Posted on 03/23/2007 5:54:47 PM PDT by NYer
Some people assure us: 'there are very few infallible teachings. In fact, the bolder spirits claim there are only two! Or again: 'We may disagree with noninfallible teachings after prayerful reflection.' Or take a third statement like: 'God speaks to us in many ways: through conscience, Scripture, the Church, life experience, nature'-without any indication of where the Magisterium stands in the matter. People talk also of a parallel magisterium consisting of the theologians.
Because of the great confusion prevailing today concerning the doctrinal authority of the Church and how it is exercised, it is vital that Catholics clarify their thoughts on the subject. If we have a right understanding here, our total theological outlook is likely to be balanced; if we do not it will certainly be warped.
We find the basis in Scripture. At the Last Supper, Jesus told his Apostles: 'The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all I have said to you (Jn. 14, 26). 'When the Spirit of truth comes he will lead you to the complete truth' (Jn. 16,13).
The twelve Apostles were chosen by Jesus to shepherd his Church, with St. Peter as the supreme leader. 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven' (Mt. 16, 1819).
St. Paul, knowing that the truth would remain in the Church, speaks of 'the Church of the living God, which upholds the truth and keeps it safe' (1 Tim. 3, 15). Although individuals go astray, therefore, the Church will not. This ecclesial aspect is important, as indicated by St. Peter in his warning: 'we must be most careful to remember that the interpretation of scriptural prophecy is never a matter for the individual' (2 Pet. 1. 20).
Christian writers of the fist and second centuries show a Church with a hierarchical structure, having power to teach and rule, a bishop being in charge of each community.
The fourth Pope, St. Clement, wrote a long letter to the Church in Corinth about A.D. 96, endeavoring to settle dissensions there. He states: 'Our Apostles knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be dissensions over the title of bishop. In their full knowledge of this, therefore. they proceeded to appoint the ministers I spoke of. and they went on to add an instruction that if these would die, other accredited persons should succeed them in their office (Corinthians, no. 44).
St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing to the Church in Smyrna about A.D. 107 exhorts them: 'Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father' (Smyrneans, no. 8).
St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons and the great opponent of Gnosticism in the second century, insists on the need to follow the Church's bishops if we are to have the truth. 'It is necessary to obey the presbyters in the Church-those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the Apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father' (Adv. Haereses, IV, 26, 2).
Irenaeus names all the Bishops of Rome down to his own time, and says: 'In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us' (111, 3, 3).
The constant understanding through the ages that the Pope and bishops are the authentic teachers of the Faith was emphasized by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae (rune, 1973). 'By divine institution it is the exclusive task of these pastors alone, the Successors of Peter and the other Apostles, to teach the faithful authentically, that is with the authority of Christ shared in different ways; so that the faithful, who may not simply listen to them as experts in Catholic doctrine, must accept their teaching given in Christ's name, with an assent that is proportionate to the authority that they possess and that they mean to exercise.'
Nothing here about a parallel magisterium composed of theologians! Mysterium Ecclesiae, in accordance with the whole of Tradition, sees bishops as those who teach authentically in Christ's name.
The first Vatican Council, in 1870, declared that all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal Magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed' (Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, ch. 3).
One of the most important sections in the whole of the documents of Vatican II is no. 25 in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, where the teaching authority of the Church is outlined. Concerning the bishops, the document says: 'Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter's Successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teachings concerning matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely.'
Their infallible authority is exercised in the clearest way when they assemble in a General Council and, together with the Pope, define a matter of faith and morals. 'Assembled in an Ecumenical Council they are, for the Universal Church, judges in matters of faith and morals, whose decisions must be adhered to with the loyal and obedient assent of faith.'
Repeating Vatican I, the Pope is declared to be infallible when, as supreme teacher of the faithful, 'he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.'
Having said that the faithful must adhere to the bishops' teachings on faith and morals, the Council continues: 'This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra, in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him.'
The substance of the above doctrine from Vatican II is repeated in the Code of Canon Law, Canons 749752.
Now to clarify some terms. Extraordinary Magisterium refers to a special exercise of their teaching office by either the Pope and bishops together, or the Pope alone, in which a definitive judgment is given. When a General Council pronounces a solemn definition, this is an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium. So is an ex cathedra definition by the Pope: a decision definitively settling the question.
By contrast ordinary Magisterium refers to the exercise of the teaching office without a solemn definition being given. This is the case with the day-today teaching of bishops in their dioceses, or the greater part-almost the entire part-of the Popes teaching. (Much in these categories, however, has already been defined infallibly.)
The term ordinary universal Magisterium means an exercise of the Church's teaching office where there is complete agreement, or fairly close to complete agreement, among the Catholic Bishops of the world that a particular doctrine is certainly true, but without a solemn definition.
The extraordinary Magisterium is infallible. A definition given by a General Council or an ex cathedra definition by a Pope cannot be erroneous. Likewise, the ordinary universal Magisterium is infallible. The fact that the bishops are dispersed throughout the world' (in the words of Vatican II quoted above) does not make any difference.
What of the ordinary (but not universal) Magisterium? Is it infallible? No, as Vatican II indicates in the quotation above concerning statements that are not ex cathedra.
We started by noting common attitudes to the Church's teaching. Let us now evaluate those views, beginning with the claim that there are few infallible teachings.
Actually there is a very large number, as we might expect when we recall that the Church has existed for nearly 2000 years and that numerous disputes about doctrine have raged during that long and turbulent period. Infallible definitions have been given about our knowledge of God. about his nature, about the Blessed Trinity, about creation, angels, man, grace. the fall, redemption, the divinity and humanity of Christ, the Church. the sacraments in general and each sacrament in particular, our Lady, heaven, hell, purgatory, the general resurrection, the final judgment. Quite a number of infallible pronouncements have been made in some of these areas; and this list is not complete.
I flipped through Ludwig Ott's standard text Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma to see how many points he classifies as infallible, and my rough count was about 250!
Why, then, the preposterous notion that de fide pronouncements may be as few as two (the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption)? I am sure the root cause of the error is the propaganda spread by dissident theologians against the Church's authority. One ploy is to concentrate on ex cathedra definitions of the Popes, and to stress that there are few of these; leaving people with the impression that there are no infallible pronouncements apart from these.
What about the claim, noted at the beginning, that we may disagree with noninfallible teachings after prayerful reflection'?
We have seen that Vatican II insists on the acceptance of teachings given by the ordinary Magisterium, even though they are not infallible. We have seen too that the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in Mysterium Ecclesiae, said the faithful must accept the teaching of the Pope and bishops 'with an assent that is proportionate to the authority that they possess and that they mean to exercise.'
Canon Law states the position in these plain words: 'While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the The Church 's Magisterium
College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by a definitive act (Canon 752).
'Isn't it a bit much,' some people will object, 'to be expected to believe what may not be true?' The Pope and the College of Bishops however, in making their decisions, are not left to their own resources, but are specially aided by the Holy Spirit The result is that when a firm decision is promulgated on a matter concerning faith or morals (even though the conditions for an infallible definition are lacking), there is such an overwhelming presumption in favor of its truth that confident assent to it is justified, although this falls short of the absolutely unconditional assent due to an infallible pronouncement.
Another statement calling for comment, and mentioned at the beginning of this article. is that God speaks to us in many ways including conscience, the Church, life experience, nature. This kind of remark seems to put the Church on the same level as other ways of arriving at the truth. In fact she is unique, for God preserves her from error.
This practice of downgrading the teaching Church leads on to the notion of a parallel magisterium comprised of theologians. But once we realize that the Pope and bishops comprise the Church's true Magisterium, for the Holy Spirit guides them in a way he does not guide anyone else, we see that theologians who classify themselves as part of a parallel magisterium are setting themselves up in opposition to the Holy Spirit.
The Magisterium is a wonderful gift from God. Faithfulness to it will preserve us from intellectual slavery to trendy theology, personal prejudices, secularism, and all the other forces that threaten to rob us of the truth.
Does that disqualify refering to Titus 3:2. I think anyone who reads it would say it only states that you can't have a twice married bishop. He can't be an alcoholic, that doesn't mean he can't drink the occasional glass to vino.
You forgot that iscool gets his history of the Catholic Church from Boetner. Therefore if you don't like it, just claim it must be a forgery or something to that extent.
What's your position on Dispensationalism?
What's your position on the Rapture?
What's your position on infant baptism?
What's your position on the Holy Eucharist?
What's your position on Free Will?
What's your position on Predestination?
I think you will find that numerous Protestant Christian "Churches" have numerous viewpoints on these issues. Which one is correct?
There's an ongoing thread right now that covers some of this stuff...Check it out...
LOL, cause the truth is undeniable. ROTFLMAO. I recommend not trusting Boettner for your Catholic History. Just a recommendation.
Now there you go again...It doesn't say you can't have a twice married bishop...It says you must be the husband of one wife...World of difference there...
And that is precisely why there are different Protestant denominations...You don't like what the scripture says, so you change it to suit your religion...
Never heard of Boetner...But thanks, I'll check 'em out...
So you claim your church has an unbroken line back to Peter...But your line didn't allow Timothy, or Titus, or John, James, Jude or even Paul the opportunity to be a pope...Some of the origingal apostles...
I'd say you got the wrong line...wouldn't you???
If Peter was the head of the church, surely he would have picked one of the available first line apostles to succeed him...Surely that makes sense, doesn't it???
How do you know Clement wasn't married, and had no children?
I've previously dealt with the silly exegesis that has St. Paul supposedly praising single celibacy in 1 Cor 7, and then prohibiting single celibates from being bishops or priests in 1 Tm -- as well as declaring Christ, St. John, and perhaps himself as well to be ineligible!
If St. Paul had wanted to prohibit the episcopacy to single celibates, he would simply have said "bishops must be married," not "husband of one wife". He is prohibiting those who have remarried, not those who are "eunuchs for the kingdom of God".
As you say, "context, context, context". Why don't you practice it?
Don't you find it odd that Clement was a pope in your religion but Timothy, a major bible figure was not???
I find it odd that you find that odd. Most "major bible figures" weren't Popes.
However, St. Clement is mentioned in Scripture, as is the second Pope, St. Linus.
St. Timothy was a bishop in the east, probably at Ephesus. Nothing wrong with that, he was a fine man and is a great saint. Tradition records that he was martyred for the faith around the year 97. St. Timothy, pray for us.
LOL.
The only apostle who would have been a legitimate candidate (alive, not too old, whereabouts known with some certainty) was St. John. He was not in Rome, but in Ephesus.
You're edging perilously close to a Mormon argument ... "the church fell apart when the last apostle died, and had to be restored in the 1840's by a God-anointed prophet from upstate New York".
Their is only one Bishop of Rome. Peter was followed by Linus who was followed by Anacletus who was followed by Clement who was followed by . . .
That is not to minimize in any way the work of St. Paul and St. Titus, St. Timothy or St. James or St. John or St. Matthew/Mark/Luke. (BTW, Timothy, Titus and Paul weren't original apostles, again, this is no way demeans their contributions to The Church).
The Pope does not pick their successor. The Pope is picked by the leaders of the Christian Community of Rome.
BTW, by your logic, St. Paul couldn't even be a Bishop.
My position is the bible's position...My position is Paul's position...
Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God;
Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
1Co 9:17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
Of course I'm a dispensationalist...The bible is dispensational...
What's your position on the dispensations???
What's your position on the Rapture?
My position is the bible position...And that of course is that at the fullness of times, when the dispensation of grace is complete, God will call out his espoused bride and bring her to the wedding...
What's your position on infant baptism?
There are two types of baptism...On is immersion in water, the other is immersion in the Holy Spirit...Obviously you can't baptize a baby in water, you'll drown him/her...And there's no need to baptize the baby into the Holy Spirit since where there is no knowledge of sin, there is no sin attributed...
What's your position on the Holy Eucharist?
And invention by your church to put a leash on it's members...
What's your position on Free Will?
We have the free will to accept salvation or reject it...We have the free will to follow God or follow Satan...
What's your position on Predestination?
God predestinated a Gentile church...And whosoever will come, come...
That is a really good point. If you argue that the Catholic Church went wrong early on, you must identify where the True Church resided. In the end you are right, you lean toward the Great Apostasy argument.
That's not what it says...
I find it odd that you find that odd. Most "major bible figures" weren't Popes
That's what I'm saying...Paul was THE apostle to the Gentile church...Your church...Why would Peter not pass the popeship to Paul??? And then Paul to Timothy???
However, St. Clement is mentioned in Scripture, as is the second Pope, St. Linus.
You don't know if it was the same Linus, or the same Clement...And there's no proof that Clement wrote his epistles...They could have been written by Origen and claimed to have been written by Clement...You're operating on faith, not proof...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.