Is This Even English?

[Bruce S]

Is Scott a Bishop or Pope?

We are to take BruceS word for what Scott said? How about quoting from one of Scotts writings to present what Scott REALLY says about what the Church is.

Of course not, and if I have this "official thing down" now.

I imagine other readers watched that show on EWTN last night, as I did, and they will correct any misstatements made by me. Or am I the ONLY one on this site that watches the Catholic network nightly?

Even he were "A Bishop of Rome" or even a "Pope of Rome" nothing he would say, do or write would be "official" unless the Magisterium approved, and then, even then, if later, it were found to be incorrect, they would just disavow it as being "by fallible men"

Gotta love Neuman, he is a genius. Allowing for TRUTH to always be right, no matter how often is might proven to have been wrong.

They need to make him a Saint pronto for that fantastic theory that allows for ACCURACY in all things, even when errors might be made.

Edited January 8, 2004 by Bruce S

[cmotherofpirl]

Of course not, and if I have this "official thing down" now.

I imagine other readers watched that show on EWTN last night, as I did, and they will correct any misstatements made by me. Or am I the ONLY one on this site that watches the Catholic network nightly?

Even he were "A Bishop of Rome" or even a "Pope of Rome" nothing he would say, do or write would be "official" unless the Magisterium approved, and then, even then, if later, it were found to be incorrect, they would just disavow it as being "by fallible men"

Gotta love Neuman, he is a genius. Allowing for TRUTH to always be right, no matter how often is might proven to have been wrong.

They need to make him a Saint pronto for that fantastic theory that allows for ACCURACY in all things, even when errors might be made.

keep triyng.

remember the little train engine " I think I can, I think I can'

[Jake Huether]

Even he were "A Bishop of Rome" or even a "Pope of Rome" nothing he would say, do or write would be "official" unless the Magisterium approved, and then, even then, if later, it were found to be incorrect, they would just disavow it as being "by fallible men"

You are very sly... And it is very frustrating to even read your stuff because of it.

You have every thing in your statement right, but then you slip in one little (lie?) misconception or error .

You love hearing us say the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over....

Even he were "A Bishop of Rome" or even a "Pope of Rome" nothing he would say, do or write would be "official" unless the Magisterium approved,

You see, this is correct. you show signs that you understand.

Then you continue:

then, even then, if later, it were found to be incorrect, they would just disavow it as being "by fallible men."

This is ficticious. It wouldn't happen. And it never has. You cap a good sentence off with garbagio. You certainly know how to push our buttons.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though, and ask you one last time:

How do you substantiate this last claim? Is there proof that the Magesterium of the Church has officially taught something and then changed it later? If so, please please, I am very excited to see it so that I might convert and tithe your church.

**by the way, there still is a claim out against Pope Sixtus which lacks sources...???**

If there is no proof, then again, how do you substantiate this.

If you can't, then I suggest that you not state untruthes so flagrantly.

[Bruce S]

Is there proof that the Magesterium of the Church has officially taught something and then changed it later?

Since the term "Magisterium" isn't ever definitively DEFINED - that is the loophole.

Councils errored, with and without the Pope's assent. Pope's errored, massively at times, and congregations errored, as did theologians.

Just to make sure I was correct, I went to the OFFICIAL Catholic site, NewAdvent org, which everyone here likes to point to, and tried to look up Magisterium. It isn't even DEFINED there, not a listing, depite having listings for thousands of things. The BEST I could find there, was this.

The living magisterium, therefore, makes extensive use of documents of the past, but it does so while judging and interpreting, gladly finding in them its present thought, but likewise, when needful, distinguishing its present thought from what is traditional only in appearance. It is revealed truth always living in the mind of the Church, or, if it is preferred, the present thought of the Church in continuity with her traditional thought, which is for it the final criterion, according to which the living magisterium adopts as true or rejects as false the often obscure and confused formulas which occur in the monuments of the past. Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings--she judges them more than she is judged by them. Harnack has said that the Church is accustomed to conceal her evolution and to efface as well as she can the differences between her present and her former thought by condemning as heretical the most faithful witnesses of what was formerly orthodoxy. Not understanding what tradition is, the ever-living thought of the Church, he believes that she abjured her past when she merely distinguished between what was traditional truth in the past and what was only human alloy mixed with that truth, the personal opinion of an author substituting itself for the general thought of the Christian community. With regard to official documents, the expression of the infallible magisterium of the Church embodied in the decision of councils, or the solemn judgments of the popes, the Church never gainsays what she has once decided. She is then linked with her past because in this past her entire self is concerned and not any fallible organ of her thought. Hence she still finds her doctrine and rule of faith in these venerable monuments; the formulas may have grown old, but the truth

So, essentially, I stand correct, gobblygook that allows for mistakes of the past, to be pawned off on everyone, while CLAIMING neverending "truth."

Translated from Vaticanese, "we admit we pulled off some bloopers in the past" buy hey, that really wasn't a mistake, because TODAY we have a new "truth" that supercedes those old truths that were not truths.

God bless Neuman, he was a verifiable genious. This twisted thinking allows for a claim of perpetual "truth" no matter what, and "truth" can be redefined at any point to have a new truth.

Edited January 8, 2004 by Bruce S

[Bruce S]

Just in case the Magisterium may WANT TO have policy say one thing, and the Pope wants another, the POPE can, and has overruled the Archbishops showing that the Pope is truly the one to look to, not the consensus of the church.

Addressing the 85th General Congregation of the Vatican Council in 1870, in which Pius IV declared the papacy to be infallible, Bishop Joseph George Strossmayer of Germany, together with twenty-one archbishops and sixty-four bishops, announced, "Venerable brethren... history raises its voice to assure us that some popes have erred." When the above evidence is taken into consider, Strossmayer's words seem to have been somewhat of an understatement. He continued by saying, "Oh, venerable brethren, to maintain such an enormity would be to betray Christ worse than Judas. Let us turn to the teachings of the Apostles, since without them we have only error, darkness, and false tradition."(2) As would be expected, Pius IV ordered Strossmayer to withdraw his "heretical" statements under the threat of excommunication of both and his supporters. Unfortunately, Strossmayer complied.

Thus, the Magisterium, or the entire church was invalidated by one man, that Pope and the infalliblity doctrine was established.

Under threat of EXCOMMUNICATION, they relented, excommunication for merely holding another dissenting opinion, and stating it.

"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. "[Lord Acton]

The "Magisterium" is a created fiction. This proves where the power lies and that is NOT in the general consensus of the church.

[Jake Huether]

Before shooting off all this misconceptions and errors, Burce, why don't you do an in depth study on 1.) The Magisterium 2.) the meaning of infallibility and 3.) the office of the Pope.

You are telling Catholics what they believe, when you don't even know what they believe.

I'm not trying to be a jerk. But litterally thousands of people read this website, and both you and I wouldn't want to unintentionally misslead someone.

Here's a nice article to get you started.

http://www.netacc.net/~mafg/magist02.htm

another one:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

[Bruce S]

You are telling Catholics what they believe, when you don't even know what they believe.

By the way,followed your link, the Magisterium isn't defined there either. It was just the toughts of a Priest, and if I understand this one right, if he is wrong, that isn't going to be held as definitively right.

The second link provided was the one I used for my quote. I read that thing twice, and if any human being can make sense of it, I'm impressed. It was the biggest run around ever written. AND, as is usually the case when the Catholic Church tries to define something, it went on for page after page of obtuse verbiage. Nothing is EVER stated clearly, but stated in massive impentrable prose.

I'm looking for a statement that all will have to agree is offical.

I'm trying here, HONESTLY, to nail down what Magisterium is defined at, and what Neuman taught.

My quote, the best I found, came from OFFICIAL Catholic material. Was not taken out of context, nor edited to say anything other than what it said.

I ask again.

Give me a link to where the Magisterium is DEFINED and codified, where definitive answers can be found.

If there are better, provide them. If I look in Catholic material, for things Catholics believe, and can't find them, then there is something wrong.

And in side line comment, is there a site where the writings of Neuman are contained in totality? I would love to delve more into this genius's writings, to find out exactly what he taught, since every site alludes to him being the best source on what is, and is not, the Magisterium.

Edited January 8, 2004 by Bruce S

[Jake Huether]

Are your reading any of the links I posted.

Here's one more:

http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Catechism/Magi...definition.html

Bruce, it's all over! All you have to do is punch in Magisterium into yahoo google or whatever.

And forget what Neuman taught. Whatever it was, if it was licit, you don't seem to have a hold of it, because what you keep posting is not right.

[Jake Huether]

My quote, the best I found, came from OFFICIAL Catholic material. Was not taken out of context, nor edited to say anything other than what it said.

Here's your quote:

QUOTE 

Even he were "A Bishop of Rome" or even a "Pope of Rome" nothing he would say, do or write would be "official" unless the Magisterium approved, and then, even then, if later, it were found to be incorrect, they would just disavow it as being "by fallible men"

This can NOT have come from OFFICIAL CAtholic material, because official Catholic material wouldn't say "and then, even then, if later, it were found to be incorrect, they would just disavow it...".

[Bruce S]

thank you:

Magisterium (Lat. magister, a master):

The Church's divinely appointed authority to teach the truths of religion,

"Going therefore, teach ye all nations... teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt. xxviii, 19-20). This teaching is infallible: "And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (ibid.).

The solemn magisterium is that which is exercised only rarely by formal and authentic definitions of councils or popes. Its matter comprises dogmatic definitions of æcumenical councils or of the popes teaching ex cathedra, or of particular councils, if their decrees are universally accepted or approved in solemn form by the pope; also creeds and professions of faith put forward or solemnly approved by pope or æcumenical council. The ordinary magisterium is continually exercised by the Church especially in her universal practices connected with faith and morals, in the unanimous consent of the Fathers (q.v.) and theologians, in the decisions of Roman Congregations concerning faith and morals, in the common sense (q.v.) of the faithful, and various historical documents in which the faith is declared. All these are founts of a teaching which as a whole is infallible. They have to be studied separately to determine how far and in what conditions each of them is an infallible source of truth.

That makes perfect sense. To someone from mars perhaps, but not to people that really want to know.

I particularly like this statement:

All these are founts of a teaching which as a whole is infallible. They have to be studied separately to determine how far and in what conditions each of them is an infallible source of truth.

It really nails things down for everyone.

I again go back to my original point.

This allows for unlimited "out statements" to be issued, if and when, a doctrine or teaching is later found to be in need of "replacing" with the new truth.

If THIS is the basis for defining truth, I want no part of it.

Gimmie the Bible, and show me the words. I'm going with what God taught and Jesus said. Even deciphering Paul is easier than this massive accumulation of "consensus needed' that LATER, if any of the bunch, was "found to be in error" can be cleverly disavowed and the new substutatory truth inserted is claimed to be the answer.

[Jake Huether]

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/profe...#INTERPRETATION

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p2.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/almanac/thisrock.htm

http://www.catholic.com/library/scripture_tradition.asp

http://www.monksofadoration.org/magister.html

Here is the official Catechism of the Catholic Church on the Magisterium:

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/profess3.html

[Jake Huether]

Gimmie the Bible, and show me the words. I'm going with what God taught and Jesus said.

It was the Magisterium who gave you your Bible?

If it didn't come with a cover stating that it was the Bible, and with a Table of contents telling you which books belonged, you'd have NO IDEA it was the "word of God".

Why do you trust that men could have picked the right books, yet you refuse to believe that these same men can interpret them correctly?

Why do you believe Peter, John, Matthew?

Why do you believe Paul's writings?

Where does Paul say - This is the Word of God?

And if Paul says that - why do you believe him?

If you believe Paul, why not Pope John Paul?

Why not believe me if I tell you, "God says such and such".

What makes the Bible the Word of God?

Someone had to tell you!

[Jake Huether]

You have a hardened heart, appearantly. Nothing we say will make sense to you.

May the Holy Spirit guide you.

Peace.

[Bruce S]

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."[47] This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."[48]

87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",[49] the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

Ok, this one is more concise, and you stated it is from an OFFICIAL site.

So, am I reading this one correctly? If the bishops, in communion with the Pope, ,agree then the Magistrium has spoken infallibly?

This seems to EXCLUDE the colleges, theologians, and anyone outside of the listed sources.

So, if the Bishops vote, the Pope assents, then we have an infallible interpretation, and that goes for NOW, as well as all times in the past, when those conditions were met.

OR....

As I stated from previous Official sites, IF error is found, given those conditions, then the Magisterium DID NOT come into play?

Is this right? If not, why not, who IS the Magisterium and EXACTLY under what terms are ALL the conditions met, and that can never ever be changed?

Or can anyone error, decades after teachings WERE put out, accepted, and taught, with Authority, yet later revoked as wrong, and new truth substituted as is thought to be corrected?

Can any absolute ruling be absolute, permanent, and never subjected to change?

Is the term "Magisterium" just a fancy way to provide for plausible deniability when errors are uncovered?

It certainly looks that way right now.

[cmotherofpirl]

Magisterium

The living, teaching office of the Church, whose task it is to give an authentic interpretation of the word of God, whether in its written form (Sacred Scripture) or in the form of Tradition. The Magisterium ensures the Church's fidelity to the teaching of the Apostles in matters of faith and morals.

CCC 85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome."

CCC 86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."

CCC 890 "The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism has several forms."

CCC 891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful -- who confirms his brethren in the faith -- he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals ... The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's sucessor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine for belief as being divinely revealed, and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions must be adhered to with the obedience of faith. This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

CCC 892 "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 bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a definitive manner, they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful are to adhere to it with religious assent which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

CCC 2033 "The Magisterium of the Pastors of the Church in moral matters is ordinarily exercised in catechesis and preaching, with the help of the works of theologians and spiritual authors. Thus from generation to generation, under the aegis and vigilance of the pastors, the deposit of Christian moral teaching has been handed on, a deposit composed of a characteristic body of rules, commandments, and virtues proceeding from faith in Christ and animated by charity.Alongside the Creed and the Our Father, the basis for this catechesis has traditionally been the Decalogue which sets out the principles of moral life valid for all men."