Author Topic: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility  (Read 420 times)

Semperfidelis

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #10 on: February 05, 2018, 03:11:28 PM »
I found this passage to be most interesting.

"So if we want to reason with the same logical principles of yesteryear, principles, I’d say, that have always been used, a principle like “the Pope cannot give us anything contrary to faith and morals, not even implicitly, in liturgical acts and disciplinary matters”, then we must choose :

Either there is something bad in what they gave us, and so they are not popes.

Or they are popes and therefore we must obey, and that’s it. There is no intermediate situation."

Note how he clearly states what the Traditional doctrine on the subject is.  And in his following passage in response to this affirmed doctrine, he claims the need for a novel response given we are in unprecedented circumstances.  However, this is completely false reasoning as Catholic doctrine and principles do not change with the passing of time or variation of circumstances.

Actually, you have made an irrelevant conclusion, because you are not paying close enough attention:

We are not speaking here of Catholic doctrine or principles changing because of circumstances, but of universal ecclesiastical laws (e.g., the promulgation of the Novus Ordo) not always being the secondary object of infallibility.

To me, this seems common sense:

If universal ecclesiastical laws were always infallible, and therefore must always be obeyed regardless of circumstances, then the Church's own doctrines of necessity and epikeia would be heretical, insofar as these precisely represent causes excusing from obedience and/or observance of such laws, and therefore contradict the alleged infallibility allegedly attributed to such laws:

If such laws were infallible, and therefore always good, they would always have to be obeyed, and there would be no room in the Church's body of doctrine for such principles as necessity and epikeia.

The very existence of those doctrines is prima facie evidence that universal ecclesiastical laws are not in every instance infallible, or else how could the Church authorize disregarding and/or ignoring them in certain circumstances?

Oh, not at all, I read and comprehended what the article encompassed quite well.  And it is quite specifically arguing for a deviation of the traditional Catholic teaching that universal ecclesiastical laws fall under secondary objects of infallibility which is exactly what I pointed out.  It is you who is failing to grasp that it is a change in this Catholic doctrine which is at stake and not the arbitrary application of such a principle.

What is clearly evident is your lack of understanding what the infallibility of secondary objects is, hence the apparent contradiction to your mind.  Universal ecclesiastical laws are NOT infallible in the sense that every decree and its directive are infallibly the best way to act or in many cases even optimal. 

An example of such a case would be such a law as, "cars must drive on the right side of the road."  Now perhaps car manufactures change the driver's seat from the left to the right front seat and studies are concluded that it would be safer for people to drive on the left side of the road due to an increase of visibility a driver would have of the road.  Such a law is not "infallible" in the sense that it is the right way to drive no matter what (add in perhaps in the case of a snowstorm it would be justifiable for the individual to drive in the opposite lane deviating from the law to achieve better visibility or driving conditions and remain safe) but if it was ecclesiastical law, it would be infallible in the sense that it could not contain anything against faith or morals.  The law could therefore subsequently change to, "cars must drive on the left side of the road" without affecting the faith or morality of people or destroying the infallible nature of ecclesiastical laws.

Add to this that the infallibility of universal ecclesiastical laws necessarily are an either or.  Either they are infallible all of the time, or they are infallible none of the time.  Someone or something that is infallible must be all the time OR they simply can NEVER be infallible because the definition of infallibility is "the inability to error."  If there are mistakes, it CAN NOT BE INFALLIBLE. 

Hence it is YOU who are changing the traditional Catholic doctrine that universal ecclesiastical laws are infallible by asserting they can contain mistakes in faith or morals.  For if they can contain mistakes, they can never be considered infallible.  This is a mutually exclusive position.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2018, 03:13:46 PM by Semperfidelis »
 
The following users thanked this post: ubipetrus

Semperfidelis

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #11 on: February 05, 2018, 04:16:08 PM »
I found this passage to be most interesting.

"So if we want to reason with the same logical principles of yesteryear, principles, I’d say, that have always been used, a principle like “the Pope cannot give us anything contrary to faith and morals, not even implicitly, in liturgical acts and disciplinary matters”, then we must choose :

Either there is something bad in what they gave us, and so they are not popes.

Or they are popes and therefore we must obey, and that’s it. There is no intermediate situation."

Note how he clearly states what the Traditional doctrine on the subject is.  And in his following passage in response to this affirmed doctrine, he claims the need for a novel response given we are in unprecedented circumstances.  However, this is completely false reasoning as Catholic doctrine and principles do not change with the passing of time or variation of circumstances.

Really? Please explain then how one principle/doctrine can lead to two opposite conclusions. Are both conclusions true, or only one of them, or none of them maybe? And why, what's missing?

As I have said before, a deviation of this nature can only be a symptom of a problem and it can NEVER be the cause.   Without additional information of the circumstances, I would withhold judgment.
 

Anonimus

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #12 on: February 05, 2018, 05:23:00 PM »
I found this passage to be most interesting.

"So if we want to reason with the same logical principles of yesteryear, principles, I’d say, that have always been used, a principle like “the Pope cannot give us anything contrary to faith and morals, not even implicitly, in liturgical acts and disciplinary matters”, then we must choose :

Either there is something bad in what they gave us, and so they are not popes.

Or they are popes and therefore we must obey, and that’s it. There is no intermediate situation."

Note how he clearly states what the Traditional doctrine on the subject is.  And in his following passage in response to this affirmed doctrine, he claims the need for a novel response given we are in unprecedented circumstances.  However, this is completely false reasoning as Catholic doctrine and principles do not change with the passing of time or variation of circumstances.

Actually, you have made an irrelevant conclusion, because you are not paying close enough attention:

We are not speaking here of Catholic doctrine or principles changing because of circumstances, but of universal ecclesiastical laws (e.g., the promulgation of the Novus Ordo) not always being the secondary object of infallibility.

To me, this seems common sense:

If universal ecclesiastical laws were always infallible, and therefore must always be obeyed regardless of circumstances, then the Church's own doctrines of necessity and epikeia would be heretical, insofar as these precisely represent causes excusing from obedience and/or observance of such laws, and therefore contradict the alleged infallibility allegedly attributed to such laws:

If such laws were infallible, and therefore always good, they would always have to be obeyed, and there would be no room in the Church's body of doctrine for such principles as necessity and epikeia.

The very existence of those doctrines is prima facie evidence that universal ecclesiastical laws are not in every instance infallible, or else how could the Church authorize disregarding and/or ignoring them in certain circumstances?

Oh, not at all, I read and comprehended what the article encompassed quite well.  And it is quite specifically arguing for a deviation of the traditional Catholic teaching that universal ecclesiastical laws fall under secondary objects of infallibility which is exactly what I pointed out.  It is you who is failing to grasp that it is a change in this Catholic doctrine which is at stake and not the arbitrary application of such a principle.

What is clearly evident is your lack of understanding what the infallibility of secondary objects is, hence the apparent contradiction to your mind.  Universal ecclesiastical laws are NOT infallible in the sense that every decree and its directive are infallibly the best way to act or in many cases even optimal. 

An example of such a case would be such a law as, "cars must drive on the right side of the road."  Now perhaps car manufactures change the driver's seat from the left to the right front seat and studies are concluded that it would be safer for people to drive on the left side of the road due to an increase of visibility a driver would have of the road.  Such a law is not "infallible" in the sense that it is the right way to drive no matter what (add in perhaps in the case of a snowstorm it would be justifiable for the individual to drive in the opposite lane deviating from the law to achieve better visibility or driving conditions and remain safe) but if it was ecclesiastical law, it would be infallible in the sense that it could not contain anything against faith or morals.  The law could therefore subsequently change to, "cars must drive on the left side of the road" without affecting the faith or morality of people or destroying the infallible nature of ecclesiastical laws.

Add to this that the infallibility of universal ecclesiastical laws necessarily are an either or.  Either they are infallible all of the time, or they are infallible none of the time.  Someone or something that is infallible must be all the time OR they simply can NEVER be infallible because the definition of infallibility is "the inability to error."  If there are mistakes, it CAN NOT BE INFALLIBLE. 

Hence it is YOU who are changing the traditional Catholic doctrine that universal ecclesiastical laws are infallible by asserting they can contain mistakes in faith or morals.  For if they can contain mistakes, they can never be considered infallible.  This is a mutually exclusive position.

I have never heard anyone say, as you do above, that "Someone or something that is infallible must be all the time OR they can NEVER be infallible..."

According to that, you must believe the Pope is infallible all the time (which is precisely the problem with sedevacantism), whereas the reality is exactly what you deny:

The Pope is only infallible some of the time.

My conclusion is that your metaphysics (i.e., fundamental principle, two lines above) is what causes your inability to assent to what Archbishop Lefebvre explains.
 

Semperfidelis

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #13 on: February 05, 2018, 05:39:04 PM »
I found this passage to be most interesting.

"So if we want to reason with the same logical principles of yesteryear, principles, I’d say, that have always been used, a principle like “the Pope cannot give us anything contrary to faith and morals, not even implicitly, in liturgical acts and disciplinary matters”, then we must choose :

Either there is something bad in what they gave us, and so they are not popes.

Or they are popes and therefore we must obey, and that’s it. There is no intermediate situation."

Note how he clearly states what the Traditional doctrine on the subject is.  And in his following passage in response to this affirmed doctrine, he claims the need for a novel response given we are in unprecedented circumstances.  However, this is completely false reasoning as Catholic doctrine and principles do not change with the passing of time or variation of circumstances.

Actually, you have made an irrelevant conclusion, because you are not paying close enough attention:

We are not speaking here of Catholic doctrine or principles changing because of circumstances, but of universal ecclesiastical laws (e.g., the promulgation of the Novus Ordo) not always being the secondary object of infallibility.

To me, this seems common sense:

If universal ecclesiastical laws were always infallible, and therefore must always be obeyed regardless of circumstances, then the Church's own doctrines of necessity and epikeia would be heretical, insofar as these precisely represent causes excusing from obedience and/or observance of such laws, and therefore contradict the alleged infallibility allegedly attributed to such laws:

If such laws were infallible, and therefore always good, they would always have to be obeyed, and there would be no room in the Church's body of doctrine for such principles as necessity and epikeia.

The very existence of those doctrines is prima facie evidence that universal ecclesiastical laws are not in every instance infallible, or else how could the Church authorize disregarding and/or ignoring them in certain circumstances?

Oh, not at all, I read and comprehended what the article encompassed quite well.  And it is quite specifically arguing for a deviation of the traditional Catholic teaching that universal ecclesiastical laws fall under secondary objects of infallibility which is exactly what I pointed out.  It is you who is failing to grasp that it is a change in this Catholic doctrine which is at stake and not the arbitrary application of such a principle.

What is clearly evident is your lack of understanding what the infallibility of secondary objects is, hence the apparent contradiction to your mind.  Universal ecclesiastical laws are NOT infallible in the sense that every decree and its directive are infallibly the best way to act or in many cases even optimal. 

An example of such a case would be such a law as, "cars must drive on the right side of the road."  Now perhaps car manufactures change the driver's seat from the left to the right front seat and studies are concluded that it would be safer for people to drive on the left side of the road due to an increase of visibility a driver would have of the road.  Such a law is not "infallible" in the sense that it is the right way to drive no matter what (add in perhaps in the case of a snowstorm it would be justifiable for the individual to drive in the opposite lane deviating from the law to achieve better visibility or driving conditions and remain safe) but if it was ecclesiastical law, it would be infallible in the sense that it could not contain anything against faith or morals.  The law could therefore subsequently change to, "cars must drive on the left side of the road" without affecting the faith or morality of people or destroying the infallible nature of ecclesiastical laws.

Add to this that the infallibility of universal ecclesiastical laws necessarily are an either or.  Either they are infallible all of the time, or they are infallible none of the time.  Someone or something that is infallible must be all the time OR they simply can NEVER be infallible because the definition of infallibility is "the inability to error."  If there are mistakes, it CAN NOT BE INFALLIBLE. 

Hence it is YOU who are changing the traditional Catholic doctrine that universal ecclesiastical laws are infallible by asserting they can contain mistakes in faith or morals.  For if they can contain mistakes, they can never be considered infallible.  This is a mutually exclusive position.

I have never heard anyone say, as you do above, that "Someone or something that is infallible must be all the time OR they can NEVER be infallible..."

According to that, you must believe the Pope is infallible all the time (which is precisely the problem with sedevacantism), whereas the reality is exactly what you deny:

The Pope is only infallible some of the time.

My conclusion is that your metaphysics (i.e., fundamental principle, two lines above) is what causes your inability to assent to what Archbishop Lefebvre explains.

I am sorry.  Without minute explanations of every detail of the subject,, you seem unable to grasp basic points.  I obviously was not infering a pope is infallible everytime he speaks, that is your asumption and over generalization of my point to claim a cheap "I gotta."

What I did mean is that when a pope speaks ex cathedra, it is always infallible.  It is not conditional to any other matters once the criteria is met.  It does not "attract" infallibility if all surrounding aspects normal to such an act are present, but it is infallible once the required criteria is met regardless if these aspects are normal or not.

Universal ecclesiastical laws are infallible as well once the criteria to make them universal eccesiastical laws has been met.  It is part of their very nature, necessitated to keep the Church from misguiding the faithful and to ensure itself as the path to Heaven.
 

Semperfidelis

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #14 on: February 05, 2018, 05:42:06 PM »
I invite you to read some true Catholic teaching from approved sources rather than an individual's personal conjectures in a speech.
 
The following users thanked this post: Wenceslav, ubipetrus

Anonimus

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #15 on: February 05, 2018, 06:22:26 PM »
I found this passage to be most interesting.

"So if we want to reason with the same logical principles of yesteryear, principles, I’d say, that have always been used, a principle like “the Pope cannot give us anything contrary to faith and morals, not even implicitly, in liturgical acts and disciplinary matters”, then we must choose :

Either there is something bad in what they gave us, and so they are not popes.

Or they are popes and therefore we must obey, and that’s it. There is no intermediate situation."

Note how he clearly states what the Traditional doctrine on the subject is.  And in his following passage in response to this affirmed doctrine, he claims the need for a novel response given we are in unprecedented circumstances.  However, this is completely false reasoning as Catholic doctrine and principles do not change with the passing of time or variation of circumstances.

Actually, you have made an irrelevant conclusion, because you are not paying close enough attention:

We are not speaking here of Catholic doctrine or principles changing because of circumstances, but of universal ecclesiastical laws (e.g., the promulgation of the Novus Ordo) not always being the secondary object of infallibility.

To me, this seems common sense:

If universal ecclesiastical laws were always infallible, and therefore must always be obeyed regardless of circumstances, then the Church's own doctrines of necessity and epikeia would be heretical, insofar as these precisely represent causes excusing from obedience and/or observance of such laws, and therefore contradict the alleged infallibility allegedly attributed to such laws:

If such laws were infallible, and therefore always good, they would always have to be obeyed, and there would be no room in the Church's body of doctrine for such principles as necessity and epikeia.

The very existence of those doctrines is prima facie evidence that universal ecclesiastical laws are not in every instance infallible, or else how could the Church authorize disregarding and/or ignoring them in certain circumstances?

Oh, not at all, I read and comprehended what the article encompassed quite well.  And it is quite specifically arguing for a deviation of the traditional Catholic teaching that universal ecclesiastical laws fall under secondary objects of infallibility which is exactly what I pointed out.  It is you who is failing to grasp that it is a change in this Catholic doctrine which is at stake and not the arbitrary application of such a principle.

What is clearly evident is your lack of understanding what the infallibility of secondary objects is, hence the apparent contradiction to your mind.  Universal ecclesiastical laws are NOT infallible in the sense that every decree and its directive are infallibly the best way to act or in many cases even optimal. 

An example of such a case would be such a law as, "cars must drive on the right side of the road."  Now perhaps car manufactures change the driver's seat from the left to the right front seat and studies are concluded that it would be safer for people to drive on the left side of the road due to an increase of visibility a driver would have of the road.  Such a law is not "infallible" in the sense that it is the right way to drive no matter what (add in perhaps in the case of a snowstorm it would be justifiable for the individual to drive in the opposite lane deviating from the law to achieve better visibility or driving conditions and remain safe) but if it was ecclesiastical law, it would be infallible in the sense that it could not contain anything against faith or morals.  The law could therefore subsequently change to, "cars must drive on the left side of the road" without affecting the faith or morality of people or destroying the infallible nature of ecclesiastical laws.

Add to this that the infallibility of universal ecclesiastical laws necessarily are an either or.  Either they are infallible all of the time, or they are infallible none of the time.  Someone or something that is infallible must be all the time OR they simply can NEVER be infallible because the definition of infallibility is "the inability to error."  If there are mistakes, it CAN NOT BE INFALLIBLE. 

Hence it is YOU who are changing the traditional Catholic doctrine that universal ecclesiastical laws are infallible by asserting they can contain mistakes in faith or morals.  For if they can contain mistakes, they can never be considered infallible.  This is a mutually exclusive position.

I have never heard anyone say, as you do above, that "Someone or something that is infallible must be all the time OR they can NEVER be infallible..."

According to that, you must believe the Pope is infallible all the time (which is precisely the problem with sedevacantism), whereas the reality is exactly what you deny:

The Pope is only infallible some of the time.

My conclusion is that your metaphysics (i.e., fundamental principle, two lines above) is what causes your inability to assent to what Archbishop Lefebvre explains.

I am sorry.  Without minute explanations of every detail of the subject,, you seem unable to grasp basic points.  I obviously was not infering a pope is infallible everytime he speaks, that is your asumption and over generalization of my point to claim a cheap "I gotta."

What I did mean is that when a pope speaks ex cathedra, it is always infallible.  It is not conditional to any other matters once the criteria is met.  It does not "attract" infallibility if all surrounding aspects normal to such an act are present, but it is infallible once the required criteria is met regardless if these aspects are normal or not.

Universal ecclesiastical laws are infallible as well once the criteria to make them universal eccesiastical laws has been met.  It is part of their very nature, necessitated to keep the Church from misguiding the faithful and to ensure itself as the path to Heaven.

Your first two paragraphs are irrelevant.

The last is unsupported and gratuitous.

What I am looking for, is for you to take Archbishop Lefebvre's position (that universal ecclesiastical laws are not always secondary objects of infallibility), and rebut it theologically:

That is to say, I don't want you to cite 10 approved theologians arguing universal ecclesiastical laws are the secondary objects of infallibility: The Archbishop already conceded that.

But the Archbishop then went on to give some reasons why, in some circumstances, such laws might not be the secondary object of infallibility (e.g., If the legislator had no intent to bind, or was not capable of binding, etc.).

It is THOSE reasons I want you to address with theological rebuttals.
 

Semperfidelis

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #16 on: February 05, 2018, 06:45:36 PM »
My last paragraph needed no support as it was conceded in the article itself.  Reread it if you missed it.

While you are at it, reread your last paragraph.  Is a "decree" which is not binding a law?  Is a decree issued by a person not capable of issuing a law valid and really a law? 

Obvious answer staring at you is no these are not laws.

The issue of whether these are laws or not is a separate issue from whether universal ecclesiastical laws are protected by infallibility.  There is no need to attack the doctrine of the latter in the discussion of the former.  If they are not laws, they have nothing to do with universal eccesiastical laws in the first place.
 

Anonimus

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #17 on: February 05, 2018, 07:05:43 PM »
My last paragraph needed no support as it was conceded in the article itself.  Reread it if you missed it.

While you are at it, reread your last paragraph.  Is a "decree" which is not binding a law?  Is a decree issued by a person not capable of issuing a law valid and really a law? 

Obvious answer staring at you is no these are not laws.

The issue of whether these are laws or not is a separate issue from whether universal ecclesiastical laws are protected by infallibility.  There is no need to attack the doctrine of the latter in the discussion of the former.  If they are not laws, they have nothing to do with universal eccesiastical laws in the first place.

SF-

Don't look now, but you have very nearly conceded the argument you are objecting to:

Your very correct rationale (i.e., laws which do not intend to bind are no laws at all) is precisely what ABL is implying:

All that would have passed for universal ecclesiastical laws in the past, are not, properly speaking, such today.

So too with many things which once passed for dogmatic facts (e.g., new canonizations).

Consequently, these are not necessarily secondary objects of infallibility today.

But if that is the case, then sedes are being inconsistent or disingenuous (or ignorant, in a non-pejorative sense) when they allege that if we acknowledge the legitimacy of Francis' pontificate, we must likewise acknowledge his acts: Accept the new Mass; new canonizations; new canon law; etc.

No: You have just explained that these are not really any law at all, and consequently, sedes ought not be flinging them at R&R'ers, who are under no compulsion to accept them.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2018, 07:12:34 PM by Anonimus »
 
The following users thanked this post: Samuel

Samuel

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #18 on: February 05, 2018, 11:10:33 PM »
If you think this is false reasoning (as you claimed), then please explain why you believe this is false reasoning.
I found this passage to be most interesting.

"So if we want to reason with the same logical principles of yesteryear, principles, I’d say, that have always been used, a principle like “the Pope cannot give us anything contrary to faith and morals, not even implicitly, in liturgical acts and disciplinary matters”, then we must choose :

Either there is something bad in what they gave us, and so they are not popes.

Or they are popes and therefore we must obey, and that’s it. There is no intermediate situation."

Note how he clearly states what the Traditional doctrine on the subject is.  And in his following passage in response to this affirmed doctrine, he claims the need for a novel response given we are in unprecedented circumstances.  However, this is completely false reasoning as Catholic doctrine and principles do not change with the passing of time or variation of circumstances.

Really? Please explain then how one principle/doctrine can lead to two opposite conclusions. Are both conclusions true, or only one of them, or none of them maybe? And why, what's missing?

As I have said before, a deviation of this nature can only be a symptom of a problem and it can NEVER be the If you think this is false reasoning (as you claimed), then please explain why you believe this is false reasoning. cause.   Without additional information of the circumstances, I would withhold judgment.

I have no idea what you're talking about (what symptom, problem, deviation, judgment ?).

Here is the original quote, with a little more context which for some reason you omitted, but which is essential to understand the point the Archbishop made:

Quote from: Archbishop Lefebvre
So (#1) if we want to reason with the same logical principles of yesteryear, principles, I’d say, that have always been used, a principle like “the Pope cannot give us anything contrary to faith and morals, not even implicitly, in liturgical acts and disciplinary matters”, then we must choose :

    (#2) Either there is something bad in what they gave us, and so they are not popes.

    (#3) Or they are popes and therefore we must obey, and that’s it. There is no intermediate situation

(#4) But that's not true. That is not true. We are faced with a new situation in the Church because of the introduction of this liberal and modernist spirit into the higher levels of the Church. That is a fact. No one can deny that. The modernists and liberals have no conception of the Church, nor of infallibility, nor of the obligation of infallibility, nor of faith itself, of the immutability of faith, which is that of the Church, which is that of the Church herself.

#1 ABL states the principle being used by both sedes and liberals.

#2 ABL states the conclusion that sedes draw from this principle.

#3 ABL states the conclusion that liberals draw from this principle.

Obviously, #2 and #3 are contradictory conclusions, so at least one of these conclusions must be wrong, and possibly both of them. Therefore..

#4 ABL states his reason for believing that both #2 and #3 are false conclusions: the principle in #1 depends on circumstances which were taken for granted when the principle was defined and used in former times, but because of our unique circumstances ("this liberal and modernist spirit into the higher levels of the Church") this same principle is no longer valid, and hence both sedes and liberals err in their conclusion.

In other words, the real question is: If a Pope no longer believes in objective truth, is he still able to define objective truth? If he no longer believes in the immutability of truth, can he still bind people to.. to what? To something he does not himself believe is immutable and infallible? Can you anchor (i.e. bind) a boat (i.e. the Church) to jelly fish (i.e. a liberal mind)?

If you think this is false reasoning (as you claimed), then please explain why you believe this is false reasoning.
 

Semperfidelis

Re: Universal Ecclesiastical Laws Not Always Secondary Object of Infallibility
« Reply #19 on: February 06, 2018, 07:15:54 AM »

SF-

Don't look now, but you have very nearly conceded the argument you are objecting to:

Your very correct rationale (i.e., laws which do not intend to bind are no laws at all) is precisely what ABL is implying:

All that would have passed for universal ecclesiastical laws in the past, are not, properly speaking, such today.

So too with many things which once passed for dogmatic facts (e.g., new canonizations).

Consequently, these are not necessarily secondary objects of infallibility today.

But if that is the case, then sedes are being inconsistent or disingenuous (or ignorant, in a non-pejorative sense) when they allege that if we acknowledge the legitimacy of Francis' pontificate, we must likewise acknowledge his acts: Accept the new Mass; new canonizations; new canon law; etc.

No: You have just explained that these are not really any law at all, and consequently, sedes ought not be flinging them at R&R'ers, who are under no compulsion to accept them.

Again, you have jumped to conclusions from what I said.  I have conceded nothing.

What I did say is you are confusing two different arguments.

#1.  Universal eccesiastical laws are not infallible.  This argument is a direct attack on Catholic doctrine and condemnable.

#2.  The Novus Ordo laws are not binding (are not actually laws and never were) due to some legal defect in their promulgation.  Infallibility of laws has no place in this argument given we are not discussing laws.  Nor is there any Catholic doctrine at stack making it a possibility within the confines of Catholic Teaching.  Again I reiterate the word possible as I do not believe this to be the case and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it.

Let's take the New Code of Canon Law.  Please list the reasons and provide the legal evidence why these are not the Church's laws.