Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Are we obligated to least consider the NON-infallible Magisterium as "safe"?  (Read 1078 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline forlorn

Re: Are we obligated to least consider the NON-infallible Magisterium as "safe"?
« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2021, 01:58:03 PM »
Quote from: Stubborn on November 22, 2021, 05:01:19 AM
The term "The Church" takes on many different meanings which today, most of which are ambiguous, as is the case in this OP. No, the Church, which is Christ, cannot err. The Church's "non-infallible magisterium" is an altogether erroneous term, there is no more a "non-infallible magisterium" then there is a "non-infallible dogma" - iow, there is no such a thing as a non-infallible magisterium. The misunderstanding of this term has led many into believing that the heresies and errors of V2 are actually taught by the Church.

In Tuas Libenter, Pope Pius IX explains the Church's magisterium, which is always infallible:
"... all that has been handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world, and which, for this reason, Catholic theologians, with a universal and constant consent, regard as being of the faith."

Not sure what happened to poster Bellator Dei, but in the past he posted numerous different quotes from papal Bulls, Encyclicals etc., all teaching that the Magisterium of the Church is always infallible. Looks like he not only got banned, all of his posts have been deleted as well. Too bad, I would have liked to point you toward some of his posts.
Do you mean this user?
https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/Bellator%20Dei

They don't seem to be banned but I can't see their posts either. 
Logged

Offline SimpleMan

Re: Are we obligated to least consider the NON-infallible Magisterium as "safe"?
« Reply #6 on: November 22, 2021, 02:36:28 PM »
Quote from: Joe Cupertino on November 22, 2021, 01:34:28 PM
Any decree of a Roman Congregation is a good example of this.  As stated in the book linked below, such decrees ordinarily require internal submission under pain of sin.  If a learned man has a good reason for thinking something in it is false, he is not bound to assent internally, but cannot dissent from it openly.  He cannot express to anyone his opinion that the decree is in error, without a grave sin of disobedience, temerity, and scandal; and he should be denied the sacraments while openly dissenting against such decrees.


https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/'the-roman-congregations'-by-thomas-slater-s-j-(1911)

"The obligation of submission, in this case, is not satisfied by saying and doing nothing contrary to such decrees. Ordinarily, at least, there must also be an internal submission under pain of falling into the sin of temerity and pride, in preferring one’s own opinion to that of a competent authority which is empowered to decide such questions. But inasmuch as the Roman Congregations are not infallible, it may possibly happen that a particular decree of some Congregation is false, and a learned man may see good reason for thinking that it is false. Such a one is not bound to assent to what, with good reason, he thinks is false; he should not openly attack the decree, but he may propose his reasons to the Congregation whose decree is in question, and await the result."
...

"Although John did not publicly write against this decree, he nevertheless adhered to his opinion, and openly told friends that he thought the Commission had made a mistake. When his parish priest and confessor heard this, he was puzzled how to treat John, who said nothing about the matter in confession."
...

"John does not, indeed, impugn the decree of the Biblical Commission, but he openly says that in his opinion it is a mistake. Therefore he does not submit to it, and he can hardly be excused from a grave sin of disobedience, temerity, and scandal, especially as his friends doubtless look up to him as an authority on Biblical subjects. Yet John says nothing about this in the confessional. His confessor, who is also his parish priest, can not allow him to go on receiving the sacraments of the Church while openly refusing to accept her authoritative teaching."
Not to be a raging idiot here, but what would be some examples of a "decree of a Roman Congregation"?  I see that Ne temere falls into this description, however, it is more of a disciplinary law, rather than an expression of doctrine of faith or morality.

Something such as Humanae vitae (assuming Paul VI was a valid pope, which I do), of course, goes far beyond a mere "decree of a Roman Congregation".

Is this term used to describe something non-papal, yet part of the ordinary teaching office of the Church?  Again, examples would be welcome.
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Are we obligated to least consider the NON-infallible Magisterium as "safe"?
« Reply #7 on: November 22, 2021, 03:37:00 PM »
Quote from: forlorn on November 22, 2021, 01:58:03 PM
Do you mean this user?
https://www.cathinfo.com/profile/Bellator%20Dei

They don't seem to be banned but I can't see their posts either.
Yes that's him, his posts are all gone.
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Are we obligated to least consider the NON-infallible Magisterium as "safe"?
« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2021, 03:50:43 PM »
Quote from: Joe Cupertino on November 22, 2021, 01:34:28 PM
Any decree of a Roman Congregation is a good example of this.  As stated in the book linked below, such decrees ordinarily require internal submission under pain of sin.  If a learned man has a good reason for thinking something in it is false, he is not bound to assent internally, but cannot dissent from it openly.  He cannot express to anyone his opinion that the decree is in error, without a grave sin of disobedience, temerity, and scandal; and he should be denied the sacraments while openly dissenting against such decrees.
I disagree with this and also, I am with SimpleMan, examples would be welcome.

If a decree of a Roman Congregation or a pope and council unambiguously teaches something binding, of course no one would deny submission, but since V2, look those who are waking up with what they consider to be good reasons to not agree with modern decrees. They are going to say something to someone. Whether they say something to a priest or to fellow trads, they owe it at least to themselves to question it if for no other reason than to correct themselves, no?

Prior to V2, except among heretics, this was not even considered an issue far as I know - "pay, pray and obey" was the reliable norm, but that norm was altogether ravaged in the 60s. 





Logged

Offline Joe Cupertino

Re: Are we obligated to least consider the NON-infallible Magisterium as "safe"?
« Reply #9 on: November 23, 2021, 05:19:06 PM »
Quote from: SimpleMan on November 22, 2021, 02:36:28 PM
Not to be a raging idiot here, but what would be some examples of a "decree of a Roman Congregation"?  I see that Ne temere falls into this description, however, it is more of a disciplinary law, rather than an expression of doctrine of faith or morality.

Something such as Humanae vitae (assuming Paul VI was a valid pope, which I do), of course, goes far beyond a mere "decree of a Roman Congregation".

Is this term used to describe something non-papal, yet part of the ordinary teaching office of the Church?  Again, examples would be welcome.

Along with Ne temere, Slater also gives a 1906 decision by The Biblical Commission as an example (a motu proprio of Pope St. Pius X made the obligation to obey the Biblical Commission the same as the Roman Congregations).  The case he presents is of a man who openly dissents from that decision.  I don't know of a comprehensive list, but many other examples can be found cited in Catholic books and periodicals on many different topics.  The American Ecclesiastical Review and the Irish Ecclesiastical Record were the two primary Catholic periodicals that regularly published the acts of the congregations in English, and most of these are available online now.

Here's an example with regards to "sex-education", copied and pasted from https://national-coalition.org/sex-ed/sedecree.html:


Quote
On March 21, 1931, the Holy Office (now the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a Decree. The Holy Office had proposed to it for solution a question pertaining to sex-education and Pope Pius XI's encyclical, Divini Illius Magistri, on the Christian education of youth. The Decree's question and answer about sex-education read:

"Question: May the method called "sex-education" or even "sex initiation" be approved?

Answer: No. In the education of youth the method to be followed is that hitherto observed by the Church and the Saints as recommended by His Holiness the Pope in the encyclical dealing with the Christian education of youth, promulgated on December 31, 1929. The first place is to be given to the full, sound and continuous instruction in religion of both sexes. Esteem, desire and love of the angelic virtue must be instilled into their minds and hearts. They must be made fully alive to the necessity of constant prayer, and assiduous frequenting of the Sacraments of Penance and the Holy Eucharist; they must be directed to foster a filial devotion to the Blessed Virgin as Mother of holy purity, to whose protection they must entirely commit themselves. Precautions must be taken to see that they avoid dangerous reading, indecent shows, conversations of the wicked, and all other occasions of sin.

Hence no approbation whatever can be given to the advocacy of the new method even as taken up recently by some Catholic authors and set before the public in printed publications."

The above Decree is an Act of the Apostolic See (Acta Apostolicae Sedes), bearing the number AAS 23 (1931). It is an official act of the ordinary magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church, binding in conscience and mind.




Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »