Who Needs a Magisterium Anyway?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='jswranch' post='1025317' date='Jul 16 2006, 03:33 AM']
I did [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=54911"]start a new thread on this whole issue.[/url] Your words will be worth repeating. Perhaps a simple cut and paste should work.

I suppose I need a source defining the term 'Sententia Communis' as non-authoritative, vice binding. I am under the impression Ott defines it as binding.

I do wish I could find a copy of Denzinger/Ott online. (hint hint)
It is a great tract, you should be proud.

Finally, oh wise one, a critique of [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=54792&view=findpost&p=1023826"]my posts on this thread #16[/url] (aside from that already accomplished) and [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=54792&view=findpost&p=1024850"]#32[/url] would be helpful.
[/quote]
Ott defines sententia communis as on the level of free opinion but as perhaps the highest level of speculative opinions because of the implied consensus among faithful theologians and clergy.

I've posted in your new thread. It's fun.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1025315' date='Jul 16 2006, 05:03 AM']


Lectio Divina is reading, or, more exactly, listening to the book we believe to be divinely inspired. In this way we hear the word of God in the scriptures. It is the most ancient method of developing friendship with Christ by using scripture texts as topics of conversation with him.
Engaging in [i]lectio divina[/i] is like floating on your back in the middle of an ocean. Rather than you reading the Bible, the Bible is reading you - you don't know where the current is going to carry you, and the only way to find out is to let go of all preconceived notions and let the Divine Word illuminate your heart. On one day, you may receive a certain idea about a particular verse - a beautiful idea, and one that really speaks to you. On the next day, you may receive a different idea about the same verse - still a beautiful idea, still a profound idea, but a different interpretion entirely. The Bible is a multi-faceted jewel, and a different interpretation is not the same as a contradiction. Some Protestant Christians are unable to accept that like any magnificent work of literature, it is possible for the Bible to contain multiple meanings. I attend Protestant Bible studies with my college's Christian Union - Bible studies that have a distinctly evangelical flavour. The study sessions are scripted several days in advance by the group leader. She writes out a list of questions about the passage we will be studying - and then writes out the answers. In the study session itself, she asks the questions one by one and keeps asking the same question until the group's answer corresponds with the answer on her sheet. The answer that was given to her by the co-ordinators of the Christian Union at a grand meeting of all the Bible study leaders in different colleges. It doesn't matter if someone comes up with an intriguing and more insightful response that we would do well to explore - we must on no account deviate from the itemised spiritual shopping list that she is holding in her hand.

The Magisterium will never do that to people. It only explicitly defines a doctrine when urgent clarification is needed. As someone has already said, the Church existed before the complete Bible was put together. The Bible was born of the Church and shaped by a particular religious culture. As an English person, I know fine well that eating fish and chips with vast quantities of vinegar, taking elevenses and afternoon tea, and automatically joining a queue as soon as I see one - no matter where the said queue happens to lead - are all part of the grand English culture. The British Government does not need to sit down and draw up a parliamentary declaration stating that fish-and-chip suppers and the Queen's corgis have a special meaning for the population. We have been brought up in this culture; we already know all that. The understanding is a tacit one. Similarly, the Catholic Church has no need to rigidly define every religious legacy that has been passed down to us from the apostles themselves. A flourishing oral tradition and the writings of a series of excellent scholars, stretching right back to the birth of the Church, fuel our understanding and nurture our faith.
[/quote]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1025334' date='Jul 16 2006, 06:39 AM']

[/quote]
:applause:

[Laudate_Dominum]

Per your request I'm commented on post #16.

[quote name='jswranch' post='1023826' date='Jul 13 2006, 03:21 PM']
The reason the Catholic Church has only [u]"[b][i]DOGMATICALLY[/i][/b]"[/u] defined 7 verses is because it has only been forced to do so. The church does not like to be authoritative, but does so usually to correct heresy/confusion or to improve the enthusiasm of the faithful.

However, the CC has defined verses at a level of authority lower than Dogma.
[/quote]
Yep, and that's one of the big blunders of this thread, the assumption that the function of the magisterium is that of an exegete. In my opinion the Church has never defined a dogmatic interpretation of a Scripture passage; at least not in the sense that has been implied. Those seven examples of supposedly dogmatic interpretations of Scripture are dogmatic definitions of doctrine which is rooted in Scripture. In a sense this is a dogmatic interpretation of Scripture, but not in the sense of formal exegesis. The whole thing strikes me as a silly concept. The point is to clearly define a doctrine, and the point of the Scripture passage is to indicate some Scriptural roots, so it is a commentary on Scripture in that it indicates that said Scripture does in fact relate to this doctrine on some interpretive level, but it is not the be all end all, the case is closed sort of summary of the passage. The Church does not proclaim dogmas over exegetical questions but over theological disputes (at least most of the time). The Magisterium interprets and expounds upon the deposit of Faith, of which Scripture is certainly the heart, but this is not done according to some kind of exegetical methodology, and question of "the primary sense" of a passage are irrelevant.
If these sorts of matters need to be addressed it typically happens on the level of the Holy Office or a commission or something. I just can't see the Pope getting up into the chair of peter to solemnly proclaim the literal sense of Leviticus 3:17. Maybe we need to have a council to put together a complete exegesis of Mark chapter 8.
In a sense the decrees of the Council of Trent are one big commentary on Scripture; the documents of Vatican II are a Scriptural commentary of sorts, as is the Catechism. But not in the sense that the Church has defined the scope of specific passages. The Faith is not synonymous with exegesis.
Catholicism is not this closed dogmatic list of restrictions and pre-programmed thoughts that everyone has to think. In fact Catholicism is actually pretty fluid. In my experience it is generally people inside and outside of the Church who want everything to be black and white; procedural and determined. This might be hard to swallow, but as I see it the nature of the Church is perfect. The Church's charism is right on.

[quote name='jswranch' post='1023826' date='Jul 13 2006, 03:21 PM']
Remember, the CC holds different theological 'ideas' at different levels of truth and certainty. This is very important as if you do not understand, you do not understand Catholic theology. [url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/TRIGINFL.HTM"]Check out this link from EWTN.[/url]These levels [u]can be unofficially[/u] catagorized into (someone correct me if I am wrong):

1. Dogma- do not change and are so true, they can be used to make other Dogmas. Infallible. (Assumption, that Mary was assumed at the end of her earthy life)

2. De fide, items of faith- Infallible. De Fide's can become Dogmas upon definitive statements from Popes or Councils. (Purgatory Exists)

3. VERITATES CATHOLICAE- Catholic truths (Knowledge of the existance of God can be known through reason).

Theological opinions:
4. SENTENTIA FIDEI PROXIMA (proximate to the Faith) like the Trinity can be known only through Revelation.

5. SENTENTIA CERTA (theologically certain) like Monogenism, i.e., that the human race came from one set of parents.

6. SENTENTIA COMMUNIA (common teaching) like the Church's prohibition & proscription of artificial contraception.

7. SENTENTIA PROBABILIS (probable teaching) like the premise that the Virgin Mary died before being Assumed into Heaven.

Items can be moved up in rank to and above VERITATES CATHOLICAE, but not down, be changed, or go away at level 3 and above. Only 7 verses have been Dogmatically defined, but coutless others have been been clarified as veritates/sentenia...etc.
[/quote]
Fr. Trujillio (sp?) might be getting an email from me.

[CrossCuT]

[size=1][color="FF6699"]I need a magisterium.
[/color][/size]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='CrossCuT' post='1025347' date='Jul 16 2006, 07:41 AM']
[size=1][color="FF6699"]I need a magisterium.
[/color][/size]
[/quote]
I need two magisteriums.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' post='1025357' date='Jul 16 2006, 10:18 AM']
I need two magisteriums.
[/quote]
That would be magisteria. :

[homeschoolmom]

Without magisteria we would have mass hysteria.

[Fulton Sheen Warrior]

+JMJ+

[quote]Without magisteria we would have mass hysteria.[/quote]

Edited July 16, 2006 by Fulton Sheen Warrior

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1025412' date='Jul 16 2006, 10:47 AM']
That would be magisteria. :
[/quote]
yer so picky :

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1025423' date='Jul 16 2006, 11:48 AM']
Without magisteria we would have mass hysteria.
[/quote]
[img]http://www.galapagosinc.com/images/quiz1042outcome1.jpg[/img]

[Aloysius]

ok... i suggest no more posts in favor of the catholic side until and unless there's another response... ganging up on someone never prooves anything other than multiple people can smother one person with many arguments.

as for the rest of these shenanigans.... I'm not sayin nothin.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1025690' date='Jul 16 2006, 06:44 PM']
ok... i suggest no more posts in favor of the catholic side until and unless there's another response... ganging up on someone never prooves anything other than multiple people can smother one person with many arguments.

as for the rest of these shenanigans.... I'm not sayin nothin.
[/quote]
I was mainly having a hijack convo with jswranch about the levels of theological certitude and the status of humanae vitae.

although I kind of want to cross swords with Eutychus for some reason (I appreciate the rhetoric and cynicism).. maybe on a different topic though, this one's getting old.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1025315' date='Jul 16 2006, 05:03 AM']Lectio Divina is reading, or, more exactly, listening to the book we believe to be divinely inspired. In this way we hear the word of God in the scriptures. It is the most ancient method of developing friendship with Christ by using scripture texts as topics of conversation with him. [quote]The four stages, moments or movements in Lectio Divina are otherwise known as the four R's

Lectio - Reading
Meditatio - Reflecting
Oratio - Responding
Contemplatio - Resting, Contemplation - Centering Prayer[/quote][/quote]
Hi Cathoholic,

For the most part, I really liked your post. But, I wanted to comment on the mention of "Centering Prayer." Quoting from EWTN's "Ask the Experts" ([url="http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?Pgnu=1&Pg=Forum8&recnu=9&number=467725"]link[/url]--I'm quoting the entire answer, just in case the link goes bad):
[quote]Centering Prayer is a blind end for those wishing to advance in the spiritual life. There is a good reason you never see orthodox people recommend it, though it is popular with Catholics dabbling in the new age, and typically the same groups that promote it also promote the enneagram, massage theapy and other dingy ideas.

The advertising of centering prayer as "lectio divina" (a legitimate patristic paractice), and claims that its propnents are simply following the admonition of Pope Paul VI to promote lectio divina, has clouded the issue. Lectio divina is the prayerful reading of a text (such as scripture, such as the Fathers of the Church, or another spiritual reading - such as daily offered in the Office of Readings).

Prayerful reading means meditation. One reads, and thinks, and prays, over the text, opening oenself to God's light to understand it more deeply. The spiritual masters of the Church teach us that by the consistant practice of meditation we dispose ourselves to the grace of contemplation, a supernatural light that God alone can give. We can't force him to give it; He gives it to whom He wills. We can only dispose ourselves by our self-conquest (that is, by meditation - which subjects the intellect, memory and imagination to the truths of the faith, and by avoiding sin and asceticism - which subjects the will). The contemplative is the same as the mystic, and well along to becoming the saint.

Centering prayer, however, has been described by one of its foremost promoters as "Transcendental meditation (tm) for Christians." The analogy to the Eastern practice popular in the 60s is apt. Instead of the name of a Hindu god, or a Buddist mantra, one says the name of Jesus, or the Jesus prayer. No real meditation is involved, only attention to God dwelling within. Even this is equivocal. Yes, God is the ground of our being, always present sustaining us in existence, and He is present within us by grace, if we are in the state of grace, but the language is similar to the new age. For harmony of life this should be done 20 minutes morning and evening. By the way, this makes you a "contemplative" - without all the hard work.

I think the following article by Fr. William Most sums up the issues quite well.

See: [url="http://origin.ewtn.com/library/SPIRIT/MOSTPRAY.TXT"]http://origin.ewtn.com/library/SPIRIT/MOSTPRAY.TXT[/url][/quote]

There's also this article from Catholic.com:

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9711fea1.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9711fea1.asp[/url]

[Jesuspaidtheprice]

I suppose if you have a very, very narrow view of what constitutes the Catholic Church, then you could say that in some fashion, the Church has only defined, or better yet, solidified seven passages. It shows a lack of knowledge though of a 'hierarchy of truth' that the Church practices, among the lowest levels being tolerated opinion, and the highest levels consisting of dogma. The Church has engaged and practiced the interpretation of scripture since the earliest times of its existence. The denying this could actually work in the Catholics favor since it would then weigh against the idea that Catholics 'force' beliefs on their parishioners, a common thread of argument. What I would actually like to see is budge address the “Catholic question” by engaging in argument using scripture. Something it seems he is avoiding. Perhaps we can get somewhere instead of posting these nonsense articles as if it is suppose to prove something. I think a great discussion could take place on the sacrifice of the mass, its roots, as Catholics suggest, in John and on Calvary, and whether the explanation that it is the [i]representation[/i] of the sacrifice on Calvary “once and for all” is actually what the scriptures indicate. What do you say budge? I'll even help you out.