The Teaching office of the Church. This must have the Pope included and it must be clear that the teaching has been divinely revealed. Since Peter and his successors were the only ones promised an unfailing faith, Catechisms, Theologians, non-Pope saints, Bishops not in union with the Pope are all examples of not the Magisterium.
The Solemn Magisterium is the Ex Cathedra statements as outlined by the Vatican Council. The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is the teachings that are not set in that manner but nevertheless teach something divinely revealed. Usually a reiteration of a solemn declaration.
There are no teachings of the Magisterium that are erroneous or fallible. If a teaching is opposed to an Infallible Teaching, it is not of the Magisterium.

That is a decent definition. Thanks. I agree with it. 

Quote from: Jeremiah2v8 on Yesterday at 10:18:26 AM

Quote

If Ladislaus defines the Magisterium as "the Church teaching infallibly," we would not be having this discussion. If he defines it that way, he can tell us.

Nonsense.  This discussion hasn't been about infallibility ... but about whether the Magisterium is the Rule of Faith, or dogma is (as Drew has been asserting).

I have repeatedly stated that, if you want to argue about the limits of infallibility, that's a separate issue that can be disputed among Catholic (to a point).  But to go around saying that Catholics can appeal to dogma over the Magisterium because Dogma is in fact the proximate rule of faith ... that's Protestantism.

That is not what you "say," perhaps, but it is what you do (e.g., BOD).

I keep pressing you on the definition of "Magisterium teaching," which you say is "indefectible" and "free from error."

It seems to me - again, this is why I keep pressing you for definitions - that your view of the "Magisterium teaching" would include the Roman Catechism, which teaches BOD, which you reject as an erroneous teaching.

There is no catechism more authoritative than the Catechism of Trent, which is a universal catechism issued under the authority of St. Pius V and whose authority was ratified by subsequent popes. The whole purpose of a catechism is "teaching" the faith. If it is issued by the Church, it would within any common sense of terms be the Church, or Magisterium, "teaching" regarding the faith.

It seems the purpose and upshot of your "the rule of faith is the Magisterium" is that it explains or interprets and delivers the faith to us. If you are limiting the "Magisterium teaching" to infallible statements then your position is not any different from Drew's and just semantics. You reject BOD on the basis of infallible teachings, and thereby hold the Magisterium's feet to God's revealed truth (including what the Magisterium itself has indicated as "revealed" truth), as Drew does.

Again, it appears to me that you "say" that the Magisterium is your rule but do otherwise: you reject what appears to be the Magisterium teaching in the Roman Catechism in BOD on the basis of "an appeal to dogma" - or perhaps you claim the Magisterium is not teaching in the Roman Catechism.

I'm trying to understand your position, which seems inconsistent.

How do you define the "Magisterium teaching"?

There were many Church Councils that the pope was not even present. Some even called by the Emperors. I’m not sure, but the pope may have sent his delegate to those that he was not present. Fr. Hesse goes into the history of church councils and talks about the many church councils were the pope did not come.

In the last few months, I've listened to a handful of Fr. Hesse's sermons and if I recall correctly, didn't Fr. say that the popes did not call those councils, but they did end up going to them?  

In the last few months, I've listened to a handful of Fr. Hesse's sermons and if I recall correctly, didn't Fr. say that the popes did not call those councils, but they did end up going to them?  

Start at minute 4:50 and you will see that there have been Councils called by Emperors where the Pope was not even present and te Councils were only approved as true Church Coincils centuries later. 

I just don't recognize this concept of Catholicism, that everything is a theological free-for-all except for a small amount of core dogma.

Ladislaus, can you give me examples of a theological "free-for-all" that you speak of?  What do you mean by 'small amount of core dogma'?  Your comment presumes that there will be NEW dogma sometime in the future.  How can that be possible, when ALL dogma is contained in scripture/tradition?

                       CATHOLICS MUST ASSENT TO MAGISTERIUM  ||  CATHOLICS ARE FREE TO DISREGARD MAGISTERIUM

NOVUS ORDO GOOD   ||                          NO Conservaties                                                   NO Liberals

NOVUS ORDO BAD      ||                               SV/SP                                                                 R&R

Also, for the 100th time, you simplify the magisterium and fail to distinguish between the infallible and fallible.  What non-sede, non-novus ordo catholics reject is the FALLIBLE magisterium, which we are allowed to do, when the FALLIBLE magisterium DIRECTLY contradicts a previous SOLEMN definition by a previous magisterium.

The fact is that no one in history before R&R ever held that General Councils were not an Infallible Act of the Magisterium (even if they didn't word it like that). So we are left with two options; the Magisterium can err and has defected or those men were not Popes and V2 was not a Catholic Council.

No, it isn't a fact, and there are not only two options.

You didn't give the option in which the Church is occupied by a modernist sect. That's not an option in your mind, but you are only a layman like the rest of us. +ABL taught that the Church is occupied.

It's looking at it from the perspective that the Magisterium cannot, on the whole, be substantially corrupted.

If the magisterium cannot substantially err, then why are you a sedeprivationist?  Isn't that view admitting that the magisterium has erred and has lost its spiritual authority due to heresy? 

Let's say Pius XII is giving some 2-hour allocution and slips up theologically once or twice.  Is that substantial error in the Magisterium?  No.  But now Pius XII writes an encyclical teaching some erroneous doctrine to the Universal Church?  At that point it's substantial error.  

How about an error regarding justification, like BOD, in a universal catechism for instruction on the faith, like the Catechism of Trent? 

Just a helluva "slip up"? I'd say that's substantial error. 

No?