Can someone please tell me WTF Sean Johnson is talking about?

Sounds a lot like Clintonisms.

He is talking about the ordinary and the extraordinary magisterium of the Church and the authentic magisterium, which is not infallible, and how this relates to the V2 docuмents i.e., not infallible or free from error.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Awkward customer said that the universal ordinary magisterium is the bishops of the world in union with the pope teaching X.  Sean, you denied this claim (preferring to say that it is the "authentic" magisterium) and your denial is what I disagreed with.

The article you linked to deals with papal infallibility, categorizing the magisterium of the papacy as extraordinary, ordinary (both of which are infallible) or merely "authentic" which is not infallible.  

But the universal ordinary magisterium is not part of papal infallibility as such but part of the Church's general infallibility in teaching the faithful.  That infallibility is guaranteed when the bishops of the world, united to their head (the pope) all teach X.  That is the universal ordinary magisterium, and it is infallible.

Pretty sure nobody is claiming the ordinary infallible magisterium is not infallible.

What is being claimed is that not all acts of the ordinary magisterium are infallible (i.e., those which belong to the authentic, or fallible, ordinary magisterium...to which the V2 and post-V2 novelties belong).

OK, what do you think the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church is?  How do we know that a teaching is part of it?  

Would that be the infallible universal ordinary magisterium, or the fallible universal ordinary magisterium?

Quote from: Mithrandylan

The article you linked to deals with papal infallibility, categorizing the magisterium of the papacy as extraordinary, ordinary (both of which are infallible) or merely "authentic" which is not infallible.  

But the universal ordinary magisterium is not part of papal infallibility as such but part of the Church's general infallibility in teaching the faithful.  That infallibility is guaranteed when the bishops of the world, united to their head (the pope) all teach X.  That is the universal ordinary magisterium, and it is infallible.

I'm assuming you read the article, yes?  It doesn't touch on the universal ordinary magisterium.  It deals with papal infallibility, and when and under what conditions THE POPE is infallible.  But we're not talking about papal infallability.

Try this part again:

It makes it pretty clear that there is a fallible and an infallible universal ordinary magisterium (which is what you are disputing):



"What worries Catholics most in the current crisis in the Church is precisely the "problem of the Pope." We need very clear ideas on this question. We must avoid shipwreck to the right and to the left, either by the spirit of rebellion or, on the other hand, by an inappropriate and servile obedience. The serious error which is behind many current disasters is the belief that the "Authentic Magisterium" is nothing other than the "Ordinary Magisterium."

The "Authentic Magisterium" cannot be so simply identified with the Ordinary Magisterium. In fact, the Ordinary Magisterium can be infallible and non-infallible, and it is only in this second case that it is called the "Authentic Magisterium." The Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique [hereafter referred to as DTC - Ed.] under the heading of "papal infallibility" (vol. VII, col.1699ff) makes the following distinctions: 1) there is the "infallible or ex cathedra papal definition in the sense defined by Vatican I" (col.1699); 2) there is the "infallible papal teaching which flows from the pope's Ordinary Magisterium" (col.1705); 3) there is "non-infallible papal teaching" (col.1709).

Similarly, Salaverri, in his Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.) distinguishes the following: 1) Extraordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 592ff); 2) Ordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 645ff); 3) Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticuм, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility (no.659ff)."

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/2002_January/Popes_Infallible_Magisterium.htm

"When the bishops of the world teach X in union with their head, X is part of the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church."  Awkward customer made this claim, to which I agree, and to which I believe you denied.  This is what I'm interested in arguing against.

I read that part of the article, and I read the rest.  So my question to you, again (in slightly different words) is:

What do you call it when the bishops of the world, in union with the pope, teach X?  Make whatever qualifications you think might be necessary in answering the question.  

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Awkward customer said that the universal ordinary magisterium is the bishops of the world in union with the pope teaching X.  Sean, you denied this claim (preferring to say that it is the "authentic" magisterium) and your denial is what I disagreed with.

The article you linked to deals with papal infallibility, categorizing the magisterium of the papacy as extraordinary, ordinary (both of which are infallible) or merely "authentic" which is not infallible.  

But the universal ordinary magisterium is not part of papal infallibility as such but part of the Church's general infallibility in teaching the faithful.  That infallibility is guaranteed when the bishops of the world, united to their head (the pope) all teach X.  That is the universal ordinary magisterium, and it is infallible.

Pretty sure nobody is claiming the ordinary infallible magisterium is not infallible.

What is being claimed is that not all acts of the ordinary magisterium are infallible (i.e., those which belong to the authentic, or fallible, ordinary magisterium...to which the V2 and post-V2 novelties belong).

OK, what do you think the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church is?  How do we know that a teaching is part of it?  

Would that be the infallible universal ordinary magisterium, or the fallible universal ordinary magisterium?

Quote from: Mithrandylan

The article you linked to deals with papal infallibility, categorizing the magisterium of the papacy as extraordinary, ordinary (both of which are infallible) or merely "authentic" which is not infallible.  

But the universal ordinary magisterium is not part of papal infallibility as such but part of the Church's general infallibility in teaching the faithful.  That infallibility is guaranteed when the bishops of the world, united to their head (the pope) all teach X.  That is the universal ordinary magisterium, and it is infallible.

I'm assuming you read the article, yes?  It doesn't touch on the universal ordinary magisterium.  It deals with papal infallibility, and when and under what conditions THE POPE is infallible.  But we're not talking about papal infallability.

Try this part again:

It makes it pretty clear that there is a fallible and an infallible universal ordinary magisterium (which is what you are disputing):



"What worries Catholics most in the current crisis in the Church is precisely the "problem of the Pope." We need very clear ideas on this question. We must avoid shipwreck to the right and to the left, either by the spirit of rebellion or, on the other hand, by an inappropriate and servile obedience. The serious error which is behind many current disasters is the belief that the "Authentic Magisterium" is nothing other than the "Ordinary Magisterium."

The "Authentic Magisterium" cannot be so simply identified with the Ordinary Magisterium. In fact, the Ordinary Magisterium can be infallible and non-infallible, and it is only in this second case that it is called the "Authentic Magisterium." The Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique [hereafter referred to as DTC - Ed.] under the heading of "papal infallibility" (vol. VII, col.1699ff) makes the following distinctions: 1) there is the "infallible or ex cathedra papal definition in the sense defined by Vatican I" (col.1699); 2) there is the "infallible papal teaching which flows from the pope's Ordinary Magisterium" (col.1705); 3) there is "non-infallible papal teaching" (col.1709).

Similarly, Salaverri, in his Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.) distinguishes the following: 1) Extraordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 592ff); 2) Ordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 645ff); 3) Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticuм, that is, only "authentic" or "authorized" as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility (no.659ff)."

http://www.sspxasia.com/Docuмents/SiSiNoNo/2002_January/Popes_Infallible_Magisterium.htm

"When the bishops of the world teach X in union with their head, X is part of the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church."  Awkward customer made this claim, to which I agree, and to which I believe you denied.  This is what I'm interested in arguing against.

I read that part of the article, and I read the rest.  So my question to you, again (in slightly different words) is:

What do you call it when the bishops of the world, in union with the pope, teach X?  Make whatever qualifications you think might be necessary in answering the question.  

Mithrandylan-

We can either keep repeating the same things to eachother, or, you can offer a refutation of the legitimacy of the distinction between the infallible Ordinary magisterium and the fallible (ie., authentic) ordinary magisterium.

Your original contention was that no such thing existed.

If you are now admitting it does, I guess we can move on?

I'm repeating myself because you haven't answered my question.

I agree with the article in its division of three types of papal magisterium.  At least, I see no reason to disagree with it.  But this is all ancillary, since awkwardcustomer said:

The Ordinary Universal Magisterium consists of the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See.

When a pope teaches in union with the bishops of the world, surely those teachings are guaranteed by the infallible Ordinary Universal Magisterium.

To which you said:

No.

These teachings are not part of the Church's ordinary magisterium.

They belong to what is  called the authentic magisterium.

To which I asked, the still unanswered question:

If the ordinary magisterium is not the bishops throughout the world teaching union with the Holy See, then what is it?

I hope you provide some evidence for your position.  It seems very novel to me.

By "evidence for your position" I meant "your position" that when all the bishops teach X in union with the pope, that this exercise is not of the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church.  That is what I've taken your position to be, and you have not corrected me.

You would rather rely on an article which proves that not everything THE POPE (alone, without regard to the bishops) does or says falls under infallibility and this is granted.  But when all of the bishops together with the pope teach something, it is part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church and as such is protected from error.  Among the reasons that this is true include the fact that for the pope together with all the bishops to teach a false doctrine would properly constitute a defection of the Church.  

Mith-

Perhaps this is the sticking poiont for you:

You seem to be focusing on the numbers (i.e., the bishops dispersed in union with the pope).

Rather, it is the CONTENT of what they are teaching which should hold your attention.

If the content is not contained or compatible with the ordinary infallible magisterium (whether it be a pope, or the pope and all the bishops, or just a bishop), then it can only represent the authentic magisterium.

Otherwise, you would be saying that teachings incompatible with the faith must be believed.

In other words, your solution to this fact is to deny these men hold any office in the Church.

My solution is simply to recognize the threefold magisterial distinction, and that these novel teachings of the authentic magisterium carry no weight.

Herein lies the heart of the conflict between sedes and R&R.

Quote from: Mithrandylan

I'm repeating myself because you haven't answered my question.

I agree with the article in its division of three types of papal magisterium.  At least, I see no reason to disagree with it.  But this is all ancillary, since awkwardcustomer said:

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

The Ordinary Universal Magisterium consists of the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See.

When a pope teaches in union with the bishops of the world, surely those teachings are guaranteed by the infallible Ordinary Universal Magisterium.

To which you said:

Quote from: SeanJohnson

No.

These teachings are not part of the Church's ordinary magisterium.

They belong to what is  called the authentic magisterium.

To which I asked, the still unanswered question:

Quote

If the ordinary magisterium is not the bishops throughout the world teaching union with the Holy See, then what is it?

I hope you provide some evidence for your position.  It seems very novel to me.

By "evidence for your position" I meant "your position" that when all the bishops teach X in union with the pope, that this exercise is not of the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church.  That is what I've taken your position to be, and you have not corrected me.

You would rather rely on an article which proves that not everything THE POPE (alone, without regard to the bishops) does or says falls under infallibility and this is granted.  But when all of the bishops together with the pope teach something, it is part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church and as such is protected from error.  Among the reasons that this is true include the fact that for the pope together with all the bishops to teach a false doctrine would properly constitute a defection of the Church.  

Wrong.

If what they are teaching is not contained or consistent with the ordinary infallible magisterium (and I am certain you would agree they are not) , then clearly these teachings are part of the fallible (i.e., authentic) magisterium.

You are dodging.  

All agree that the Vatican II and post Vatican II heresies and errors against the Faith are not part of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.  The relevant question is why.

All of the post Vatican II heresies and errors have been taught throughout the world in moral unity with the "pope."  

Quote from: SeanJohnson

Quote from: Mithrandylan

I'm repeating myself because you haven't answered my question.

I agree with the article in its division of three types of papal magisterium.  At least, I see no reason to disagree with it.  But this is all ancillary, since awkwardcustomer said:

Quote from: awkwardcustomer

The Ordinary Universal Magisterium consists of the bishops dispersed throughout the world in union with the Holy See.

When a pope teaches in union with the bishops of the world, surely those teachings are guaranteed by the infallible Ordinary Universal Magisterium.

To which you said:

Quote from: SeanJohnson

No.

These teachings are not part of the Church's ordinary magisterium.

They belong to what is  called the authentic magisterium.

To which I asked, the still unanswered question:

Quote

If the ordinary magisterium is not the bishops throughout the world teaching union with the Holy See, then what is it?

I hope you provide some evidence for your position.  It seems very novel to me.

By "evidence for your position" I meant "your position" that when all the bishops teach X in union with the pope, that this exercise is not of the universal ordinary magisterium of the Church.  That is what I've taken your position to be, and you have not corrected me.

You would rather rely on an article which proves that not everything THE POPE (alone, without regard to the bishops) does or says falls under infallibility and this is granted.  But when all of the bishops together with the pope teach something, it is part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church and as such is protected from error.  Among the reasons that this is true include the fact that for the pope together with all the bishops to teach a false doctrine would properly constitute a defection of the Church.  

Wrong.

If what they are teaching is not contained or consistent with the ordinary infallible magisterium (and I am certain you would agree they are not) , then clearly these teachings are part of the fallible (i.e., authentic) magisterium.

You are dodging.  

All agree that the Vatican II and post Vatican II heresies and errors against the Faith are not part of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium.  The relevant question is why.

All of the post Vatican II heresies and errors have been taught throughout the world in moral unity with the "pope."  

Ambrose-

There are only three options, and if we both agree these novelties have  one place in the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium,  the authentic magisterium is the only remaining option.

Ambrosius, neque mittatis margaritas vestras ante porcos.