non-infallible teachings of the Pope:

In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. (Lumen Gentium §25)

4. That is why Ratzinger says you have to buy into Trent, Vatican I and Vatican II and that it is nonsensical to reject one council and accept others. Catholics believe the Holy Spirit assists and guarantees ecumenical councils.

Yes, the Holy Spirit assists councils. But He only guarantees their definitive, infallible teachings to be absolutely free from all error in matters of faith and morals. It would be possible, although not likely, that Vatican II actually contains some small amount of erroneous doctrine on faith and morals which was not taught definitively - but in any case that's not up for laymen (or Abp. Lefebvre) to judge, but the Supreme Authority.

You say, "Simply the fact that a decision binds the whole Church doesn't make it infallible - it must be definitive." But you have it backwards--on an essential point. ONLY an infallible declaration can actually bind the universal Church in the first place.

You are also wrong when you state the following: "It would be possible, although not likely, that Vatican II actually contains some small amount of erroneous doctrine on faith and morals which was not taught definitively - but in any case that's not up for laymen (or Abp. Lefebvre) to judge, but the Supreme Authority."

It is certainly up to an individual to decide if he is being asked to deny the faith in some way--even if the highest authority commanded us to believe so. That is not within their capacity to so command. Were they to teach error and then command us to obey it or believe it, we would have every right to disobey.

Your argument is at the crux of the debate between conservatives and traditionalists. Conservatives act as if authority trumps even the faith; traditionalists put the faith before authority--as well they should. Not all authority is wise and knowledgeable.

If a pope were to command us to injure the faith in some way, to harm the Church, to work against the salvation of souls, to believe something that is patently in contradiction to established Church teachings, we have every right to disobey. Traditionalists know this, conservatives like yourself do not.

The latter seem to believe the pope has a pipeline to God's thinking and can do or teach anything he wishes. He cannot. He is bound by Sacred Tradition, as Cardinal Ratzinger himself has stated in The Spirit of the Liturgy: "In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope's authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy." (p.167)

How can a teaching be "binding on the whole Church" if it is not definitive? A teaching is binding universally precisely BECAUSE it is infallible. Otherwise we could be conceivably bound to something fallible. How then would we have the capacity to ever correct errors--if we were universally bound not to question them? This is absurd and goes beyond traditional Catholic teaching.

Here is a contradiction from the 1910 edition of Catholic Encyclopedia on the issue of what is binding:

"But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible)..." 6 6. Catholic Encyclopedia, "Infallibility" (1910)

The whole issue of what is binding is predicated on a declaration by authority that is in no way a contradiction to established belief. If it contradicts traditional belief, the individual would have every right to reject such a declaration.

You say, "Simply the fact that a decision binds the whole Church doesn't make it infallible - it must be definitive." But you have it backwards--on an essential point. ONLY an infallible declaration can actually bind the universal Church in the first place.

No, a decision can bind the Church and not be infallible. I quote the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Arguments contained in conciliar definitions are proposed by the supreme teaching authority in the Church, they concern faith and morals, and they bind the Universal Church; yet they are not definitions, because they lack this fourth condition — they are not definitively proposed for the assent of the whole Church. ("Theological Definition")

And of course only something which must be held definitively is infallible.

It is certainly up to an individual to decide if he is being asked to deny the faith in some way--even if the highest authority commanded us to believe so. That is not within their capacity to so command. Were they to teach error and then command us to obey it or believe it, we would have every right to disobey.

Yes - but only if it could be certain that the taught doctrine was totally contrary to a truth which has been infallibly proposed. I mention in this regard something along the lines of this article which proposes that the Pope downgrade Florence and Lyons II and in effect declare the defined dogma of the double procession of the Holy Ghost non-dogmatic. It would seem that if such a statement was issued with less than infallible authority (as of course it could not be issued infallibly), it would be legitimate for a bishop to condemn the Pope as a heretic and refuse acceptance - for denial that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle and one spiration is a heresy.

But the doctrines traditionalists generally protest about were never infallibly proposed!

If the Magisterium were to teach [error] contrary to previous reformable teachings of the Magisterium, it would be necessary to accept it - since how can we know that the Magisterium wasn't wrong before in its non-infallible teaching, now that it tells us differently?

If a pope were to command us to injure the faith in some way, to harm the Church, to work against the salvation of souls, to believe something that is patently in contradiction to established Church teachings, we have every right to disobey.

Only if it can be known with certainty that what he commands is wrong - the authentic magisterium of the Pope demands submission unless it is directly contrary to what has been proposed by the Church definitively - otherwise we must consider that the Pope is right and that we are not being asked to believe an error but the truth!

Your argument fails in that it makes every man the judge of what the truth of Divine Revelation is - but history shows that the men who have raised themselves up under the purported standard of revelation against the Supreme Pontiff's authoritative teaching were almost invariably mistaken. The 78 bishops of Africa, including St. Cyprian, considered rebaptism of heretics a necessity! - as did the Eastern church. Yet St. Stephen's doctrine was vindicated in the end.

In any case - I think I must point out that the disobedience of the Society and other traditionalists generally goes far beyond simply disobeying clearly sinful commands. In this regard the consecration of bishops is especially instructive - especially the consecration of Fr. Rangel SSJV as schismatic bishop of Campos:

I would like to make use of this opportunity to put in writing, for you and for your dear priests, my opinion - for it is only an opinion - concerning the eventual consecration of a bishop to succeed you in the handing down of the Catholic Faith and in the conferring of the sacraments reserved to bishops.
Why envisage such a successor outside of the usual norms of Canon Law?
Firstly, because priests and faithful have a strict right to have shepherds who profess the Catholic Faith in its entirety, essential for the salvation of their souls, and to have priests who are true Catholic priests.
Secondly, because the Conciliar Church, having now reached everywhere, is spreading errors contrary to the Catholic Faith and, as a result of these errors, it has corrupted the sources of grace, which are the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments. This false Church is in an ever-deeper state of rupture with the Catholic Church. Resulting from these principles and facts is the absolute need to continue the Catholic episcopacy in order to continue the Catholic Church.
The case of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X presents itself differently from the case of the Diocese of Campos. It seems to me that the case of the Diocese of Campos is simpler, more classical, because what we have here is the majority of the diocesan priests and faithful, on the advice of their former bishop, designating his successor and asking Catholic bishops to consecrate him. This is how the succession of bishops came about in the early centuries of the Church, in union with Rome, as we are too in union with Catholic Rome and not Modernist Rome. (Letter to Bishop de Castro Meyer)

Reconcile the doctrine of this letter of the Archbishop with the teaching of Pius XII for me, if you can (you can't):

For it has been clearly and expressly laid down in the canons that it pertains to the one Apostolic See to judge whether a person is fit for the dignity and burden of the episcopacy,[11] and that complete freedom in the nomination of bishops is the right of the Roman Pontiff.[12] But if, as happens at times, some persons or groups are permitted to participate in the selection of an episcopal candidate, this is lawful only if the Apostolic See has allowed it in express terms and in each particular case for clearly defined persons or groups, the conditions and circumstances being very plainly determined. (Pius XII, Ad Apostolorum Principis §38)

Such actions go beyond simple disobedience to what is considered a sinful command, as the acceptance of a candidate by the Pontiff is necessary for a lawful consecration. Unless you would claim that Pius XII erred here and taught false doctrine which must be rejected?

How can a teaching be "binding on the whole Church" if it is not definitive? A teaching is binding universally precisely BECAUSE it is infallible. Otherwise we could be conceivably bound to something fallible. How then would we have the capacity to ever correct errors--if we were universally bound not to question them? This is absurd and goes beyond traditional Catholic teaching.

This question was actually answered by the Vatican II Theological Commission at one point - the answer was to consult the approved authors on dissent from the authentic Magisterium. I myself, being no theologian, own none of these "approved authors". I would suspect the answer could be found in the writings of Fr. Tanqueray or St. Liguori. The CDF Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian also deals with this issue:

28. The preceding considerations have a particular application to the case of the theologian who might have serious difficulties, for reasons which appear to him wellfounded, in accepting a non-irreformable magisterial teaching.
Such a disagreement could not be justified if it were based solely upon the fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion that the opposite position would be the more probable. Nor, furthermore, would the judgment of the subjective conscience of the theologian justify it because conscience does not constitute an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine.
29. In any case there should never be a diminishment of that fundamental openness loyally to accept the teaching of the Magisterium as is fitting for every believer by reason of the obedience of faith. The theologian will strive then to understand this teaching in its contents, arguments, and purposes. This will mean an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him.
30. If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments.
In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media", but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth.
31. It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium's teaching without hesitation, the theologian's difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question.
For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail.

Nor is this difficulty satisfactorily met, as some have attempted to meet it, by calling attention to the fact that in the Catholic system internal assent is sometimes demanded, under pain of grievous sin, to doctrinal decisions that do not profess to be infallible. For, in the first place, the assent to be given in such cases is recognized as being not irrevocable and irreversible, like the assent required in the case of definitive and infallible teaching, but merely provisional; and in the next place, internal assent is obligatory only on those who can give it consistently with the claims of objective truth on their conscience -- this conscience, it is assumed, being directed by a spirit of generous loyalty to genuine Catholic principles.
To take a particular example, if Galileo who happened to be right while the ecclesiastical tribunal which condemned him was wrong, had really possessed convincing scientific evidence in favour of the heliocentric theory, he would have been justified in refusing his internal assent to the opposite theory, provided that in doing so he observed with thorough loyalty all the conditions involved in the duty of external obedience. Finally it should be observed that fallible provisional teaching, as such, derives its binding force principally from the fact that it emanates from an authority which is competent, if need be, to convert it into infallible definitive teaching.(Catholic Encyclopedia, "Infallibility")

As for your quote, you mistake what assent it means:

The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching...But before being bound to give such an assent (ibid.)

Assent is not the same thing as binding the universal Church. No fallible teaching can do this. This was the point I was making in a previous post--and why I cited the 1910 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Internal assent, moreover, must be to a doctrine that is knowable--i.e., unambiguous and clear. And it certainly can never be given to a doctrine which is in contradiction to previous Church teachings.

None of this is de fide. It can be bad advice. The danger is that "suffering for the truth" at a time when corruption is systemic can be even more damaging to the Church than expressing the truth.

And it certainly can never be given to a doctrine which is in contradiction to previous Church teachings.

Yes it can.

just as the moon has no light except that which it receives from the sun, so also no earthly power has anything which it does not receive from the ecclesiastical power. ... all powers ... are from Christ, and from Us as the Vicar of Jesus Christ. (Boniface VIII, Address to the envoys of King Albert of Habsburg)

In the apostolic letters concerning the constitution of states, addressed by us to the bishops of the whole Church, we discussed this point at length; and there set forth the difference existing between the Church, which is a divine society, and all other social human organizations which depend simply on free will and choice of men. (Leo XIII, Testem Benevolentiae)