The definition of magister and magisterium is instructive. My Latin dictionary has the following:
magis-ter -tri m chief, master, director; teacher; adviser, guardian; ringleader, author; (in apposition with noun in the gen) expert: (keeper of animals) shepherd, herdsman; magister equitum (title of dictator's second in command) Master of the Cavalry; magister morum censor; magister sacrorum chief priest; magister vici ward boss; navis magister ship's captain
magister-ium -(i)i n directorship, presidency, superintendence; control, governance; instruction; magisterium morum censorship
It seems to me that modern man rebels against the principle of having a master: against the principle of there being anything GOOD or BENEFICIAL in censorship; and therefore, modern man, in this willful abhorrence of the proper definition(s) of words and phrases rooted in the Latin magister, simply wants nothing to do with them.
Therein lies the rub.
Notice that the Latin word magister / magistri is a masculine gender noun (indicated by m = masculine noun), however, when you look at magisterium / magisteri / magisterii it's not masculine but rather neuter (indicated by n = neuter gender noun). Therefore, it is sloppy scholarship to equate the connotation of magister with that of magisterium or Magisterium, because the latter is not a person, but a thing (neuter gender), if Latin carries any proper meaning into the adoptive language. If it does, Magisterium cannot refer to men ('men' is plural, with masculine gender) or man (as in mankind, which includes women and children), but can only refer to the teaching OFFICE (singular number, neuter gender) that the men occupy. You don't say that the papacy is a man or the presidency is a man, do you?
Nor do we say the directorship is a man; nor do we say that the superintendence is a man; nor do we say that control is a man; nor do we say that governance or instruction or censorship is a human person (a man). [/font][/size]
Notice that it is unnecessary to say "a woman" or "a man or a woman," because the term "man" in such situations INCLUDES the feminine gender such that the office of directorship or superintendence or control, etc. may equally be occupied by a man or by a woman; nonetheless, superintendence never refers to the person of the superintendent, but rather to his office.
(Again, it's unnecessary to say, "his or her office," or "his/her office," or "hiser office," or "h/is/er office" or whatever, because "his office" INCLUDES the instance of it being "her office." This is where the error of feminism comes in and gender neutral language, such that feminists get all flustered and bent out of shape when a rule book for instance, refers to the principal's office as "his office" when the principal is a woman. But in proper Latin tradition AND THEREFORE likewise in proper English tradition, there is no distinction in sex when the masculine gender is used, for "his office" merely means a human being's office, instead of like a ROBOT's office, which would be NEUTER gender, and therefore "its office," but that would imply by gender neutral non-discrimination 'standards' to DEMEAN homosexuals by calling them "it" -- and we just can't abide by THAT, can we??)
It is one of the earmarks of post-Conciliar ambiguity
to presume that there are men (plural number, masculine gender noun) to whom the term Magisterium
(singular number, neuter noun) applies, disregarding the teaching office (neuter), or the doctrine (neuter) being taught by that office. That is to say, that the penchant to impart a human being's identity or personhood or humanity into a neuter noun like magisterium does NOT belong to the Roman Catholic Latin Sacred Tradition AT ALL. It has ONLY arisen as a consequence of the unclean spirit of Vatican II and the abomination of removing the Church from her firm foundations in the sacred language of LATIN!Magisteri
means the same thing, the second i being apparently a convention that is used occasionally for whatever reason (perhaps more or less commonly in ecclesiastical Latin as opposed to classical Latin), but in both cases the word is second declension Genitive singular.
When such words are used in English, the declensions are ignored and the Nominative form is the basis for our words. I'm telling you this so you can see why we always say "Magisterium"
in English and we never say "Magisterio"
If you were using Latin, however, there are the following declensions, and therefore in Latin documents that would have words based on the Latin "magisterium" (a NEUTER noun, not a masculine noun!!)
they would be declined in the documents such that you might see "magisteri
" or "magisterii
" or "magisterio
" or "magisteria
" or "magisteriis
" as follows: SECOND DECLENSION SINGULAR
Nominative . . . . . magisteriumGenetive . . . . . . . magisteri or magisterii
Dative . . . . . . . . . magisterio
Accusative . . . . . . magisterium
Ablative . . . . . . . . magisterioSECOND DECLENSION PLURAL
Nominative . . . . . magisteria
Genetive . . . . . . . magisterium
Dative . . . . . . . . . magisteriis
Accusative . . . . . . magisteria
Ablative . . . . . . . . magisteriis
It's a bit hard to imagine that "magisteriums"
(in English) would be discussed in the Church, except perhaps hypothetically, for the Church is one, and therefore has one teaching office in the unity of the faith.
Consequently, it would make logical sense that in English, if the plural form for magisterium
were to be used, it would be "magisteria
," and the proof of this lies in many similar Englishized Latin words, such that the proper English plural form is the Latin plural, Nominative declension. (E.g., radius, radii; appendix, appendices; basis, bases; species, species; amphora, amphorae; opus, opera
(If it were to be so hypothetically discussed in Latin, you would then see the words in the second group, "Plural" being used, "magisteria
" and "magisteriis
," whenever the Nominative, Dative, Accusative or Ablative declensions are appropriate, and in the plural number, "magisterium" would be for the Genetive declension, not the Nominative declension, and therefore, English words, which are derived from the Nominative declension, plural number would logically be "magisteria"
instead of "magisterium."
But again, the words English borrows from Latin ignores declensions, and when we talk about more than one magisterium
we simply put an "s" on the end for the plural number: "magisteriums
." That is not how Latin EVER indicates plural. In English translations and in proper
English original writing, it is ONLY found in Englishized Latin words. I don't know about other non-Latin languages, especially Romance languages such as French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian and Italian. If any reader here knows, please chime in and pronounce the relevant convention(s).)
Therefore, when you see messages or writings of pundits or bigots or know-it-alls mentioning "magisteriums" you should immediately recognize it as a RED FLAG that something might be haywire
. The Church does not have one magisterium before Vat.II and another one after Vat.II, for example. There is no "traditional magisterium and modern magisterium."
Perhaps one might say "Modernist magisterium," but that would seem to be dangerous, because to begin with, all too many Catholics have no idea what "Modernist" means in the first place, and so they might likely think that your 'modernist magisterium' is some kind of compliment
when in fact you were trying to criticize Modernist leanings in what SHOULD be the Magisterium,
but might not be in fact, or whatever.
If you've made it this far and you still think you know what I'm talking about, perhaps you may have thought of asking another question very pertinent to this thread which I have not mentioned.......