Read an Interview with Matthew, the owner of CathInfo

Poll

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

The OUM has completely died out and no longer exists.
0 (0%)
The OUM entirely defected and apostatized some time ago.
1 (6.7%)
The OUM may or may not exist, but it has disappeared and is invisible.
0 (0%)
The OUM continues in orthodox Catholic Bishops appointed by the Pope.
2 (13.3%)
The OUM can be found among Bishops without habitual ordinary jurisdiction.
6 (40%)
Other (please explain)
6 (40%)

Total Members Voted: 14

Author Topic: Where Exactly is the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church Today?  (Read 2829 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline forlorn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1378
  • Reputation: +548/-841
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • 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.
    Hiding behind terminology once again. I don't care that you have no idea what the distinction between the non-Universal and Universal Ordinary Magisterium is. A rose by any other name is just as sweet, the inherent attributes of something are not altered by the names you call them. We both recognise and agree that teachings of the Pope, or the Pope and Bishops, which are not what the Church has always taught, are not infallible. Doesn't matter what you call those teachings - doesn't change the fact you contradicted yourself. 

    You have stated:
    (1) That the Church has teachings that are falilble and require varying degrees of religious assent
    and
    (2) That the Church's teachings = the Magisterium = The Body of Christ and are therefore all infallible.

    Two contradictory statements. Either all the teachings are infallible or they are not, they can't both all be infallible and yet some be fallible. Some is a subset of all.

    Offline XavierSem

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1289
    • Reputation: +82/-135
    • Gender: Male
    • Immaculate Heart of Mary, May Your Triumph Come!
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Previous Councils were infallible and de fide, Vatican II, according to the Popes themselves, was deliberately not de fide but pastoral.

    The holy Faith teaches us there are (1) Trinitarian Dogmas, (2) Eucharistic Dogmas, (3) Marian Dogmas, (4) Moral Dogmas, and then (5) other teachings related to pastoral issues. Vatican II didn't deny any of the first 4. It was on the 5th that mistakes were made. Ecumenism is not and cannot ever be dogma, it is not even defined as one. It is only a prudential practice, and mistakes can certainly be made there. The only acceptable way for ecumenism to be done would be to bring Protestants et al back to the Church.

    "There are those who ask what authority, what theological qualification, the Council intended to give to its teachings, knowing that it avoided issuing solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's infallible teaching authority. The answer is known by those who remember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated on November 16, 1964. In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogmas carrying the mark of infallibility."  -Pope Paul VI, Weekly General Audience, 12 January 1966
    "Differing from other Councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, but disciplinary and pastoral." -Pope Paul VI, General Audience, 6 August 1975
    "The Second Vatican Council solemnly declared in its Constitution on the Church that all the teachings of the Council are in full continuity with the teachings of former councils. Moreover, let us not forget that the canons of the Council of Trent and of Vatican I are de fide, whereas none of the decrees of Vatican II are de fide;The Second Vatican Council was pastoral in nature. Cardinal Felici rightly stated that the Credo solemnly proclaimed by Pope Paul VI at the end of the Year of Faith is from a dogmatic point of view much more important than the entire Second Vatican Council. Thus, those who want to interpret certain passages in the documents of Vatican II as if they implicitly contradicted definitions of Vatican I or the Council of Trent should realize that even if their interpretation were right, the canons of the former councils would overrule these allegedly contradictory passages of Vatican II, because the former are de fide, the latter not." -Dietrich Von Hildebrand
    "The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest."  -Cardinal Ratzinger (Now Pope Benedict XVI), address to the Chilean Bishops, 13 July 1988, Santiago Chile http://catholicismhastheanswer.com/vatican-ii-must-be-clarified/
    Do make Acts of Consecration to the Twin Hearts, Spiritual Offerings of the Precious Blood of Jesus in Union with the Holy Mass, like in St. Gertrude's Chaplet, along with Spiritual Communions at least every hour. The Saints say Spiritual Communions are a way to quickly advance to Union with God.


    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9390
    • Reputation: +3724/-838
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Hiding behind terminology once again. I don't care that you have no idea what the distinction between the non-Universal and Universal Ordinary Magisterium is. A rose by any other name is just as sweet, the inherent attributes of something are not altered by the names you call them. We both recognise and agree that teachings of the Pope, or the Pope and Bishops, which are not what the Church has always taught, are not infallible. Doesn't matter what you call those teachings - doesn't change the fact you contradicted yourself.

    You have stated:
    (1) That the Church has teachings that are falilble and require varying degrees of religious assent
    and
    (2) That the Church's teachings = the Magisterium = The Body of Christ and are therefore all infallible.

    Two contradictory statements. Either all the teachings are infallible or they are not, they can't both all be infallible and yet some be fallible. Some is a subset of all.
    We can end this discussion if your going to continually *not* read what I post. I leave it up to you.

    1) I did not say that - try to actually read what I said, I said that YOU "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."

    Because the magisterium is always infallible, there is no error within the magisterium, for example: we are bound under pain of mortal sin to her defined dogmas, whereas we are not bound under pain of mortal sin to the traditional belief  that St. John the Baptist was born (not conceived) free of Original Sin upon the visitation/salutation of Our Blessed Mother to St. Elizabeth re: Luke 1:44.

    Both teachings are infallibly truth, both are contained in the Church's Magisterium, but there are different degrees of religious ascent owed to each teaching. In one case we are bound to believe, in the other case we are not bound to believe, but just because in the latter case we are not bound to believe it does not mean the teaching is wrong. Understand?

    And by now you should already admit that it is an impossibility that the "Magisterium can be wrong, but not so wrong that "it can't lead you into heresy or rejection of the faith".

    Will you admit it now?
    For a small gain they travel far; for eternal life many will scarcely lift a foot from the ground. - Thomas A Kempis

    Offline Pax Vobis

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4427
    • Reputation: +2706/-1249
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    You have stated:
    (1) That the Church has teachings that are falilble and require varying degrees of religious assent
    and
    (2) That the Church's teachings = the Magisterium = The Body of Christ and are therefore all infallible.
    Gentlemen,
    The more I read about the history and theology of the magisterium, the more I realize that it is super complex.  The idea of the Magisterium itself is simple and most people readily understand it, including both of you.  But, if you study the history of it, you'll realize that theologians over the last few centuries, (especially after V1) have changed, added and refined many of the definitions/labels of the terms.  So it's very difficult to discuss this topic unless you define terms in the beginning.  For example, I think I read somewhere that the Magisterium used to only refer to 1) extraordinary definitions and 2) authoritative ordinary & universal teachings.  In other words, there was no such thing as the "ordinary, fallible" magisterium.  This makes sense to me, because in prior centuries, when popes spoke of the magisterium, they were obviously speaking of authoritative, clear-cut teachings.  They were NOT talking about the "ordinary, fallible" level, where the pope gives a sermon on sundays or he gives a speech at a religious conference.

    Fast forward to the 1800s and the 1900s and theologians starting including ALL papal writings, sermons and lower-level synods, meetings, etc into the definition of the "ordinary/fallible" magisterium.  Why they did this, I don't know.  But there has been MUCH that has changed, definitionally, between the 1600s and now on this topic.  This explains why you can't agree on terms.

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9390
    • Reputation: +3724/-838
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Gentlemen,
    The more I read about the history and theology of the magisterium, the more I realize that it is super complex.  The idea of the Magisterium itself is simple and most people readily understand it, including both of you.  But, if you study the history of it, you'll realize that theologians over the last few centuries, (especially after V1) have changed, added and refined many of the definitions/labels of the terms.  So it's very difficult to discuss this topic unless you define terms in the beginning.  For example, I think I read somewhere that the Magisterium used to only refer to 1) extraordinary definitions and 2) authoritative ordinary & universal teachings.  In other words, there was no such thing as the "ordinary, fallible" magisterium.  This makes sense to me, because in prior centuries, when popes spoke of the magisterium, they were obviously speaking of authoritative, clear-cut teachings.  They were NOT talking about the "ordinary, fallible" level, where the pope gives a sermon on sundays or he gives a speech at a religious conference.

    Fast forward to the 1800s and the 1900s and theologians starting including ALL papal writings, sermons and lower-level synods, meetings, etc into the definition of the "ordinary/fallible" magisterium.  Why they did this, I don't know.  But there has been MUCH that has changed, definitionally, between the 1600s and now on this topic.  This explains why you can't agree on terms.
    The thing that is complex, is the unlearning of the common misunderstanding, taught by certain 19th/20th century theologians, of what he Church's Magisterium is.

    V1 tells us right in there that we are to believe all those things which are contained in Scripture and tradition, which are proposed by the Church as divinely revealed, whether by her Solemn Magisterium, or in her Ordinary Magisterium and Universal Magisterium."

    Who here believes the V1 is going to teach that we "are to believe all those things" if among those things there is some things that are wrong, aside from Lad and forlorn? Who here believes that V1 teaches that there are wrong things which "we are to believe" in her Ordinary Magisterium and Universal Magisterium, aside from Lad and forlorn?

    Who here can post an example of the "Magisterium being wrong at all, or even not so wrong that "it can't lead you into heresy or rejection of the faith". Not even Lad or forlorn.

    For a small gain they travel far; for eternal life many will scarcely lift a foot from the ground. - Thomas A Kempis


    Offline RomanTheo

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 92
    • Reputation: +64/-27
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!6
  • No Thanks!0
  • Gentlemen,
    The more I read about the history and theology of the magisterium, the more I realize that it is super complex.  The idea of the Magisterium itself is simple and most people readily understand it, including both of you.  But, if you study the history of it, you'll realize that theologians over the last few centuries, (especially after V1) have changed, added and refined many of the definitions/labels of the terms.  

    The reason for the confusion and disagreement over the meaning of ordinary Magisterium, and ordinary and universal Magisterium, is due to several factors, one of which is that the phrases have never been defined, and another is because, as you said, the meaning of ordinary magisterium has not remained consistent.  Here is a brief history of the terminology beginning with the theologian who coined the terms ordinary magisterium and extraordinary magisterium.  

    The first theologian to use the terms ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium was Joseph Kleutgen, in Die Theologie der Vorzeit Vertheidigst (1853).  The purpose of the book was to counter the error of “dogmatic minimalism” that arose at the end of the previous century.  The adherents of this position maintained that only solemnly defined dogmas constituted the ‘rule of faith’ and required the assent of divine and Catholic faith, while all other doctrines remained in the realm of free opinion.  Kleutgen rightly rejected this. He argued that, in addition to defined doctrines, those doctrines that are clearly and unmistakably taught in Scripture also required the assent of Faith, and therefore could not be rejected without the note of heresy.  

    Some of the examples he cited were the doctrine that Christ was transfigured on the Mount of Tabor, that there are eight beatitudes (not five), and that Christians must love their neighbor as themselves.  He said revealed truths such as these, which are so clearly taught in Scripture and universally believed by all Christians, form part of the rule of faith, even without having to be solemnly defined.

    To avoid the accusation of Protestant “private interpretation,” Kleutgen added that the understanding of the revealed truth in question would have to be that which was universally held and taught by the ecclesia docens (Teaching Church).  He readily admitted that he did not intend to include all teachings of Scripture in the rule of faith, but only those that have been constantly taught as revealed truths by the entire body of Bishops.  

    He included as part of the ordinary [and universal] Magisterium, the unanimous consensus of the Fathers and the “theologians” (i.e., the theological schools from the 12th to the 18th centuries), but noted that these are not teachers, but rather ‘witnesses’ of revealed truth – that is, they testify to the fact that a doctrine is taught universally as revealed.  

    He dedicated a section of his book to explaining why the shortest path to determine if a doctrine has been proposed infallibly by the ordinary Magisterium is to consulting the theologians.  He said if these schools were unanimous in believing that a doctrine is a revealed truth, this is clearest sign that an undefined doctrine constitutes part of the rule of faith, and requires the assent of divine and Catholic faith.

    It is important to note that since Catholics must hold that the faithful believe on the authority of God revealing and the authority of the Church teaching (not on the authority of the ‘witnesses’ witnessing), he again emphasized that the motive for belief was not only God revealing (in Scripture) but the ecclesia docens teaching. That is why he emphasized the role of the Pope and Bishops dispersed throughout the world, since these alone are the legitimate “teachers”.  

    This last point has been entirely misunderstood by some today, especially the sedevacantists, who interpret the statement “when the Pope and Bishops throughout the world teach the same doctrine, they are infallible” in a way that Kleutgen did not intend.   What Kluetgen meant is that a doctrine that has been constantly and universally believed as a revealed truth, and is therefore presently taught as a reveled truth by the Pope and Bishops dispersed throughout the world, the doctrine is to be considered infallibly proposed, and hence demands the assent of divine and Catholic faith.   The error of many today is to separate the diachronic universality of the doctrine taught (the what), with the synchronic universality of the legitimate teachers teaching (the who). The result of this error is the belief that the ecclesia docens has violated the infallibility of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which has led to the monstrous heresy that the entire Body of bishops lacks authority - a heresy rooted in a misunderstanding of the infallibility of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, as understood by Pius IX and Vatican I.

    Someone in this thread stated that everything taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium is necessarily infallible.  That is absolutely correct, provided the meaning of the ordinary and universal Magisterium is that which was intended by Kluetgen., since according to him only the revealed truths that had been constantly and universally taught as revealed truths constituted teachings of the ordinary and universal Magisterium.  

    It should be kept in mind that the purpose of Kluetgen’s book was to counter the error of dogmatic minimalism, by defending the position that some truths (not all, but some), which had not been solemnly defined (by the extraordinary Magisterium), nevertheless were part of the rule of faith, and therefore must be accepted with the assent of divine and Catholic Faith (i.e., and not open to free opinion).

    It should also be noted that Kluetgen used the phrase ordinary Magisterium, not ordinary and universal Magisterium, but as I will explain below, what he meant by the former is identical to what Vatican I meant by the latter.

    Tuas Libentur:  The first papal document to use the term ordinary Magisterium is Pius IX’s Tuas Libentur (1863), which was addressed to the Archbishop of Munish-Freising.  What occasioned the letter was a Congress that had been organized by Johann Joseph Dollinger, who would later leave the Church due to his rejection of the dogma of papal infallibility.  Since it was strongly suspected that the Congress would be defending the error of “dogmatic minimalism,” Pius IX sent a letter to counter it, and he did so by using the phrase ‘ordinary Magisterium” - the phrase Kleutgen coined in his book that was published 10 years earlier for the purpose of countering the same error.  Joseph Kluetgen coined a term that was adopted by the Magisterium!

    De Filius: The phrase ordinary and universal Magisterium was first used in De Filius (First Vatican Council).  It is found in the section directed against “dogmatic minimalism,” and Kluetgen was invited to the Council and appointed as one of the main drafters of the document.   The initial phrase used was Kluetgen's original term ‘ordinary Magisterium’ and almost every Bishop opposed it.  They did so on the basis that it was a novel term that could easily be misunderstood, and noted that even amongst themselves there was disagreement over what this novel phrase meant.  After further clarification the Bishop approved the term, but added the word “universal” for the purpose of clarifying that it did not refer to the Pope alone, but to the entire body of Bishops dispersed throughout the world.

    In later years, the term “ordinary Magisterium’ began to take on a meaning of its own (distinct from the ‘ordinary and universal Magisterium’ and from the ‘ordinary Magisterium’ as Kleutgen original intended it), and was even used in this different sense by Pius XII. We now hear about the Pope’s ‘ordinary Magisterium’ but the context in which it is used proves that it is not limited to teachings that have been infallibly proposed (which is how Kluetgen original intended it).  Instead, the phrase ‘ordinary Magisterium’, as it is normally understood today, refers to the teaching of a Pope that is promulgated authoritatively (which is not the same as being proposed infallibly).  That is why the assent that is said to be owed to teachings of the Pope’s ‘ordinary Magisterium’ is that of ‘religious assent’ - which is a conditional degree of assent that is owed to non-infallible teachings - not the assent of divine and Catholic Faith, which is owned to infallibly proposed doctrines that constitute the rule of faith.  

    You can see why there is so much confusion over the meaning of these terms.  Not only are the terms new and undefined, but the meaning has evolved over time.

    But the take away from this is that the meaning of the phrase ‘ordinary Magisterium,’ as used in Tuas Lientur, and ‘ordinary and universal Magiterium’ as found in De Filius, must be understood according to Kleutgen’s original meaning, since that is how it was correctly understood at the time these documents were written.

    This is a brief history of the phrase ordinary and universal Magisterium, and how it was initially understood. For anyone interested in this topic, I would highly recommend the book, ‘On the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium from Joseph Kleutgen to the Second Vatican Council,’ by Dr. John Joy, which explains all of this in great detail and documents everything.  

    Offline Stubborn

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 9390
    • Reputation: +3724/-838
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!1
  • ^^^Well said! Thank you!
    :applause:
    For a small gain they travel far; for eternal life many will scarcely lift a foot from the ground. - Thomas A Kempis

    Offline Last Tradhican

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2926
    • Reputation: +1617/-955
    • Gender: Male
    The Vatican II church - Assisting Souls to Hell Since 1962

    For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. Mat 24:24


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16