CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholic Continuing Education > Teaching Series - dogmatic theology
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 21st March 2009, 03:38 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,630
Default Is the Magisterium always infallible?

this article addressed the question:
http://www.catholicplanet.com/CMA/he...allibility.htm

In brief, it is a heresy to believe that the Magisterium always teaches infallibly.
The First Vatican Council (FVC) taught the conditions under which the Pope teaches infallibly. Short of those conditions, he teaches non-infallibly. Those who claim that the Pope teaches infallibly always are denying the infallible teaching of the FVC.

Also, it is obvious that the Bishops in their teaching are not always in agreement. So if the Magisterium never errs, then how is it that the Bishops do not always agree in every teaching?

Some have attempted to solve this apparent problem by saying that the Bishops do not exercise the Magisterium, except perhaps only to repeat what the Pope has previously taught. This error is an additional heresy, since it deprives the Bishops of their Apostolic authority as teachers of the Faith.

The correct solution is that the Bishops exercise, individually, the ordinary non-infallible Magisterium (OM), and that their disagreements prove that the OM sometimes errs, to a limited extent.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 21st March 2009, 10:24 PM
VKallin VKallin is offline
supporting member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: North Port, Florida
Posts: 601
Default The impact on Private Revelations

This is a very important distinction. Thanks for this clarification. It seems to me that this point directly impacts private revelations everywhere. It is typically a Bishop who rules on these events, and we know that some Bishops have ruled in error on TPR's within their areas of responsibility.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 23rd March 2009, 12:14 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,630
Default

Examples of errors in the ordinary Magisterium:
(in my opinion)

1. Bishops who teach that, because abortion is intrinsically evil, we may never vote for a pro-abortion politician

2. some Bishops in the past may have taught Limbo as a third final destination; if so, then this would be an error. (Generally, I consider the idea of limbo as a final destination to be an erroneous opinion, not a teaching.)

3. the teaching of the CDF that there is no just way to save the lives of frozen embryos

4. the teaching in Veritatis Splendor giving a list of intrinsically evil acts (some examples in the list are actually not intrinsically evil).

5. the teaching that Christ will return only once, rather than twice.


Does anyone have any other examples?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 23rd March 2009, 02:40 PM
js1975 js1975 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Posts: 921
Default

How about:

1. I think this would be OM, that the USCCB Catechism teaches that it is a mortal sin to miss Sunday Mass. (I am assuming that the rest of the world do not teach this error)

2. There are a few Bishops who support Gay Marriage and Women Priests. The question here is whether the Bishop is truly in error or a form of heresy. (I think)

-jay
__________________
2cor 7:1 Therefore, having these promises, most beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 23rd March 2009, 03:06 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,630
Default

1. I think this would be OM, that the USCCB Catechism teaches that it is a mortal sin to miss Sunday Mass. (I am assuming that the rest of the world do not teach this error)

Quote:
2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. [119] Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.
If it were a mortal (grave) sin to miss Mass on occasion, then the pastor could not dispense from this obligation. Also, despite the wording 'serious reason', the examples given are not grave, but merely just. So the teaching here is somewhat contradictory.

Although the positive precept to worship God and keep holy the Sabbath is generally a grave obligation, whoever sins against a grave obligation to less than a grave extent does not commit a grave sin. For example, a husband's fidelity to his wife is a grave obligation. But if he offends against that grave obligation in a small way, such as by flirting with another woman, his sin is small, not grave.

A Catholic who regularly attends Mass, but who misses for no good reason (neither a just, nor a grave, reason), sins venially. A Catholic who chooses to no longer attend Mass (without a grave reason) sins gravely, since he has abandoned the worship of God on the Sabbath in accord with Catholic practice.

So, yes, this teaching (that it is a grave sin to miss Mass on occasion) would be an error in the ordinary Magisterium.

2. There are a few Bishops who support Gay Marriage and Women Priests. The question here is whether the Bishop is truly in error or a form of heresy. (I think)

This is an heretical teaching, and so it is not of the ordinary Magisterium.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 23rd March 2009, 03:25 PM
TheGiftOfLife
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Conte View Post
Examples of errors in the ordinary Magisterium:
(in my opinion)

1. Bishops who teach that, because abortion is intrinsically evil, we may never vote for a pro-abortion politician


Ron, I have questions about the above statement. Does this need to be qualified? For instance. the blanket statement above I agree with as being in error, but a more qualified statement I would not consider an error.

For example: Abortion is intrinsically evil, we may never vote for a pro-abortion politician if there exists a candidate that is anti-abortion. (or something to that affect)

In my opinion, the only acceptable reason to vote for a pro-abort would be the lesser of 2 evils. As Christ says, you cannot be for me and against me. Anyone supporting abortion other than the lesser of 2 evils situation is indirectly responsible for the act of abortion.

John
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 23rd March 2009, 03:47 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,630
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGiftOfLife View Post
In my opinion, the only acceptable reason to vote for a pro-abort would be the lesser of 2 evils. As Christ says, you cannot be for me and against me. Anyone supporting abortion other than the lesser of 2 evils situation is indirectly responsible for the act of abortion.

Your opinion is contrary to a correct understanding of Catholic teaching on ethics.

Voting for a person is not intrinsically evil, therefore the morality of the act depends on your intention and on the circumstances. It is contrary to Catholic teaching to claim that an act that is not intrinsically evil (not bad under the second font) is immoral regardless of intention or circumstance. And concerning the circumstances, "the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned" (VS) must be considered, not merely those circumstances that pertain to intrinsic evil.

Direct and voluntary abortion is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.
This is a true teaching and a required belief.

The claim that we must always vote for the politician who has the better (or less evil) position on abortion is a false teaching.

Any degree of support for direct abortion is immoral.

But voting for a particular person, as opposed to voting directly on an issue, can and should consider the totality of the foreseeable consequences of the vote. You are not voting on the issue. And if the office in question has little or no influence over the issue of abortion, then that candidate's position on that issue would have less weight.

The correct teaching is found in the USCCB document on voting. An incorrect teaching is found in certain public statements by certain Bishops.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 23rd March 2009, 06:20 PM
Jeanne D'Arc
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron-
Does Obama fall under the weight of being able to affect an outcome, ie, his ability to sign off on FOCA, for instance? And should this alone have kept practicing Catholics from giving him their votes?
Joan
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 23rd March 2009, 07:03 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,630
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeanne D'Arc View Post
Ron-
Does Obama fall under the weight of being able to affect an outcome, ie, his ability to sign off on FOCA, for instance? And should this alone have kept practicing Catholics from giving him their votes?
Joan
In the U.S., the President, Vice-President, and members of Congress have roles that give them influence over the issue of abortion, so their position and the effect of voting for them would have to be weighed more heavily than a position such as a local office that had little or no effect on the issue.

One must have a good intention (not intending to support or further abortion; but intending only good), and one must necessarily weigh the good and bad circumstances. In the case of voting for an individual, the circumstances would be the past voting record and past statements on an issue, the present statements and actions by the candidate, and the totality of the foreseeable consequences.

In the case of Obama, his stated position on abortion at the time of the election was rather extreme, and his ability to affect the issue was also very substantial (a President having more influence over this issue than a Rep or Senator). And the likelihood of the issue arising in politics in the near future is also substantial.

But consider another circumstance, such as the time of World War II, when a major war and the attempted genocide of the Jews were at hand, and when abortion was not much of a political issue (no major changes in law were imminent at the time, as far as I know). So then abortion would not be the deciding factor in voting.

In the future, if, as we all hope, abortion becomes broadly and firmly illegal (perhaps by constitutional amendment), and when a world war is imminent, the abortion issue might not be the most weighty issue. It depends on the circumstances.

If a Catholic voter, weighing the totality of the present circumstances, in elections where abortion is a major issue, chooses to vote exclusively for pro-life candidates, or to vote for whosoever has the best position on abortion, he does well.

But it cannot be truthfully said that abortion is the only deciding factor, in all elections, regardless of intention or all other circumstances. The teaching of the Church requires that the totality of the circumstances be considered in evaluating the third font of morality. No one circumstance inherently outweighs all others. Intrinsic evil is in the second font. There is no circumstance which makes the third font intrinsically evil. Rather the good must outweigh the bad.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 24th March 2009, 02:22 AM
Jeanne D'Arc
 
Posts: n/a
Default

That is certainly the clearest explanation I have seen yet. Thank you!
Joan
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.