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 1079 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Comrade

Are we obligated to least consider the NON-infallible Magisterium as "safe"?
« on: November 21, 2021, 05:09:19 PM »
Recently I had a conversation, with my priest, regarding how can indefectible Catholic Church can produce something that would lead members to hell. He simple said that the church can error. Note: It is implied he was refering to non-infallible items. 

I think it  is a big mistake to consider something, that will lead people to hell, as simply an "error". I have hard time trying to find anything in the history of Church, where the non-fallible teaching as an "error" and could lead others to hell.

Also, I appreciate the  part in this article, where any doubt about a non-infallible teaching of the church is not met with open dissent. The Church is given the chance to clarify. To publicly remove assent of your will, would be very imprudent act.

https://akacatholic.com/in-god-we-trust/
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Are we obligated to least consider the NON-infallible Magisterium as "safe"?
« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2021, 05:01:19 AM »
Quote from: Comrade on November 21, 2021, 05:09:19 PM
Recently I had a conversation, with my priest, regarding how can indefectible Catholic Church can produce something that would lead members to hell. He simple said that the church can error. Note: It is implied he was refering to non-infallible items.

I think it  is a big mistake to consider something, that will lead people to hell, as simply an "error". I have hard time trying to find anything in the history of Church, where the non-fallible teaching as an "error" and could lead others to hell.

Also, I appreciate the  part in this article, where any doubt about a non-infallible teaching of the church is not met with open dissent. The Church is given the chance to clarify. To publicly remove assent of your will, would be very imprudent act.

https://akacatholic.com/in-god-we-trust/
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. 
Logged

Offline Joe Cupertino

Re: Are we obligated to least consider the NON-infallible Magisterium as "safe"?
« Reply #2 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."
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Are we obligated to least consider the NON-infallible Magisterium as "safe"?
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2021, 01:50:49 PM »
Monsignor Fenton has a great article about this.  I tend to agree with him.
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm

There's a long section in there about infallible safety.
Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Are we obligated to least consider the NON-infallible Magisterium as "safe"?
« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2021, 01:53:41 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."


That was helpful. Thanks. 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »