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

Poll

Are the teachings of the Universal Ordinary Magesterium infallible?

Yes
22 (71%)
No
0 (0%)
Not Sure
4 (12.9%)
Other
5 (16.1%)

Total Members Voted: 28

Voting closed: September 29, 2022, 04:57:29 PM

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 19

Author Topic: Is the Catholic Magisterium Infallible?  (Read 10009 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Quo vadis Domine

  • Supporter
Re: Is the Catholic Magisterium Infallible?
« Reply #20 on: September 20, 2022, 12:28:46 PM »
Quote from: Stubborn on September 20, 2022, 11:46:07 AM
"1. The perpetual agreement of the catholic church has maintained and maintains this too: that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards its source,  but also as regards its object.
2. With regard to the source,  we know at the one level by natural reason, at the other level by divine faith.

3. With regard to the object, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God  which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known." - First Vatican Council

Perhaps you should not use the word "infallible" when describing the UOM, maybe "immune from error" or "without error" would be better. Ex. "If it is *taught* by the OUM it’s without error, period."

I suggest saving the word "infallible" for when you're speaking about the Church or ex cathedra definitions.

For the purposes of this discussion, I assumed it was understood that infallibility with equated with being “with out error”.
Logged

Offline Quo vadis Domine

  • Supporter
Re: Is the Catholic Magisterium Infallible?
« Reply #21 on: September 20, 2022, 12:49:06 PM »
Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on September 20, 2022, 12:28:46 PM
For the purposes of this discussion, I assumed it was understood that infallibility with equated with being “with out error”.
For the purposes of this discussion, I assumed it was understood that infallibility was equated with being “with out error”.
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Is the Catholic Magisterium Infallible?
« Reply #22 on: September 20, 2022, 03:13:00 PM »
Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on September 20, 2022, 12:28:46 PM
For the purposes of this discussion, I assumed it was understood that infallibility with equated with being “with out error”.
The pope is infallible / exercises his infallibility / without error, *only* when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra, this is dogma.

The Church's Magisterium is always "unable to be mistaken," enjoys "immunity from error," and “could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching,” these are quotes taken from the papal teachings in reply #1.

IOW, unlike the Magisterium, the pope requires an event to be infallible / without error, whereas the Magisterium is always infallible / without error because the Magisterium is not human or humans at all, the magisterium is all the teachings that have always been taught by the Church i.e. "all that has been handed down." It is the Church who is the Authority i.e. "the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world" - - "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." - Pope Pius IX

So to say the magisterium is infallible, although correct it can give the impression that an extraordinary or unusual event is required for it's infallibility, which it isn't, any more than an event is required for the Deposit Of Faith to be infallible. By their very nature they're immune from error - as the popes are quoted as teaching.
Logged

Offline Quo vadis Domine

  • Supporter
Re: Is the Catholic Magisterium Infallible?
« Reply #23 on: September 20, 2022, 04:13:57 PM »
Quote from: Stubborn on September 20, 2022, 03:13:00 PM
The pope is infallible / exercises his infallibility / without error, *only* when he defines a doctrine ex cathedra, this is dogma.

The Church's Magisterium is always "unable to be mistaken," enjoys "immunity from error," and “could by no means commit itself to erroneous teaching,” these are quotes taken from the papal teachings in reply #1.

IOW, unlike the Magisterium, the pope requires an event to be infallible / without error, whereas the Magisterium is always infallible / without error because the Magisterium is not human or humans at all, the magisterium is all the teachings that have always been taught by the Church i.e. "all that has been handed down." It is the Church who is the Authority i.e. "the ordinary teaching authority of the entire Church spread over the whole world" - - "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." - Pope Pius IX

So to say the magisterium is infallible, although correct it can give the impression that an extraordinary or unusual event is required for it's infallibility, which it isn't, any more than an event is required for the Deposit Of Faith to be infallible. By their very nature they're immune from error - as the popes are quoted as teaching.

So, the church you consider to be the Catholic Church, the one who’s head you believe is a man named Bergoglio, has promulgated a council that teaches numerous errors and heresy. It has a code of canon law that contains error and heresy. It has dubious, doubtful and downright invalid sacraments. It officially leads her “faithful” into sin by granting annulments by the boatload. The question is: how do you justify the enormous contradiction between the above and your proudly touted quotation from Venerable Pius IX? 
Logged

Offline DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Is the Catholic Magisterium Infallible?
« Reply #24 on: September 20, 2022, 05:03:07 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on September 20, 2022, 07:17:59 AM

I've been arguing this point with him for years.  He has this bizarre tautological definition of the Magisterium.

If it's true, it's Magisterium.  It's it's not true, then it's not Magisterium.  So, in other words, it's true if it's true and false if it's false.  No a priori guarantee whatsoever of being even somewhat correct.  It is determined to be Magisterium when Stubborn decides it is, having the effect of making Stubborn the Magisterium.

The irony here is palpable. 

Here's Ladislaus version of Stubborn's "circle":

He's the pope if he speaks truly; if he speaks falsely he's not the pope. (I use "speaking" in terms of Magisterial teaching: an ecuмenical council, a Magisterial act involving the faith or worship for the universal Church, like Vatican II, the imposition of the Novus Ordo Mass).

So in other words, he's pope if he's pope, and not pope if he's not pope. 

How do you know? Laddy does the same thing Stubborn does: he takes a teaching and decides if it's true or false. If it's false - he rejects the teacher as false. Stubborn just rejects the teaching. 

Either way, you have lay Catholics rejecting a teaching that should - if the pre-V2 20th Century theologian/Laddy definition of indefectibility is true - should be free from error. Stubborn does so at least without any inconsistency; Lad rejects teachings of popes that he says can't be erroneous and which he says one can't reject. 

Part of the indefectibility of the Church is not only her not teaching error but also always having an identifiable governing body. Laddy misplaced the governing body but can't let go of his indefectibility definition, which flies in the face of reality. Poor Laddy. 

And he does so while throwing rings of circularity at Stubborn while doing the Hula Hoop and eating onion rings. 

Circle, meet circle. 

Perhaps, Lad, could you take a break from your Hooping and respond to this post of mine that you - didn't see? It's where you were decrying "private judgment" by Stubborn - a shared beam in your eye to go with a shared circle. 

Quote

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 31, 2022, 06:02:06 AM

Quote

There is in fact a role for private judgment where it comes to faith, and it was clearly taught by Vatican I.

It's in determining in the first place the credibility of the authority behind the Magisterium.  We use our reason to assess what are called the "motives of credibility" and to make the determination based on these that the Catholic Church is the True Church founded by Christ that exercises His teaching authority.  We then submit to the authority of the Church's Magisterium.

More empty rhetoric that becomes absurd in application to real events. 

When John XXXIII was elected, was he "the Magisterium"? That was 1959. What did the "motives of credibility" say, or would they say? Nothing at the time said he wasn't of "the Magisterium." Submission to his authority was required.

When Paul VI was elected, was he "the Magisterium"? That was 1963. What did the "motives of credibility" say, or would they say? Nothing at the time said he wasn't of "the Magisterium." Submission to his authority was required.

At some point a magisterial act was weighed, or you weigh it in hindsight in rejecting either John XXXIII or Paul VI. Maybe a certain act of the Vatican II Council, maybe the promulgation or establishment of the New Mass. Point being, at some point a Magisterium that had all the marks of "credibility" - demanding submission - made a decision or act that you and other Catholics judged: a specific Magisterial act that was weighed and questioned.

Perhaps it was several magisterial acts. In any event, you and we all weighed certain magisterial acts and effectively pronounced "anti-gospel." For some that meant also therefore "not pope"; for others, simply a magisterial act not to be believed or followed. 

The point being, again, for you, as well as Stubborn, I, for everyone here, some papal, magisterial act or acts - which under your standard should be accepted, believed, and obeyed - was rejected. Then, for some, the magisterium itself was rejected. But not until acts from a magisterium that had all the "motives of credibillity" violated the teachings of Scripture or Tradition. 

Again, you live in a fog of "I always obey the Magisterium; it is the sole guide of truth" that is nothing more than a self-deception that, I don't know, makes you feel more Catholic, more orthodox, more traditional . . . I don't know, but your psyche needs it. But it's delusional . . .

https://www.cathinfo.com/anonymous-posts-allowed/why-the-neo-sspx-position-on-the-crisis-is-untenable/msg844030/#msg844030



Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 19
« previous next »