Author Topic: Where Exactly is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church Today? (Read 5505 times)

Your Friend Colin · « **Reply #75 on:** April 09, 2019, 07:37:37 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on April 09, 2019, 03:54:39 PM

But it's infallibly safe in that you can never be guilty of sin for giving religious assent to the teachings of the Pope, even if they later turn out to be wrong.

Kind of like when Vatican II told us it was ok to commit a mortal sin by praying with heretics and schismatics?
"In certain circuмstances, it is allowable, indeed desirable, that Catholics join in prayer with their separated brethren."

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #76 on:** April 09, 2019, 07:42:36 PM »

Quote

If something can ever err, then saying it cannot err is factually incorrect. What you are failing to do is differentiate between the Ordinary Magisterium, the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, and the Extraordinary Magisterium. The first is fallible, the latter two are not.

The magisterium is a tool. Therefore it can be infallible or not, depending. There's no contradiction whatsoever.

If you say that the sky is blue and it is, you are correct. If you say it is purple when it is blue, you are wrong. This doesn't mean that YOU are a contradiction, but that what YOU ARE SAYING is a contradiction. In the same way, the magisterium can be infallible or not, depending on what it says and how it says it.
The Ordinary magisterium is the living hierarchy, with the pope as the head. The pope can speak independently or he can teach in unison with the bishops, to use the Ordinary magisterium. If the pope is defining a doctrine, per V1's rules, it is an extraordinary teaching. We agree here.

If the pope teaches on a subject wherein he is not defining something but is re-teaching a truth which he shows as part of the universal, consistent beliefs of the Faith, then he is teaching using his Ordinary and Universal magisterium, and this is infallible because the pope is teaching and clarifying a truth using his apostolic authority. He does not need to bind anyone to believe his teaching, therefore an ex-cathedra statement is unnecessary, because such a belief has already been defined in the past, or it is part of Tradition and has always been believed. Thus, this type of statement is to reiterate and re-teach "that which has always been taught." Example: JPII reiterated that women could never be priests and said that the matter is not open for discussion, because it is a constant belief of the faith, held since Apostolic times.

If a pope teaches on a subject wherein he is not defining something AND he is not making a clear, declaratory statement concerning a universally held belief of Faith, then he is teaching as the bishop of rome, as a private theologian and is fallible. This type of teaching does not require a blind-faith acceptance, nor does it require that a catholic believe it with a certainty of faith. Nor is a pope, when teaching as bishop of rome, immune from error, even major error, since he is teaching as a normal man, and has not engaged the protection of the Holy Ghost. Catholics must give a conditional acceptance of the teaching but to say that the pope couldn't willfully teach error in this situation, or heresy, is to deny free will.

Your Friend Colin · « **Reply #77 on:** April 09, 2019, 07:45:52 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on April 09, 2019, 06:31:05 PM

It was a council of the Church that should have never been convened. It was a robber council, a counterfeit council. It was the birth of the Novus Ordo church with new doctrines, new liturgy and new anti-Catholic religion, even had it's own Pentecost, The "New Pentecost".

Because the magisterium is teachings of the Church, which means the magisterium is teachings of Christ.

I agree. This thread is somewhat confusing and I'll admit I can't define what the magisterium is but the quotes provided here have helped to clarify it.
So in your line of thinking, the Second Vatican Council is not authentic magisterium because it taught things contrary to the Catholic Faith? Things that Our Lord would never teach. "The Moslems together with us adore the one merciful God."

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #78 on:** April 09, 2019, 08:05:47 PM »

Quote

So in your line of thinking, the Second Vatican Council is not authentic magisterium because it taught things contrary to the Catholic Faith?

V2 didn't exercise any Extraordinary, doctrinal, ex-cathedra magisterium. We should all agree on this. Even new-rome admits this and this is why they allow new-sspx to debate V2, because this council does not have to be accepted with a "certainty of faith" which all doctrines and dogmas do.
.
V2 is a mix of Tradition and novelty. It is a mix of Universal and plain, Ordinary magisterium. It said A, then a few sentences later, said not-A. It is a rambling, incoherent, ambiguous mess. New-rome says that catholics must give conditional, "religious submission" to V2, which means we are allowed to debate and ask clarification on things which are novel.
.
The reason why a catholic can reject V2 is due to 2 reasons. 1) The areas where V2 teaches orthodoxy, it is merely re-teaching what is already known by every catholic from the catechism. There are HUNDREDS of better and clearer statements on the truths that V2 covered.
.
2) You should reject V2 because it contained novelties and errors which are contrary to the Faith, not universally held and not consistant with 2,000 years of Tradition.
.
So when I say that you can reject V2, i'm not saying you reject any truths in it, but that you reject HOW it taught those truths, because it mixed error with truth, which is wrong. We must reject V2's docuмents on salvation because they both agree and disagree with previous infallible statements. We don't need V2's interpretation to learn of salvation and to ignore V2 is not wrong, but it is wise, since we are choosing the surest and clearest understanding of Truth.

Stubborn · « **Reply #79 on:** April 10, 2019, 06:41:02 AM »

Quote from: Your Friend Colin on April 09, 2019, 07:45:52 PM

I agree. This thread is somewhat confusing and I'll admit I can't define what the magisterium is but the quotes provided here have helped to clarify it.
So in your line of thinking, the Second Vatican Council is not authentic magisterium because it taught things contrary to the Catholic Faith? Things that Our Lord would never teach. "The Moslems together with us adore the one merciful God."

Exactly correct. Certainly no, it is not the Magisterium. Here is a link to a short, excellent summary of it's purpose and what happened at V2.

Stubborn · « **Reply #80 on:** April 10, 2019, 07:00:43 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on April 09, 2019, 08:05:47 PM

V2 didn't exercise any Extraordinary, doctrinal, ex-cathedra magisterium. We should all agree on this. Even new-rome admits this and this is why they allow new-sspx to debate V2, because this council does not have to be accepted with a "certainty of faith" which all doctrines and dogmas do.

But we cannot all agree on this because some people here have been led (taught) to believe that all councils, by virtue of being a council, are infallible. Where is this teaching found? Likely such a teaching, if it exists at all, will be taught by some well respected, 19th/20th century theologians, but not the Church.

Supposedly, the reason they are infallible is because the pope and bishop all gathered together in a council and all agreed to preach the same thing - by virtue of this gathering and unanimous agreement, *whatever* they preach is infallible, infallibly safe, and might possibly even contain some insignificant errors, but not to worry, the errors are presumed to be so slight and insignificant, that they cannot lead anyone to heresy or rejecting the faith. This is what their idea of magisterium is. Correct me if I said that wrong.

Also, please note that no one has yet posted anything that provides some examples of the Magisterium being wrong, and also when it is wrong "but it can't lead you into heresy or rejection of the faith".

The reason for this, is because they confuse the infallibility of the magisterium, with differing degrees of religious assent we owe to teachings that are not infallibly defined. Which is probably the main reason why no one is able to post any example of the magisterium being wrong.

forlorn · « **Reply #81 on:** April 10, 2019, 04:11:53 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on April 09, 2019, 04:45:26 PM

The pope is not the magisterium. It is so obvious why you think he is, but he is not, neither is the hierarchy the magisterium. The magisterium is teachings, not people.

If you had any grasp of Latin, you'd understand that magisterium refers to the office of the "magister", that is, the teacher. It refers to both the teachings of the Church and the hierarchy with the authority to teach.

forlorn · « **Reply #82 on:** April 10, 2019, 04:14:52 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on April 09, 2019, 06:31:05 PM

It was a council of the Church that should have never been convened. It was a robber council, a counterfeit council. It was the birth of the Novus Ordo church with new doctrines, new liturgy and new anti-Catholic religion, even had it's own Pentecost, The "New Pentecost".

And who exactly are you to decide which Councils of the Church are valid or not? You're a sedeplenist, aren't you? The Pope presiding over it and all the Bishops present were validly ordained, consecrated, elected, etc. How exactly is Vatican 2 unique in that it's the one and only Ecuмenical council Stubborn gets to wave away because he dislike it?

Quote from: Pax Vobis on April 09, 2019, 07:23:11 PM

If this were true, then the catholic laity are effectively robots and the hierarchy should be followed mindlessly and treated like walking oracles. You fail to distinguish the different levels of magisterial teaching and the consequent different levels of assent the laity must give.

Religious assent is the bare minimum, lowest level of assent, that's required of the very lowest level of the Magisterium, any fallible teachings of the Pope or the Bishops. You not understanding what religious assent means is on you, not me.

forlorn · « **Reply #83 on:** April 10, 2019, 04:22:08 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on April 10, 2019, 07:00:43 AM

But we cannot all agree on this because some people here have been led (taught) to believe that all councils, by virtue of being a council, are infallible. Where is this teaching found? Likely such a teaching, if it exists at all, will be taught by some well respected, 19th/20th century theologians, but not the Church.

Supposedly, the reason they are infallible is because the pope and bishop all gathered together in a council and all agreed to preach the same thing - by virtue of this gathering and unanimous agreement, *whatever* they preach is infallible, infallibly safe, and might possibly even contain some insignificant errors, but not to worry, the errors are presumed to be so slight and insignificant, that they cannot lead anyone to heresy or rejecting the faith. This is what their idea of magisterium is. Correct me if I said that wrong.

No one has ever said that in this thread. I've said the exact opposite multiple times, do try to keep up.

Quote from: Stubborn on April 10, 2019, 07:00:43 AM

Also, please note that no one has yet posted anything that provides some examples of the Magisterium being wrong, and also when it is wrong "but it can't lead you into heresy or rejection of the faith".

The reason for this, is because they confuse the infallibility of the magisterium, with differing degrees of religious assent we owe to teachings that are not infallibly defined. Which is probably the main reason why no one is able to post any example of the magisterium being wrong.

In the bolded part you just admitted that certain teachings can be in error, therefore the Church can teach in error. You made up your own definition of Magisterium and insisted that the whole Magisterium must be infallible because that Church's teachings are infallible, and yet here you are going on about fallible teachings of the Church. Even when you twist words to mean whatever you want, you still cannot help contradicting yourself. That's because your position is untenable and entirely contrary to reason.

Stubborn · « **Reply #84 on:** April 10, 2019, 04:40:58 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on April 10, 2019, 04:11:53 PM

If you had any grasp of Latin, you'd understand that magisterium refers to the office of the "magister", that is, the teacher. It refers to both the teachings of the Church and the hierarchy with the authority to teach.

Be sure to let Pope Pius IX and the other popes know this when you meet them.

I already posted precise definitions from popes and a theologian, but apparently you feel one needs to be fluent in Latin to really understand it.

Stubborn · « **Reply #85 on:** April 10, 2019, 04:42:26 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on April 10, 2019, 04:14:52 PM

And who exactly are you to decide which Councils of the Church are valid or not? You're a sedeplenist, aren't you? The Pope presiding over it and all the Bishops present were validly ordained, consecrated, elected, etc. How exactly is Vatican 2 unique in that it's the one and only Ecuмenical council Stubborn gets to wave away because he dislike it?

I am Roman Catholic, not a sedewhateverist.

Stubborn · « **Reply #86 on:** April 10, 2019, 04:45:35 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on April 10, 2019, 04:22:08 PM

No one has ever said that in this thread. I've said the exact opposite multiple times, do try to keep up.

In the bolded part you just admitted that certain teachings can be in error, therefore the Church can teach in error. You made up your own definition of Magisterium and insisted that the whole Magisterium must be infallible because that Church's teachings are infallible, and yet here you are going on about fallible teachings of the Church. Even when you twist words to mean whatever you want, you still cannot help contradicting yourself. That's because your position is untenable and entirely contrary to reason.

No, I admitted no such thing, I said the sedes "confuse the infallibility of the magisterium, with differing degrees of religious assent we owe to teachings that are not infallibly defined. Which is probably the main reason why no one is able to post any example of the magisterium being wrong".

Now try to read it again, this time go ahead and post something the magisterium got wrong.

forlorn · « **Reply #87 on:** April 10, 2019, 04:47:32 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on April 10, 2019, 04:42:26 PM

I am Roman Catholic, not a sedewhateverist.

I just used the term to be briefer than "You believe Francis is the Pope?". Saves a bit of time. And you know that - but you were just looking for a nice way to cop out of replying. I'm interested in seeing how a good Roman Catholic can justify rejecting an Ecuмenical Council that was called for and presided over by a valid Pope, but I don't expect to see that answer before a dozen more nitpicky cop outs.

forlorn · « **Reply #88 on:** April 10, 2019, 04:50:48 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn on April 10, 2019, 04:45:35 PM

No, I admitted no such thing, I said the sedes "confuse the infallibility of the magisterium, with differing degrees of religious assent we owe to teachings that are not infallibly defined. Which is probably the main reason why no one is able to post any example of the magisterium being wrong".

Now try to read it again, this time go ahead and post something the magisterium got wrong.

Fantastic reading comprehension as always. As you've said several times now, there are teachings that are not infallibly defined. Therefore there are fallible teachings in the Church -> some of the Church's teachings are fallible. Your argument earlier was that the Magisterium must be infallible because the Church's teachings are infallible, yet then you went on to say that the Church *can* actually teach fallibly. Contradicting yourself.

Stubborn · « **Reply #89 on:** April 10, 2019, 05:14:06 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on April 10, 2019, 04:50:48 PM

Fantastic reading comprehension as always. As you've said several times now, there are teachings that are not infallibly defined. Therefore there are fallible teachings in the Church -> some of the Church's teachings are fallible. Your argument earlier was that the Magisterium must be infallible because the Church's teachings are infallible, yet then you went on to say that the Church *can* actually teach fallibly. Contradicting yourself.

I will simply post the link to the post I already made that answered this query.

Still waiting for you to provide something - anything that demonstrates the magisterium being wrong, or admit that there is no such thing because it is an impossibility - except within the NO church.

If you had any faith, you would then understand, as V1 states, that whatever is contained in the magisterium is infallible. V1 explicitly include the Solemn, Universal and Ordinary Magisterium - but although it is clearly and explicitly written that way, you continue to reject it.

You will never find "Where Exactly is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium", because what you are looking for does not now, and never has existed.....but keep on looking I guess.

Poll

Simple Question: Does the OUM exist or has it died, defected or disappeared some time ago?

Author Topic: Where Exactly is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church Today? (Read 5505 times)

Your Friend Colin

Re: Where Exactly is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church Today?

Pax Vobis

Re: Where Exactly is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church Today?

Your Friend Colin

Re: Where Exactly is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church Today?

Pax Vobis

Re: Where Exactly is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church Today?

Stubborn

Re: Where Exactly is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church Today?

Stubborn

Re: Where Exactly is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church Today?

forlorn

Re: Where Exactly is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church Today?

forlorn

Re: Where Exactly is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church Today?

forlorn

Re: Where Exactly is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church Today?

Stubborn

Re: Where Exactly is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church Today?

Stubborn

Re: Where Exactly is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church Today?

Stubborn

Re: Where Exactly is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church Today?

forlorn

Re: Where Exactly is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church Today?

forlorn

Re: Where Exactly is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church Today?

Stubborn

Re: Where Exactly is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church Today?