"Infallible Security" vs. "Infallible Truth"

Alan Aversa · Fri Jul 12, 2013 8:02 am

In response to an interesting thread on Quæstiones Disputatæ regarding "Auctorem Fidei and Traditionalism," Ashton argues that "infallible security" protects Vatican II as a true council against the supposedly un-Catholic claims of traditionalists. He cites Fenton, Garrigou-Lagrange, and Franzelin on the distinction between "infallible security" and "infallible truth."

Here's his quote from Fenton on this distinction:

The Catholic Church and Salvation, pp. 90-94 wrote:

The entire teaching activity of the universal Church of God on earth is covered by what theologians, after Franzelin, call the guarantee of "infallible security" as distinct from that of "infallible truth." … The government of the universal Church by the Holy Father has a kind of practical infallibility attached to it, in the sense that it would be quite impossible for a man to lose his soul through obedience to the legislation of the universal Church militant of the New Testament.

See my response to Ashton.

My questions are:

What exactly is "infallible security"?
How exactly is it different from and related to "infallible truth"?
What are the limits of "infallible security"?

I'm sure you sedevacantists have countered Ashton's objection before, as sedevacantism seems to be an easy way out to avoid the seeming logical inconsistancies Ashton is trying to expose.

thanks

"Infallible Security" vs. "Infallible Truth"

Who is online