The Rule of Faith, is it Dogma or the Magisterium?Let's start with the definition of the Rule of Faith:
The word rule (Latin regula, Gr. kanon) means a standard by which something can be tested, and the rule of faith means something extrinsic to our faith, and serving as its norm or measure. Since faith is Divine and infallible, the rule of faith must be also Divine and infallible; and since faith is supernatural assent to Divine truths upon Divine authority, the ultimate or remote rule of faith must be the truthfulness of God in revealing Himself. But since Divine revelation is contained in the written books and unwritten traditions (Vatican Council, I, ii), the Bible and Divine tradition must be the rule of our faith; since, however, these are only silent witnesses and cannot interpret themselves, they are commonly termed "proximate but inanimate rules of faith". Unless, then, the Bible and tradition are to be profitless, we must look for some proximate rule which shall be animate or living. (New Advent)So, we're looking for the
proximate and animate or living Rule of Faith. Whatever that rule is, what are it's necessary attributes?
1. It must be
Divine and infallible. Private interpretation for example cannot be our Rule of Faith, because it is neither Divine nor infallible.
2. It must be
proximate. In other words, we must have access to it, here and now. Whenever a dispute arises we must be able to go to our Rule of Faith to "measure" and settle the dispute.
3. It must be
animate or living. What does that mean? Since Scripture and Tradition are called inanimate because they "cannot interpret themselves", we know that animate or living means that it must be able to interpret itself. In other words, if we don't understand what the Rule of Faith means, we must be able to ask that same Rule of Faith to further explain itself.
Let's apply these criteria to our two contenders, Dogma and the Magisterium. We'll start with
Dogma.
1. Is Dogma Divine and infallible?
Yes.
2. Is Dogma proximate?
Yes, we all have access to all the dogmas of our Faith anytime we want to. (
Except.. the first Christians..see further down!)
3. Is Dogma animate or living?
No, since Dogma cannot interpret itself, for the same reason as Scripture and Tradition cannot interpret themselves.
So, I conclude that Dogma is NOT the proximate and animate Rule of Faith. At best, we can consider Dogma as part of Tradition, i.e part of the proximate and inanimate Rule of Faith.What about the
Magisterium?
1. Is the Magisterium Divine and infallible?
Yes, although this is where the distinction must be made between the Extraordinare and Ordinary Magisterium on the one hand, and the Authentic Magisterium on the other. The former is indeed infallible and Divine, while the latter is
not infallible and can therefore
not be part of our Rule of Faith.
2. Is the Magisterium proximate?
Yes, because the Church will always remain with us as Christ promised He will always remain with us. But just as during Christ's passion His humanity was disfigured and his Divinity thereby obscured or hidden, so also is in today's crisis of the Church the Authentic Magisterium so disfigured that it is obscuring or hiding the Ordinary Magisterium. Nevertheless, the Infallible Magisterium remains proximate to those who are willing to see past appearances. We still have Catholic bishops who are willing to remain faithful to Tradition and teach what the Church has always and everywhere taught.
3. Is the Magisterium animate or living?
Yes, because the Magisterium is able to interpret itself. Whenever a new dispute arises, the Magisterium does not add any new doctrines to Divine revelation (which it can't do), but it explains and settles the disputes that arise. The Magisterium cannot contradict itself, but it can interpret itself.
Therefore, I argue that the Infallible Magisterium (Extraordinary and Ordinary) is the proximate and living Rule of Faith for Catholics.Further questions and arguments:
1. If you believe Dogma is the Rule of Faith, what about the first Christians then, what was their Rule of Faith? No Dogmas had been promulgated yet. But whenever a dispute arose they brought the matter before the Apostles, and especially before Peter who would settle the matter once and for all. Hence the saying, "Rome locuta, causa finita est".
2. Our Lord told the apostles to "go and teach", not to "go and distribute dogmas", and "whoever believes you believes Me, whoever rejects you rejects Me". So it makes sense that our proximate and living rule of Faith is the living Magisterium, who is the sole legitimate interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Tradition.
3. What about all the truths of our faith which must be believed but which are not explicitly defined in dogmas? For example, "Doctrines of Ecclesiastical Faith" and "Truths of Divine Faith"? (see
What are Theological Notes?) They too must be believed with different levels of assent. And those who reject them without a sufficiently grave reason are likewise to be treated as bad Catholics or even "suspect of heresy".
4. As Fr. Berry and Cardinal Billot explain, not everyone who holds a heretical doctrine is a heretic, but rather he is a heretic who rejects the teaching authority of the Church. The former is a Catholic in error, but the latter is properly defined as a heretic, because he rejects the teaching authority of the Church, in other words, the Magisterium.
Important Note:
1. As I mentioned before, the error which leads either to Conciliarism or Sedevecantism is a failure to distinguish between the Extraordinary/Ordinary Magisterium and the Authentic Magisterium.
2. The above is how I understand the teachings of the Church, but since I could be wrong, I subject everything I said to the Infallible Magisterium, who shall have the last word! :)
Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 318644 times)