Apostolics Unanimous

[jasJis]

As best as I can tell, reading David Ray's article in Envoy, it means that the prevailing majority Magesterium of the time can apply a definition that may differ from other 'Fathers' of the Church and label it as 'Unanaimous Opinion'.
In simple language, is that not correct?

[jasJis]

Seems to be a tough question.

[Era Might]

I'm not sure what you're asking.

The "unanimous consent of the fathers", as spoken of in Pope Leo XIII's "Providentissimus Deus", is a moral unanimity in something agreed upon as a dogma of the Christian faith, something which must be believed. It does not refer to an absolute numerical unanimity, nor to a unanimity in theological opinion.

[Era Might]

The relevant teaching of Pope Leo XIII:

[quote]Because the defense of Holy Scripture must be carried on vigorously, all the opinions which the individual Fathers or the recent interpreters have set forth in explaining it need not be maintained equally. For they, in interpreting passages where physical matters are concerned have made judgments according to the opinions of the age, and thus not always according to truth, so that they have made statements which today are not approved. Therefore, we must carefully discern what they hand down which really pertains to faith or is intimately connected with it, and what they hand down with unanimous consent; for "in those matters which are not under the obligation of faith, the saints were free to have different opinions, just as we are," according to the opinion of St. Thomas. In another passage he most prudently holds: "It seems to me to be safer that such opinions as the philosophers have expressed in common and are not repugnant to our faith should not be asserted as dogmas of the faith, even if they are introduced some times under the names of philosophers, nor should they thus be denied as contrary to faith, lest an opportunity be afforded to the philosophers of this world to belittle the teachings of the faith."[/quote]

[jasJis]

So it seems that the Magesterium reserves the right to change or develop doctrine as knowledge is developed. In other words, it is cautionary against claiming that the current interpretation of the Church is in fact, infallible.

[Era Might]

Again, I don't understand what you're asking.

The development of doctrine is a separate issue from the unanimity of the Fathers.

The unanimity of the Fathers refers to the authority of the Fathers in the definition of the Catholic faith. The development of doctrine refers to the authority of the Magisterium in the definition of the Catholic faith.

The unanimity of the Fathers, as it is understood in Catholic doctrine, binds the Magisterium. But if your definition of unanimity is off, you will erroneously confuse the OPINION of the fathers with UNANIMITY.

So no, the Magisterium cannot set aside the unanimity of the Fathers. You would have to be specific if you want to know whether something would fall under the domain of such unanimity.

Infallibility does not mean development ceases. It simply means that the definition as understood and set forth at that time is infallible, and will not change, although circumstances and/or greater reflection may initiate more depth in the teaching. An obvious example would be issues of life. As scientific practices develop (such as cloning), the Church will have to address and integrate them into her teaching against the violation of human life.

[jasJis]

Did you read D Ray's article in Envoy? You can link to it through the pm reference section.

[Era Might]

I just read it. It's by Steve Ray, btw, not "Dave Ray".

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing where he talks about the development of doctrine. You'll have to point out to me what's confusing you. His point seems to be about the meaning of "unanimous consent", rather than any specific instance where this is played out.