Ordinary Magisterium

[dairygirl4u2c]

this topic always seems to be ignored when i bring it up. so i will try again.

so a lot of people say not listening to the pope and catechism as per the death penalty is legit as it's not infallible.

now, does that mean the catechism does not represent the ordinary magisterium?

cause, if something appears to be of the ordinary magisterium, it's to be accepted under penalty of mortal sin, as ones' "intellect and will" must be submitted to the teaching. (not sure if that teaching is itself definitive but...)

if things that are non-infallible are part of the ordinary magisterium, then how is it that tdeath penalty teaching is ignored?

i've always been cynical, cause people seem to say one teaching does not look like ordinary and anotehr does. who's to know, how is this to be decided?

iraq was more political, so ignoring the pope is somwhat understaind. but the death penalty seems more like a question or morality, as per faith and morals disction of teaching, so what gives? again how does one decide?

is a qeustion of judgment or empiracal study as to how many bishops agree with it, as per majority opinon in line with the pope?

it seems self serving to say what you think is ordinary and then lob mortal sins at others who don't follow what you think is not odrinary.

Edited April 23, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[CatherineM]

There are four levels of church teaching. Dogma is the first core level. We are to respond with an assent of faith, trusting that this teaching is revealed by God. 2nd is Definitive Doctrine that we are to firmly accept and hold that these teachings are true. 3rd is Authoritative Doctrine that we are supposed to strive to assimilate, but are allowed to recognize the remote possibility of church error. Last is church discipline and prudential admonitions that we should believe and obey in the spirit of any church teaching, but questioning it does not lead to sin. The first level definitely rises to the level of infallibility, and most scholars put the second level there as well. Authoritative Doctrine is the level where things like targeting civilians in war or in vitro fertilization reside. The CDF has put the discussion of female ordination in the second level.

Doctrine that comes from the Ordinary Magisterium is not infallible. Doctrine from the Extraordinary Magisterium is infallible. That's when the College of Bishops issue a Solemn Definition while gathered in an Ecumenical Council, or when the Pope issues a Solemn Definition Ex Cathedra. The Ordinary Magisterium includes the things a Bishop does in his role as teacher. Lumen Gentium #25 describes this well. This also includes ordinary teachings out of the Papal Office as well, like encyclical letters or papal addresses (where the theology of the body resides).

There are things in the Catechism that fall into all four levels of teachings. Frankly, sometimes it isn't clear exactly which is in what ring on the target. That is because, no matter where it falls in the spectrum, we should still faithfully try to believe and to follow. I completely believe in the idea of supporting life from a natural beginning to a natural death, but I'm just not sure where that teaching falls in the spectrum. I am devoutly against the death penalty, and I know that makes me in the small minority. Maybe that's partially because I'm one of the only people you will ever meet who has actually been present at an execution. I do not discuss it other than to say it was not a natural death.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1507536' date='Apr 23 2008, 01:11 PM']this topic always seems to be ignored when i bring it up. so i will try again.

so a lot of people say not listening to the pope and catechism as per the death penalty is legit as it's not infallible.

now, does that mean the catechism does not represent the ordinary magisterium?

cause, if something appears to be of the ordinary magisterium, it's to be accepted under penalty of mortal sin, as ones' "intellect and will" must be submitted to the teaching. (not sure if that teaching is itself definitive but...)

if things that are non-infallible are part of the ordinary magisterium, then how is it that tdeath penalty teaching is ignored?

i've always been cynical, cause people seem to say one teaching does not look like ordinary and anotehr does. who's to know, how is this to be decided?

iraq was more political, so ignoring the pope is somwhat understaind. but the death penalty seems more like a question or morality, as per faith and morals disction of teaching, so what gives? again how does one decide?

is a qeustion of judgment or empiracal study as to how many bishops agree with it, as per majority opinon in line with the pope?

it seems self serving to say what you think is ordinary and then lob mortal sins at others who don't follow what you think is not odrinary.[/quote]

The ordinary magisterium is infallible. The ordinary magisterium consists of the unanimous teaching of the bishops on a certain point. I don't listen to the CCC because I don't listen to the post-Vatican II church. So I don't care what the CCC says. In regards to the death penalty, it is possible that it can be reconciled with pre-Vatican II teaching, but I don't really care all that much if it can or can't. Pre-Vatican II teaching states that the death penalty is allowed not only for the good of the public (i.e. protection) but also as a punishment. That is good enough for me on the issue.

[CatholicMax]

The difficulty in particular with BOTH (remember there are 2 Catechisms published by the Catholic Church one of Pius V and the other of John Paul II) Catechisms is that they both contain fallible and infallible statements and weeding through which is which is not easy. The problem lay in people taking things out of context of history. take the death penalty as one example you mentioned, people hold up John Paul II opinion as if it is the only one ever had. The proper way to see the Church position is what has been taught everywhere always by all. In other words what is the historical teaching and then as i do in my paper (which you can read on death penalty poll) you must take the teaching of John Paul II in Light of the past teaching. because it is not an infallible statement (per Ratzinger prefect CDF) we see that John Paul II is not in line with past teaching and is actually contrary to it. but there is a way in which what he says (the text not the meaning) can be made to fit with Church teaching. and the same goes for other things.

[dairygirl4u2c]

if you type in magisterium into google, or wikipedia, wikipeida says that the ordinary is not infallible. but must be assented to.
so you can't say it's infallible, only that the teaching might be.

what's been said basically reiterates what i thought.... it's unclear and those who lob mortal sins self servingly are probably whack, at least unless it's clearly ordianry.

is the arguement that it's clearly not ordinary, or what am i missing? there needs to be a more explicit explanation for how they are skirting the execution issue.
eg. not enough bishops, not ordinary some other way, not faith and morals etc.

[CatholicMax]

the problem really lay in that people think everything the Holy Father rights is "inspired" and infallible and that is a horrible and dangerous philosophy. and in the "Spirit of Vatican II" they think everything that came before Vatican II is null and void and things after Vatican II take precedent, now while this is true in legislative matters (Canon law such as the legal requirement to wear a veil) this is not true when it comes to any level of teaching.

One of the biggest problem was John Paul II himself (before you get all defensive read the rest of what i say), it was clearer in the past what was what because Popes used different type of documents to signify their level of teaching. for example a bull was above an encyclical. John Paul II clumped every time of document into encyclicals (which is one reason he has more encyclicals than any other Pope.)

so the way we know is History in short what is the historical teaching.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1507626' date='Apr 23 2008, 03:25 PM']if you type in magisterium into google, or wikipedia, wikipeida says that the ordinary is not infallible. but must be assented to.
so you can't say it's infallible, only that the teaching might be.

what's been said basically reiterates what i thought.... it's unclear and those who lob mortal sins self servingly are probably whack, at least unless it's clearly ordianry.

is the arguement that it's clearly not ordinary, or what am i missing? there needs to be a more explicit explanation for how they are skirting the execution issue.
eg. not enough bishops, not ordinary some other way, not faith and morals etc.[/quote]

I'm not sure why you're following wikipedia for your answer but Catholic sources say that the ordinary magisterium is infallible when it produces a teaching. Note that it is a De Fide teaching, meaning it is an infallible teaching that the ordinary magisterium is infallible when teaching on faith and morals:

Ludwig Ott, "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" p. 299, 300:

"b) the whole Episcopate

[b]The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth, propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to be held by all the faithful (De fide.)[/b]

The Council of Trent teaches that the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles (D 960); and so does the Vatican Council (D 1828). As successors of the Apostles they are the pastors and teachers of the faithful (D 1821). As official teachers of the faith, they are endowed with the active infallibility assured to the incumbents of the Church teaching office.

. . .

b) [b]The Bishops exercise their infallible teaching power in an ordinary manner when they, in their dioceses, in moral unity with the Pope, unanimously promulgate the same teachings on faith and morals[/b] . . . The agreement of the Bishops in doctrine may be determined from the Catechisms issued by them, from their pastoral letters, from the prayer books approved by them, and from the resolutions of the particular synods."

As a general rule, when looking for solid information on Catholic doctrine, go to Catholic sources. It is infallible.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it does't say that ordinary magisterium means infallible. it only says when the bishops teach unimously, ordinary magisterium is infallible.

such as this also vincidates my initial thought...
[url="http://www.catholicplanet.com/CMA/heresy-infallibility.htm"]http://www.catholicplanet.com/CMA/heresy-infallibility.htm[/url]

there might be a difference, i'd have to look fr more sources to see.

so,,, to all thos who say yes to death penalty... what's to prevent them from saying yes to contraception or many other things?

i'm ignorant as to if octracteption is de fide another way other than implied but.

Edited April 23, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[CatherineM]

Once again, Ordinary Magisterium in not considered infallible, only the Extraordinary Magisterium is. Please read Richard Gaillardetz's " By What Authority? A primer on Scripture, the Magisterium, and the Sense of the Faithful." He has a reputation as a leading authority on the theology of the Magisterium, much more so than Wikipedia, or people who do not follow the church's teachings on Vatican II. I am a complete party line kind of person. If the Vatican told me tomorrow I should go around wearing a purple face, my only question would be which shade would work best with my hair color.

[dairygirl4u2c]

my undersatnding is that it's wrong to say ordinary is not infallible, but rahter that it's not always infallible. when they teach unanimously or whatever it is infallible.

so, it'd seem many issues taht are not extraordianry ex cathedra etc are dissented by rogue bishops. so, as those bolded texts would indicate that golden cited, it has to be unanimous. if they dissent, it's not unaimous. so many teachings that are not unimous is ambiguous as to whether binding as it's not necessarily infallible.
now, it might have been unanimous at a point in the past, which would vindicate that issue that it's binding certainly as infallible. but, how can one tell?

but beyond that, more importantly... how can one tell when it's binding yet not taught unanimously and not infallible?

Edited April 24, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1507768' date='Apr 23 2008, 05:31 PM']it does't say that ordinary magisterium means infallible. it only says when the bishops teach unimously, ordinary magisterium is infallible.

such as this also vincidates my initial thought...
[url="http://www.catholicplanet.com/CMA/heresy-infallibility.htm"]http://www.catholicplanet.com/CMA/heresy-infallibility.htm[/url]

there might be a difference, i'd have to look fr more sources to see.

so,,, to all thos who say yes to death penalty... what's to prevent them from saying yes to contraception or many other things?

i'm ignorant as to if octracteption is de fide another way other than implied but.[/quote]

Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick: More Concerned with 'Comfort' than Christ?, Catholic Online, 7/11/2004 stated. “2004, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with guidance to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated succinctly, emphatically and unambiguously as follows: June, 2004 "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. ***For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion***. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."”

again there are a few things to consider 1 is historical teaching, contraceptives and Abortion has ALWAYS been wrong that is not a new teaching. Just read the Didache its The oldest Christian document (older than the 4 gospels or the epistles). another thing is that the Church says that they are not morally equivalent. She has always said Abortion is wrong execution is good and necessary.

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1508058' date='Apr 23 2008, 10:10 PM']my undersatnding is that it's wrong to say ordinary is not infallible, but rahter that it's not always infallible. when they teach unanimously or whatever it is infallible.

so, it'd seem many issues taht are not extraordianry ex cathedra etc are dissented by rogue bishops. so, as those bolded texts would indicate that golden cited, it has to be unanimous. if they dissent, it's not unaimous. so many teachings that are not unimous is ambiguous as to whether binding as it's not necessarily infallible.
now, it might have been unanimous at a point in the past, which would vindicate that issue that it's binding certainly as infallible. but, how can one tell?

but beyond that, more importantly... how can one tell when it's binding yet not taught unanimously and not infallible?[/quote]here is the hitch unanimous does not actually mean UNANIMOUS. I know confusing, in fact just look at the arian Heresy when 90% of bishops were heretics, the thing is that it only qualifies when they teach "In union with the Pope". Another thing to look at is the type of language that is used as well as the History regarding the subject. It is not as difficult as you think to tell what is binding and what is not when you begin to look at things from the "hermeneutic of continuity."(Pope Benedict the Great).

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1507768' date='Apr 23 2008, 05:31 PM']it does't say that ordinary magisterium means infallible. it only says when the bishops teach unimously, ordinary magisterium is infallible.

such as this also vincidates my initial thought...
[url="http://www.catholicplanet.com/CMA/heresy-infallibility.htm"]http://www.catholicplanet.com/CMA/heresy-infallibility.htm[/url]

there might be a difference, i'd have to look fr more sources to see.

so,,, to all thos who say yes to death penalty... what's to prevent them from saying yes to contraception or many other things?

i'm ignorant as to if octracteption is de fide another way other than implied but.[/quote]

The bishops teaching unanimously in accord with each other (along with the Fathers and Theologians of the Church) IS the ordinary magisterium. Why start these topics if you don't understand the basic ideas of what you're getting into?

I'm not sure that the death penalty has been taught unanimously by the bishops (i.e. the ordinary magisterium), but I know for certain that contraception has not been. Pope John Paul I tried to open that up for discussion but was shot down on it.
It does not seem like you are open to correction on this issue so I will just let my point rest with one more source. It is a very long one so if you don't feel like reading all of it, then just read the bold. But it is a common, very simple and basic understanding that when the bishops in common with each other teach a certain doctrine on faith or morals and is being set forth as an object of faith then it is infallible and must be believed. When a bishop or theologian teaches something on his own apart from the others then it is not a teaching of the ordinary magisterium, but only his own opinion, as valid as it may be, and is not infallible. But the ordinary magisterium, which is all the things laid out in the quote below, is infallible when the criterion for an infallible statement are met.


AD. Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, transl. by Rev. Msgr. John J. Byrnes, Desclee, New York, 1959, pp. 176-182. All emphasis in the original.

Tract V, The Sources Of Revelation, Tradition, The Organs of Tradition.

[b]B The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church.1
[/b]
The ordinary and universal magisterium is that which is carried on daily through the continuous preaching of the Church among all peoples. It includes:

[b]1. The preaching and proclamations of the Corporate Body of Bishops,
2. universal custom or practice associated with dogma,
3. the consensus or agreement of the Fathers and of the Theologians,
4. the common or general understanding of the faithful. 2[/b]

[b]1. The Morally Unanimous Preaching (Teaching) of the Bishops

290 Bishops teach the flock entrusted and subject to them by means of catechisms, by synodal directives, mandates, and in public sermons. If it is evident from these documents that some doctrine is being set forth universally as an object of faith, then nothing else is required for this doctrine to be accepted de fide. Bishops spread throughout the world, but with the Roman Pontiff forming one Corporate Body, are infallible when declaring a teaching on faith or morals.
[/b]
2. Practice of the Church Associated with Dogma

291 Among the customs and practices which have been closely joined to dogma we mention especially the public rites used in the solemn celebration of the sacrifice, or in the administration of the sacraments; also the formulas of prayers and various feasts or offices instituted by the Church; or sacred practices which have been associated with doctrine.

For a practice of the Church to become a criterion of faith there are two requirements:

a. that the practice be necessarily connected with the dogmatic truth; for in imposing a practice or custom, the Church by that very fact orders that dogmas connected with this practice must be adhered to;

b. that a custom of this kind be universal or approved at least tacitly by infallible authority; for only the universal Church enjoys infallibility. Therefore, a custom or practice of one particular Church produces only a probable argument for revealed truth. The Roman Liturgy, approved in a special manner by the Supreme Pontiffs, cannot contain errors in dogma. Historical mistakes can creep in, and, as a matter of fact, they have slipped into the legends in the Breviary, as the best critics admit. But this fact is easily understood because the special lessons of the Second Nocturns were written at a time when apocryphal works were being spread abroad. Nevertheless, these lessons should not be despised because many points contained in them are true and are suitable for fostering piety and goodness.

[b]3. The Agreement of the Fathers and of the Theologians

a. The Authority of the Fathers[/b]

292 1. Who are the Fathers? The Fathers are those men, distinguished for their sanctity and their doctrine, who in the first centuries made the Church renowned by their writings, and who received full approbation from the Church, at least in an implicit manner. In order to recognize these men, we should look for four marks or signs: renowned and orthodox teaching, holiness of life, antiquity, and the approbation of the Church. Among the ecclesiastical writers some have been adorned with the title, Doctor of the Church, because they have surpassed others with their superior knowledge. Of these eight are the major Doctors of the Church, the others are called the minor Doctors.

293 2. Rules concerning the Authority of the Fathers.

a. Introductory notes. In order to make a study of the teaching of the Fathers, we must pay attention to the laws of historical criticism. We may consider the Fathers either as private doctors or as witnesses to the Church or to the faith.

1) They are regarded as private doctors when they reason and present their arguments in the manner of the philosophers, when they make use of analogies or comparisons, or propose their own opinion in such a way that they do not exclude the contrary opinion.

2) They speak as witnesses to the Church when they teach that a doctrine has been revealed, or has been accepted by the universal Church, or that a doctrine must be so held that it cannot be denied without the loss of faith or cannot be called into doubt. Similarly they speak as witnesses to the faith when they assert that a contrary opinion is heretical or opposed to the word of God.

If they speak as private doctors, their authority is only as great as is their knowledge or as is the force of their arguments; but if they speak as witnesses for the Church, they manifest not their own mind, but the faith of the infallible Church.

b. Rules to be followed:

[b]1) The morally unanimous agreement of the Fathers declaring that a doctrine is de fide is a certain argument of divine Tradition. Three conditions are necessary that an argument be considered certain: that it relate to a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals; that the testimony be free of doubt, that it be firm and that the Fathers declare positively that the doctrine is a doctrine of the Church; that the agreement of the Fathers be not mathematically but morally unanimous.[/b] For in this way the faith or belief of the universal Church can be certainly known. With these conditions posited, it can be said that the Fathers record the teaching of the universal Church. But the Church is infallible in teaching Christ’s doctrine.

Further, in order that an argument may be regarded as completely certain, the moral unanimity of the Fathers of one age is required and is sufficient.3 The Church at all times is indefectible and so in no age can it be guilty of error.

2) The testimony of one Father or of many Fathers in matters of faith and of morals is a probable argument, the force of which increases as the number and authority of the Fathers increase.

3) When the Fathers disagree, then their authority offers no firm argument; rather it proves that the matter on hand has not been explicitly defined; for if a matter had been clearly defined, then the Fathers could not have defended the contrary opinion without being condemned by the Church as heretics. If the disagreement is manifest, we must confess that certain Fathers have erred: for as individuals they are fallible. But if their words are doubtful, they must be explained by referring to subject matter which is clearer. In every case their words must be treated with respect; we must not attribute error to them because they have had no knowledge of the more explicit definitions of a following age.

b. The Authority of Theologians

294 After the Patristic age Theologians arranged in logical order the doctrines contained in Scripture and in Tradition and they explained these doctrines with the help of philosophical reasoning. These theologians can be considered as witnesses to the faith or as private doctors. They should not be esteemed lightly no matter what the Protestants, Modernists or other adversaries alleged against them.

In regard to their authority the following rules should he admitted:

[b]1. When theologians unanimously teach that something is not only true but also that it must be accepted in Catholic faith, such consensus on their part presents a certain argument;

2. If all proclaim some doctrine in regard to faith and morals as true or certain, it is rash to reject this doctrine;
[/b]
3. If there is a division of opinion among the different schools, even if the theologians of one school hold their opinion as certain or as very close to faith, no obligation exists of accepting such an opinion.


4. The Common Understanding of the Faithful

295 Revealed doctrine can be discovered not only among the Pastors and other leaders who teach with the Pastors, but also among the faithful who with a common or general understanding profess a unanimous faith.

In order that this common understanding be a criterion of revelation, it must be:
a. certain and clear,
b. unanimous,
c. concerned with important matters of faith and of morals.

The fact that the general agreement of the faithful is then a criterion of revelation is proved:

a. From the indefectibility of the Church. We have already stated that the Church cannot fail. But the Church would be failing in essentials if she were a society of erring souls. Therefore.

b. From the Fathers. For example, St. Augustine, in refuting the Pelagians, proved the existence of original sin in little children and the need, therefore, of baptism for these, from the common understanding of the faithful. This he regarded as a very strong argument of faith.

296 Other pertinent notes on this subject are these:

a. This infallibility in believing is often-times called passive infallibility; it depends on active infallibility (in teaching) which should always direct it.

b. We should avoid the error of those who think that the Church teaching merely confirms the opinions of the Church learning.4 For the Church teaching must pass judgment on these opinions, approve them or condemn them, and in this way direct the faith of her subjects and turn them from error.

c. Therefore, the faithful in the Church are in no way the teachers, they do not define authoritatively, but they give their belief. The Teachers impart and define the truth which all believe. But God is able to employ the faithful to promote some devotion, for example, the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus; but even in such an instance all proceeds under the authority of the Bishops — they alone are the authoritative judges and proclaimers of the faith.


Notes:
1. VACANT, La magistére ordinaire de l’Eglise et ses organes.
2. We should note that the words: Fathers, theologians, and the faithful refer to the Church Hearing, not to the Church Teaching.
3. In this case the argument has force only for Catholics who admit the infallibility of the Church; but when the Fathers of different times and from different places agree on some dogma, then we have an apologetical argument for non-Catholics since it is evident from this argument that our faith is the same as the faith of the Apostles.
4. In the decree Lamentabili proposition 6a is condemned “The Church learning and the Church teaching collaborate in such a way in defining truths that it remains for the Church teaching only to sanction the Opinions of the Church learning”. D.B., 2006.

Edited April 24, 2008 by goldenchild17

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1508051' date='Apr 23 2008, 10:04 PM']Once again, Ordinary Magisterium in not considered infallible, only the Extraordinary Magisterium is. Please read Richard Gaillardetz's " By What Authority? A primer on Scripture, the Magisterium, and the Sense of the Faithful." He has a reputation as a leading authority on the theology of the Magisterium, much more so than Wikipedia, or people who do not follow the church's teachings on Vatican II. I am a complete party line kind of person. If the Vatican told me tomorrow I should go around wearing a purple face, my only question would be which shade would work best with my hair color.[/quote]

Well I'm sorry you're a party-liner but I can't imagine following someone who holds such an odd position. It is a basic, fundamental Catholic principle that the ordinary magisterium, which is the bishops in communion with each other, along with the Fathers and theologians of the Church. When they as a whole present something of faith and morals to be held for belief, it is most certainly infallible. I didn't even think this was something a reasonably knowledgeable Vatican II Catholic would deny as its so basic.

[goldenchild17]

Not necessarily inherent to this topic, but saint canonizations are also considered infallible.

And see up in the quote I provided that other things are infallible such as the rites and liturgical practices of the Church. Therefore the Mass cannot contain any errors in it.

Just a couple of related (somewhat) notes.

Edited April 24, 2008 by goldenchild17

[CatherineM]

When the College of Bishops issue a Solemn Definition, that is infallible, but that is called the Extraordinary Magisterium, not the Ordinary Magisterium. Just understanding the difference between the words ordinary and extraordinary will help you understand the difference. Most things (ordinary) do not rise to the level of infallibility, only very rare (extraordinary) things do.

I have a bachelors in Pastoral Ministry from a Catholic University in the US, took Canon Law in law school, served with the office of defender of the bond in the tribunal, and am presently working on my masters in theology from the seminary that trains all the priests in the western half of Canada. I certainly know the difference between the extraordinary magisterium and the ordinary one.