CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholicism > Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 27th July 2006, 12:49 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default Ordinary Magisterium vs Ordinary and Universal Magisterium

many Catholics confuse the two terms:
Ordinary Magisterium
and
Ordinary and Universal Magisterium

The first term refers to the Magisterium whenever it is exercised non-infallibly. The Pope, Ecumenical Councils, Bishops Conferences, and individual Bishops are all capable of teaching non-infallibly under the Magisterium

the second term refers to a particular means of exercising the infallible Sacred Magisterium. This use of infallibility is not dependent upon any particular written defintion or document. There may be numerous documents at various levels, as well as the oral teaching and example of many Bishops. Each individual expression of a particular teaching may fall under the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium. But after a time, when successive Popes and successive generations of Bishops in union with the Pope have always and everywhere taught a particular doctrine, it eventually becomes clear that the doctrine is a teaching of the Sacred infallible Magisterium. So a teaching which began to be taught under the Ordinary Magisterium, reaches a point where it is taught under the infallible Sacred Magisterium by virtue of having been taught universally throughout the Church in place and time.

So the teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium are fallible,
but the teachings of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium are infallible.
It is the fact that the teaching was taught Universally by the Church which causes it to fall under the infallible Magisterium, even though each particular expression of that teaching by itself would fall under the Ordinary Magisterium.


Ron
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 27th July 2006, 07:40 AM
VeiledProphetess
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Might an example of this be the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption? I understand those were believed for centuries before being "officially" pronounced upon by the Pope.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 27th July 2006, 12:04 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

It's hard to say which teachings fall under the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium because there is no official infallible definition or canon. But in my opinion, yes, both of those doctrines were taught under the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium prior to their definition by the Popes.


Ron
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 28th July 2006, 12:32 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium (OUM) is one of the ways that the Magisterium can teach infallibly. This way differs significantly from other modes of infallible teaching, such as papal infallibility or the canons of an Ecumenical Council, in that the infallibility of a teaching under the OUM does not depend upon any one particular document or definition. Rather, the basis for infallibility is the fact that a teaching has been consistently and widely taught in the Church, by the Bishops and by successive Popes. This means that the Church can teach infallibly even without an infallible papal definition or a conciliar decree. However, it is often difficult to determine whether a teaching falls under the OUM.

The Ordinary Magisterium (OM) is different than the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. The OM is exercised whenever the Magisterium teaches non-infallibly. Each individual Bishop can exercise the Magisterium non-infallibly; no individual Bishop, apart from the other Bishops and the Pope, can teach infallibly. The Pope himself exercises the non-infallible OM more often than he exercises papal infallibility. Papal teachings in papal documents generally fall under the OM.

The OUM is called 'Ordinary' because these infallible teachings generally have their beginning as non-infallible teachings under the OM. When they have been taught universally, that is, widely enough and for long enough by the Bishops and by successive Popes, then these teachings fall under the infallible OUM.

It is not always clear which teachings fall under the OM and which under the OUM. Many people confuse the OUM with the OM, and this is easy to do because they are closely related.
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 29th July 2006, 12:12 AM
VeiledProphetess
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron,

Thanks for presenting this--helpful to those of us not raised Catholic.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 31st July 2006, 08:16 PM
Catholicity
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Wow, Ron, that is a very complex system. I believe it is too complex. Where in the early Fathers was any equivalent of this teaching taught? As I understand it, the early Church taught that Christ entrusted Holy Tradition to the Church (the primary part of this Tradition being Holy Scripture, itself), and gave all the bishops equal power to teach this Holy Tradition. However, all people through their baptism and chrismation(confirmation) were to teach and maintain the Faith, in union with their bishop. The possibility was always open that any bishop could err in maintaining the truth, along with apostasy by any lay person, with the knowledge that the Church, herself, was indefectible. Centralized infallibility was reserved for Ecumenical Councils which were convened when the unwritten Tradition became assaulted and needed clarification. This is the teaching of the Orthodox Church today. I think it is more apostolic than the above teachings on the "Ordinary" and "Extraordinary" Magisteriums.

Adam
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 31st July 2006, 11:35 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,592
Default

Are you Orthodox?

my post on the Ordinary Magisterium and the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is not speculative theology, it is dogmatic theology.

The Church progresses in knowledge and understanding of the Faith as the centuries pass. Therefore, it is not correct to say that we must only believe what the Fathers of the Church believed, or that we must only do what the people of the early Church did.


Ron
__________________
Ron Conte
Roman Catholic theologian
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 1st August 2006, 12:02 AM
Catholicity
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Are you Orthodox?"

I'm an inquirer into the Orthodox Church.

"My post on the Ordinary Magisterium and the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium is not speculative theology, it is dogmatic theology."

I understand this.

"The Church progresses in knowledge and understanding of the Faith as the centuries pass. Therefore, it is not correct to say that we must only believe what the Fathers of the Church believed, or that we must only do what the people of the early Church did."

Yes, this is the Roman Catholic theory of doctrinal development. However, I believe it to be incorrect and the source of many, if not all, the doctrinal/disciplinary problems that your Church is currently going through. If the Faith is constantly growing then how can the claim that Roman Catholicism is the early Church, be taken seriously? It cannot be and that title would have to be left to Holy Orthodoxy.

Also, if we aren't held bound by the beliefs of the early Fathers, what stops us from embracing an "evolutionary Christianity"? Nothing would, because if the Faith is still growing then maybe women's ordination could be a dogma one day, as could universal salvation and many more teachings deemed heretical at the present moment. And if we aren't held bound by what the early Church did then what defense have we got against such spectacles as "Clown Masses", "Female Eucharistic Ministers" and all kinds of liturgical and disciplinary irreverence and banality? We have none, because the past cannot be considered a model for how we practice the Faith now (at least according to the doctrinal development theory). And, moreover, is it not the theory of doctrinal development with its adjacent disrespect for the past as incomplete, that has led to heretical demands and disciplinary aberrations in the current Roman Church, in the first place? I cannot see how one could say otherwise.

Don't forget, Ron, that the one Church left that has maintained liturgical reverence, disciplinary soberness, and solid priests and monastics is the same Church that refuses to improve upon the general beliefs and practices of the early Fathers - the Orthodox Church. Could it be that Orthodoxy is still standing strong because it is operating on a more correct paradigm than Roman Catholicism? The Savior did say that you know a tree by its fruits, and I think the same can be said of theology.

Adam
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 1st August 2006, 12:52 AM
Catholicity
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You mention in some of your articles that the Orthodox Church will repent of its sins (presumably heresies and schism) and be reconciled to the Roman Catholic Church in the early 2020s. I find this to be an incredible claim. What must we repent of? We will repent of refusing to alter our Faith, to water-down our liturgical/fasting/general disciplinary traditions, to go on Crusades to kill infidels, repent for refusing to convene disastrous Ecumenical Councils, repent for not having a Pope to change our Faith and its expressions for us? Albeit, this is hyperbole, but the question remains valid. What will the Orthodox repent of in the doctrinal arena? It appears like we will have to repent for being what Roman Catholicism once was, and must become again, for it to get out of its current quagmire. We would have to repent for retaining a paradigm that makes us the only Christian Church really able to engage militant Islam and modernity with solid priests, monastic, and laity, in the tradition of the Fathers who established Christian faith and worship in the first millennium.

Adam

P.S. Thanks Ron for letting me post on your forum without threats of banning. I just need to get these thoughts out into the open.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 1st August 2006, 01:25 AM
DiAZ216
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Catholicity wrote,
Quote:
However, I believe it to be incorrect and the source of many, if not all, the doctrinal/disciplinary problems that your Church is currently going through.

Adam, personally, I don't believe the problems in the Catholic Church right now are doctrinal. I believe the problem is one of disobedience resulting from a spirit of secular humanism and relativism that has infected the people, at many levels, in the Church.

Peace be with you,
darrell
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 01:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.