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.
Then why's there a vote among the cardinals??? Does the Holy Spirit lead some cardinals to vote against the pope???
YOU: What's your position on Predestination?
God predestinated a Gentile church...And whosoever will come, come...
Me: So Calvinists are wrong? And on a second note, apparently Jews have no place in the Church (that would certainly be news to the first Christians).
YOU: 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...
Me: No Argument here, except you minimize the importance of Christ's Grace in enabling us to choose to follow God.
YOU: What's your position on the Holy Eucharist?
And invention by your church to put a leash on it's members...
Me: Hmm, so Jesus invented it I guess. I recommend reading John 6:22-59 and the Last Supper dialogues.
YOU: 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...
Me: In the Bible a number of occasions result in entire households being baptized, it would be logical that infants were in the household, thoughts?
YOU: 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...
Me: LOL, very tricky there. Is it pre-trib or post-trib or somewhere in between? Or are a lot of Protestant groups wrong as you build your own little Church of Iscool?
YOU: What's your position on Dispensationalism?
My position is the bible's position...My position is Paul's position...
Me: It's a very entertaining response, but ultimately allows a heck of a lot of wiggle room. Cause two people can apparently read the same scripture and come to different conclusions. How do you explain that?
Umm, its called dating. The Letters of St. Clement were written long before Origen lived. I realize chronology of the early Church can be tricky, but you've just confused someone from the first century with someone from the third. And seeing how St. Clements' letters existed before Origen lived, I don't think Origen could have forged them. LOL. Very entertaining understanding of time you have.
One difference is I never suggested the church fell apart...
The only apostle who would have been a legitimate candidate (alive, not too old, whereabouts known with some certainty)
Apparently 80 isn't too old for you guys...And Paul was right there in Rome when Peter died...
So where was the Church until Luther? Are you rehasing the tired old argument that an underground Church of true believers existed that was hunted and persecuted by the Catholic Church. That Cathars, Lollards, Hussites and then Protestants are visible examples of that Church?
"Simon Bar-Jonah" never set foot in Rome. You got the wrong Simon....again.
That tired old Boettner lie again. Hmm, won't seem to die no matter how many times it is refuted.
Heads up, action heating up. You know who is at it again.
You're right, you didn't "suggest" it. You said it categorically, and have said it multiple times.
Don't you begin to see how incomprehensible it is that you're proposing that the church apostatized under a man who (a) was selected by the Roman church to be bishop; (b) knew the Apostles, or at least Peter and Paul, personally; (c) wrote an epistle that was treated as Scripture by a significant number of Christian believers for the next couple of centuries; and (d) died as a martyr for the faith ... while the possibility that you, Iscool, not Clement, might be the one who's really apostate never enters into your head?
And Paul was right there in Rome when Peter died...
There's no definitive proof that Paul's head was still connected to his shoulders by then, as far as I know. In fact, I can show you a couple of Bible verses which seem to indicate it probably wasn't.
But, But . . .
Great response.
The Martyrs are some of the greatest witnesses for the truth of the Faith.
bookmark
The clue is to look for the whereabouts of Mark.
So....why don't you attempt a refute....and we'll let everyone see your silly arguments demolished again. You go ahead and use all your tradition you want......so will I, except I'll back mine up with scripture.....something you will be unable to do.
But, my good friends.......I must leave for a few hours. I will see.....and talk to you later.
Don't bet on it.
Wait, so the Bible says Peter wasn't in Rome. Verse please?
I suppose you didn't hear about the crucified skeleton found beneath the Altar of St. Peter's? Or was that a vile forgery of the Roman Church?
"You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and what you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" -- Sounds like Peter is the Vicar.
I didn't know you were going to be so nit-picky...Of course it's not a church of just Gentiles...It's for anyone...
Me: In the Bible a number of occasions result in entire households being baptized, it would be logical that infants were in the household, thoughts?
Could have been lucky and found no families with little babies but I suspect it's more likely that Jesus and the apostles followed what had been preached and when a person came forward to repent of sin, or call on the name of the Lord, little babies were not required because they couldn't, and they had no knowledge of sin anyway...
Me: LOL, very tricky there. Is it pre-trib or post-trib or somewhere in between? Or are a lot of Protestant groups wrong as you build your own little Church of Iscool?
If you think I'm building my own little church, you don't get out much...
Me: It's a very entertaining response, but ultimately allows a heck of a lot of wiggle room. Cause two people can apparently read the same scripture and come to different conclusions. How do you explain that?
I guess that's cause some folks read the gospels that were written to Jews (salvation is of the Jews) and try to combine them with the scripture that was written to the Gentile church (Paul's epistles)...Paul says you must rightly divide the word of truth...Not combine it all together...
It's only a tired old argument if you are a Catholic that followed Linus and Clement instead of Paul and Timothy...
So one person's truth isn't for another? That is a little dangerous and definitely the slippery slope. By the way, I am still interested in your response to John 6.
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.