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