Ordinary Magisterium

[goldenchild17]

Well who am I to argue with credentials . I'm sorry if I put more stock in the teaching of the theologians and doctors and clergy of our Church from whom (I'm graciously assuming) you learned what you did in order to get your degrees.

I guess we'll just have to disagree, though it's one of the singularly oddest disagreements I've ever come across in regards to theology.

Edited April 24, 2008 by goldenchild17

[goldenchild17]

Could you please provide me with one source that you do believe to be authoritative that says that the ordinary magisterium is never infallible? thank you. I'm surprised with your level of education that you do not realize just how many things fall under the scope of infallibility. Would you deny also that the Mass and saint canonizations are also not infallible? If so, I would really appreciate your source. I assume that during your education you have done enough research to be able to back this up somehow. thanks.

[Apotheoun]

Helpful texts:

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM"]Vatican I[/url]

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDfadtu.htm"]Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei[/url]

[Apotheoun]

The Vatican's "Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei" distinguishes between three different levels of Catholic teaching:

(1) doctrines that are contained in the word of God, whether in written form or handed down in tradition, and which have been taught infallibly as divinely revealed by either a [i]defining act[/i] of the Extraordinary Magisterium, or by a [i]non-defining[/i] act of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and which must be affirmed as [i]de fide credenda[/i];

(2) doctrines that are intimately connected with divine revelation, and which have been taught infallibly by either a [i]defining act[/i] of the Extraordinary Magisterium, or by a [i]non-defining act[/i] of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, and which must be affirmed as [i]de fide tenenda[/i];

and (3) non-infallible teachings that have been proposed by the Authentic Magisterium, and which require a [i]religiosum voluntatis et intellectus obsequium[/i].

[goldenchild17]

I suppose this could be yet another difference between my faith and what the Vatican has taught since Vatican II, though I didn't really imagine this being one of them. If anything I expected post-Vatican II to put even more power with the collection of bishops considering the idea of the college of bishops put forth by the council. But surprises happen I suppose.

All I know is my source says that if certain conditions are met, their teachings become "de fide."

Ott says: "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.)" This is a de fide teaching.

He continues: "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"

You say this is extraordinary. Tanquerey disagrees:

"[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:

1. [b]The preaching and proclamations of the Corporate Body of Bishops,[/b]
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"

Here he says that the common teaching of the bishops makes up a part of the ordinary magisterium. Read this in kind with Ott who says that these teachings are infallible, and it follows clearly (to me only obviously) that their ordinary magisterial teachings when fulfilling the requirements for infallibility, are infallible. That's all I can really say on the matter. I was not aware that this changed after Vatican II, so I guess I don't have much more to say on the issue as it won't really apply to most people here. peace

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1508192' date='Apr 24 2008, 04:16 AM'][b]You say this is extraordinary. Tanquerey disagrees:[/b]

"[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:

1. [b]The preaching and proclamations of the Corporate Body of Bishops,[/b]
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."[/quote]
If you are referring to me in your post, you are in error, because I do not disagree with Tanquerey, nor does the so-called "Vatican II" Church.

The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is the common name for the teaching authority of all the bishops throughout the world, which necessarily includes the pope. Now, when the entire College of Bishops, although dispersed throughout the world, teach something as either [i]de fide credenda[/i] or as [i]de fide tenenda[/i], it follows that the teaching proclaimed by the universal episcopate is infallible through a [i]non-defining act[/i] (i.e., a non-solemn act) of the Church's teaching office. Moreover, it is important to remember that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is the normal mode of exercise of the Church's infallible teaching authority, while the Extraordinary Magisterium is only active occasionally, i.e., in extraordinary circumstances.

Edited April 24, 2008 by Apotheoun

[goldenchild17]

Just a few clarifications because I don't see how you and I disagree.

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1508194' date='Apr 24 2008, 05:44 AM']If you are referring to me in your post, you are in error, because I do not disagree with Tanquerey, nor does the so-called "Vatican II" Church.[/quote]
Okay, I will examine the latter on my own. I didn't really suspect that it did, but the opposition to my sources made me wonder.

[quote]The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is the common name for the teaching authority of all the bishops throughout the world, which necessarily includes the pope.[/quote]

Agreed.

[quote]Now, when the entire College of Bishop, although dispersed throughout the world, teach something as either [i]de fide credenda[/i] or as [i]de fide tenenda[/i], it follows that the teaching proclaimed by the universal episcopate is infallible through a [i]non-defining act[/i] (i.e., a non-solemn act) of the Church's teaching office.[/quote]

I believe I agree, but this is where I wanted the clarification. What do we mean when we say "defining act"? If we mean that the teaching needs to be officially promulgated in some way, then I agree. Because the idea of the ordinary magisterium is that it is the unanimous teaching of all the bishops on a matter of faith or morals. The fact that it is unanimous (in essence, I don't believe an actual 100% is required) is enough to make it infallible. I believe that was also pointed out by Tanquerey:
[b]
" 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."[/b]

So I just wanted to clarify what you meant by defining, and why you believed it was crucial to this discussion. thanks.

[quote]Moreover, it is important to remember that the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is the normal mode of exercise of the Church's infallible teaching authority, while the Extraordinary Magisterium is only active occasionally, i.e., in extraordinary circumstances.[/quote]

Definitely agree with this. Just wanted to make sure I understand your above point. Sorry if I accused you unnecessarily, I just sometimes have a small problem with initial reading comprehension and it occasionally takes me a little time to understand exactly what is being said. It probably doesn't help that I've been up all night either peace

Edited April 24, 2008 by goldenchild17

[Apotheoun]

The distinction between [i]defining[/i] and [i]non-defining acts[/i], which is found in the "Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei," is simply a technical way of distinguishing between the acts proper to the Extraordinary Magisterium, which by its very nature issues solemn decrees, and the acts of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, which is founded upon the common teaching of the universal episcopate dispersed throughout the world.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1508195' date='Apr 24 2008, 04:56 AM']Because the idea of the ordinary magisterium is that it is the unanimous teaching of all the bishops on a matter of faith or morals. The fact that it is unanimous (in essence, I don't believe an actual 100% is required) is enough to make it infallible.[/quote]
Agreed; the moral unanimity of the universal episcopate – understood diachronically and not merely synchronically – is sufficient for establishing the infallible character of a teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.

[dairygirl4u2c]

golden. i may not know this issue, and all the sites and the other person on here may not know this issue. but to say we started this thread not knowing what we're talkign about is idiotic. at least we know how to read.... you on the other hand, have not shown anything that says ordinary magisterium is infallible other than your own assertions. i still wonder if you get the difference between "not infallible" "not necessarily infallible" and "infallible" that at least i am drawing.
for someone who supposedly understands this so well, you should at least be able to provide a link that explains it properly.

fyi, here is another link that refers to it in noninfallible terms.
[url="http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/ordinary-magisterium.htm"]http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/ordinary-magisterium.htm[/url]

here is yet another i think this makes at least four that says noninfallible. now, this one says ordinary mag is not infallible, but ordinary universal is infallible. this may be the cause of your confusion.
[url="http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/jyoung.html"]http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/jyoung.html[/url]

here is another one that says it's not necessarily infallible. it too draws the distinction btween uinversal and ordinary and ordiary.
[mod]Link removed. --Era Might[/mod]

here is yet another that at least hints that there can be non infallible taeching, and using that mentioned distinction.
[url="http://disciplesnow.faithstreams.com/Home/Catholic/TopicView/tabid/20513/type/view/content/255aaafa-adc5-4b12-a2b0-c1cd1053f510/Default.aspx"]http://disciplesnow.faithstreams.com/Home/...10/Default.aspx[/url]

all that you have provided doesn't show it's infallible but that it can be at best. how you cannot understand that is beyond me.

as for saying it's not infallible, i dn't see how that could be said. it seems that's probaly just a cnofusion on the idea of not infallible and not necessarily infallible.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]we must distinguish the “ordinary and universal Magisterium” from simply “the ordinary Magisterium.” This latter is authoritatively discussed in the encyclical Humani Generis of Pius XII (1950) and the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, of the Second Vatican Council (1964). Pope Pius XII wrote,

. . . Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such . . . not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority [Magisterium]. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority [Magisterio enim ordinario haec docentur], of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, . . . heareth me” . . .[/quote]

htat site at least distinguishes the ideas. now, i concede this point doens' say ordinary is infallible not necessarily... but it makes a distinction which you have not drawn.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/DefinitionOfDoctrine.html#The%20Ordinary%20Magisterium"]http://www.geocities.com/pharsea/Definitio...y%20Magisterium[/url]

here is even traditionalist sites saying it's not necessarily infallibe.
[color="#FF0000"]wE DON'T LINK TO sspx AND YOU OUGHT TO KNOW THAT BY NOW!i[/color]i could continue making these links, cause every site i look at says the same thing. i concede it may say if it's unanimous etc, then it can be infallible, but it doesnt' say it necessarily is, as you claim.
if i'm wrong, at least i know how to read and have the rest of the internet world with me.

Edited April 25, 2008 by cmotherofpirl

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://www.catholicplanet.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-508.html"]http://www.catholicplanet.net/forum/archiv....php/t-508.html[/url]

also just to note, to get back to the point of the thread... even if it is always infallible... the question then becomes is it part of the ordinary or is it simply a teaching that has a lot of consensus to it? how do you know etc etc.

i can see how one might dissent on death penalty in theory, but how are they knowing that it's not traditional and can dissent on that?

Edited April 24, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1508232' date='Apr 24 2008, 08:41 AM']Agreed; the moral unanimity of the universal episcopate – understood diachronically and not merely synchronically – is sufficient for establishing the infallible character of a teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.[/quote]

okay, I think you and I are agreed on this issue. peace

[goldenchild17]

dairy I don't have time to address every one of those sites, but the ordinary magisterium is infallible when it fulfills the criteria for an infallible teaching. It isn't ALWAYS infallible, but neither is the Pope. Are you going to say that the pope is not infallible because of this? Of course not. There are times when the pope speaks infallibly and times (many more times) when he does not. Same basic principle with the bishops and theologians and Fathers in the ordinary magisterium, sometimes they speak infallibly (when the criteria are met) and sometimes they do not. I don't listen to webpages just because they say something. If they have theological documents to back it up then they might have a point. Ott and Tanquerey are two of the more capable theologians in the Church of the last couple centuries and they show that the ordinary magisterium is infallible when they propose a teaching for universal belief. The only difference between the ordinary magisterium and the extraordinary magisterium is that the extraordinary magisterium requires a solemn decree and the ordinary magisterial teachings do not. But they are still both infallible.