Clear Ideas on the Ordinary Magisterium

[SemperFidelis]

Just thought there might be a few traditional Catholics out there that might want a good read on something so pertinent to the crisis of the last 50 years:

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/ordinary.htm
Clear Ideas on the Ordinary Magisterium:

This excellent article, which was originally printed in the January 2002 issue of the SI SI NO NO, masterfully addresses this crucial issue head-on.

Fr. Le Floch, superior of the French Seminary in Rome, announced in 1926:

"The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the Pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility."

One of his students was none other than the future, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

What worries Catholics most in the current crisis in the Church is precisely the “problem of the Pope.” We need very clear ideas on this question. We must avoid shipwreck to the right and to the left, either by the spirit of rebellion or, on the other hand, by an inappropriate and servile obedience. The serious error which is behind many current disasters is the belief that the “Authentic Magisterium” is nothing other than the “Ordinary Magisterium.”

The "Authentic Magisterium" cannot be so simply identified with the Ordinary Magisterium. In fact, the Ordinary Magisterium can be infallible and non-infallible, and it is only in this second case that it is called the "Authentic Magisterium." The Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique [hereafter referred to as DTC -Ed.] under the heading of "papal infallibility" (vol. VII, col. 1699ff) makes the following distinctions:

there is the “infallible or ex cathedra papal definition in the sense defined by Vatican I” (col.1699);

there is the “infallible papal teaching which flows from the pope’s Ordinary Magisterium” (col.1705);

there is “non-infallible papal teaching” (col.1709).

Similarly, Salaverri, in his Sacrae Theologiae Summa (vol. I, 5th ed., Madrid, B.A.C.) distinguishes the following:

Extraordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 592ff);

Ordinary Infallible Papal Magisterium (no. 645ff);

Papal Magisterium that is mere authenticum, that is, only “authentic” or “authorized” as regards the person himself, not as regards his infallibility (no.659ff).

While he always has full and supreme doctrinal authority, the pope does not always exercise it at its highest level that is at the level of infallibility. As the theologians say, he is like a giant who does not always use his full strength. What follows is this:

“It would be incorrect to say that the pope is infallible simply by possessing papal authority,” as we read in the Acts of Vatican I (Coll. L ac. 399b). This would be equivalent to saying that the pope’s authority and his infallibility are the same thing.

It is necessary to know “what degree of assent is due to the decrees of the sovereign pontiff when he is teaching at a level which is not that of infallibility, i.e., when he is not exercising the supreme degree of his doctrinal authority” (Salaverri, op.cit., no.659).

Error by Excess and/or By Defect

Unfortunately this three-fold distinction between the Extraordinary Magisterium, the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium, and the authentic non-infallible Magisterium, has fallen into oblivion. This has resulted in two opposite errors in the crisis situation of the Church at the present time: the error by excess of those who extend papal infallibility to all acts of the pope, without distinction; and the error by defect of those who restrict infallibility to definitions that have been uttered ex cathedra.

The error by excess actually eliminates the Ordinary Non-Infallible or "Authentic" Magisterium and inevitably leads either to Sedevacantism or to servile obedience. The attitude of the people of this second category is, "The pope is always infallible and so we always owe him blind obedience."

The error by defect eliminates the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. This is precisely the error of the neo-Modernists, who devalue the ordinary papal Magisterium and the "Roman tradition" which they find so inconvenient. They say, "The pope is infallible only in his Extraordinary Magisterium, so we can sweep away 2000 years of ordinary papal Magisterium." 

Both of these errors obscure the precise notion of the Ordinary Magisterium, which includes the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and the ordinary, "authentic," non-infallible Magisterium.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Clear Ideas on the Ordinary Magisterium:

Confusion and Controversy

These two opposing errors are not new. They were denounced even before Vatican II. In 1954, Fr. Labourdette, O.P., wrote:

"Many persons have retained very naive ideas about what they learned concerning the personal infallibility of the sovereign pontiff in the solemn and abnormal exercise of his power of teaching. For some, every word of the supreme pontiff will in some way partake of the value of an infallible teaching, requiring the absolute assent of theological faith; for others, acts which are not presented with the manifest conditions of a definition ex cathedra will seem to have no greater authority than that of any private teacher (Revue Thomiste LIV, 1954, p.196)!"

Dom Paul Nau has also written about the confusion that has arisen between the pope’s authority and his infallibility: 

By a strange reversal, while the personal infallibility of the pope in a solemn judgment, so long disputed, was definitely placed beyond all controversy, it is the Ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Church, which seems to have been lost sight of. 

It all happened -as is not unheard of elsewhere in the history of doctrine -as if the very brilliance of the Vatican I definition had cast into shadow the truth hitherto universally recognized; we might almost say, as if the definition of the infallibility of the solemn judgments made these henceforth the unique method by which the sovereign pontiff would put forward the rule of faith [Pope or Church?, Angelus Press, 1998, p.13].

On the temporary fading of a doctrine from Catholic consciousness, see the entry "dogme" in DTC (vol. IV).

Dom Nau also mentioned the disastrous consequences which flow from this identification of the pope’s authority and his infallibility: 

No place would be left, intermediate between such private acts and the solemn papal judgments, for a teaching which, while authentic, is not equally guaranteed throughout all its various expressions. If things are looked at from this angle, the very notion of the Ordinary Magisterium becomes, properly speaking, unthinkable [Pope or Church?, p.4].

Dom Nau considered from where this phenomenon had developed: 

Since 1870 [the year of Vatican I -Ed.], manuals of theology have taken the formulae in which their statements of doctrine have been framed from the actual wording of the Council text. None of these treated in its own right of the ordinary teaching of the pope, which has accordingly, little by little, slipped out of sight and all pontifical teaching has seemed to be reduced solely to solemn definitions ex cathedra. Once attention was entirely directed to these, it became customary to consider the doctrinal interventions of the Holy See solely from the standpoint of the solemn judgment, that of a judgment which ought in itself to bring to the doctrine all the necessary guarantees of certainty (ibid., p.13).

This is partly true, but we should not forget that liberal theology had already been advertising its reductive agenda. That is why Pius IX, even before Vatican I (1870) felt obliged to warn German theologians that divine faith’s submission "must not be restricted only to those points which have been defined" (Letter to Archbishop of Munich, Dec. 21, 1863).

The naive ideas entertained by many on the question of papal infallibility after Vatican I played into the hands of the liberal theology. In fact, while the two errors are diametrically opposed, they are at one in equating papal authority and papal infallibility. What is the difference between them? The error by excess, regarding as infallible everything that comes from papal authority, stretches the pope’s infallibility to the extent of his authority. The error by defect, considering only those things authorized that emanate from the ex cathedra infallibility, restricts papal authority to the scope of the infallibility of the pope’s Extraordinary Magisterium. Thus both errors have the same effect, namely, to obscure the very notion of the Ordinary Magisterium and, consequently, the particular nature of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. It is essential for us to rediscover this notion and its nature because they are of the greatest importance in helping us to get our bearings in the time of crisis.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Clear Ideas on the Ordinary Magisterium:

The Special Nature of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium

As we have seen, Cardinal Siri observes that the Humanae Vitae, even if it is not an act of the ex cathedra Magisterium, would still furnish the guarantee of infallibility, not "of itself," but insofar as it recapitulates "the ancient teaching and the habitual teaching of today" (Renovatio, op. cit.). In fact, in contrast to the Extraordinary Magisterium or the Solemn Judgment, the Ordinary Magisterium does not consist in an isolated proposition, pronouncing irrevocably on the Faith and containing its own guarantees of truth, but in a collection of acts which can concur in communicating a teaching.

This is the normal procedure by which Tradition, in the fullest sense of that term, is handed down;… (Pope or Church?, op. cit. p.10). 

This is precisely why the DTC speaks of "infallible papal teaching which flows from the pope’s Ordinary Magisterium" (loc. cit.). So, while a simple doctrinal presentation [by the pope] can never claim the infallibility of a definition, [this infallibility] nonetheless is rigorously implied when there is a convergence on the same subject in a series of documents whose continuity, in itself, excludes all possibility of doubt on the authentic content of the Roman teaching (Dom Nau, Une source doctrinale: Les encycliques, p.75).

If we fail to take account of this difference, we are obliterating all distinction between the Extraordinary Magisterium and the Ordinary Magisterium:

"No act of the Ordinary Magisterium as such, taken in isolation, could claim the prerogative which belongs to the supreme judgment. If it did so, it would cease to be the Ordinary Magisterium. An isolated act is infallible only if the supreme Judge engages his whole authority in it so that he cannot go back on it. Such an act cannot be ‘reversible’ without being plainly subject to error. But it is precisely this kind of act, against which there can be no appeal, which constitutes the Solemn [or Extraordinary] Judgment, and which thus differs from the Ordinary Magisterium" (ibid., note 1)."

It follows that the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, whether of the Universal Church or that of the See of Rome, is not that of a judgment, not that of an act to be considered in isolation, as if it could itself provide all the light necessary for it to be clearly seen. It is that of the guarantee bestowed on a doctrine by the simultaneous or continuous convergence of a plurality of affirmations or explanations, none of which could bring positive certitude if it were taken by itself alone. Certitude can be expected only from the whole complex, but all the parts concur in making up that whole (Pope or Church?, op. cit., p.18).

Dom Paul Nau explains further:

"In the case of the [Ordinary] universal Magisterium, this whole complex is that of the concordant teaching of the bishops in communion with Rome; in the case of the Ordinary pontifical Magisterium *, it is the continuity of teaching of the successors of Peter: in other words, it is the ‘tradition of the Church of Rome,’ to which Archbishop Gasser appealed at Vatican I (Collana Lacensis, col.404)."

About this subject, A.C. Martimort wrote: 

"Bossuet’s error consisted in rejecting the infallibility of the pope’s Extraordinary Magisterium; but he performed the signal service of affirming most clearly the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium [of the pope] and its specific nature, which means that every particular act bears the risk of error... To sum up: according to the Bishop of Meaux, what applies to the series of Roman popes over time is the same as what applies to the episcopal college dispersed across the world (Le Gallicanisme de Bossuet, Paris, 1953, p.558)."

In fact, we know that the bishops, individually, are not infallible. Yet the totality of bishops, throughout time and space, in their moral unanimity, do enjoy infallibility. So if one wishes to ascertain the Church’s infallible teaching one must not take the teaching of one particular bishop: it is necessary to look at the "common and continuous teaching" of the episcopate united to the pope, which "cannot deviate from the teaching of Jesus Christ" (E. Piacentini, O.F.M. Conv., Infaillible même dans les causes de canonisation? ENMI, Rome 1994, p.37).

The same thing applies to the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium of the Roman pope on his own: this Ordinary Magisterium is infallible not because each act is uttered by the pope, but because the particular teaching of which the pope’s act consists "is inserted into a totality and a continuity" (Dom P.Nau, Le encycliques, op. cit.), which is that of the "series of Roman popes over time" (Martimort, op. cit.).

We can understand why, in their Ordinary Magisterium, the Roman popes have always been careful to associate themselves with their "venerable predecessors," often quoting them at length. "The Church speaks by Our mouth," said Pope Pius XI in the Casti Connubii. Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, emphasized that "most of the time what is set forth and taught in the encyclicals is already, for other reasons, part of the patrimony of Catholic doctrine."

The very particular nature of the pope’s Ordinary Infallible Magisterium was quite clear until Vatican I. While this Council was in session, La Civiltà Cattolica, which published (and still publishes) under the direct control of the Holy See, replied in these words to Fr. Gratry, who had criticized Pope Paul IV’s Bull Cum ex Apostolus:

"We ask Fr. Gratry, in all serenity, whether he believes that the Bull of Paul IV is an isolated act, so to speak, or an act that is comparable to others of the same kind in the series of Roman popes. If he replies that it is an isolated act, his argument proves nothing, for he himself affirms that the Bull of Paul IV contains no dogmatic definition. If he replies, as he must, that this Bull is, in substance, conformable to countless other similar acts of the Holy See, his argument says far more than he would wish. In other words, he is saying that a long succession of Roman popes have made public and solemn acts of immorality and injustice against the principles of human reason, of impiety towards God, and of apostasy against the Gospel (vol. X, series VII, 1870, p.54)."

This means, in effect, that an "isolated act" of the pope is infallible only in the context of a "dogmatic definition"; outside dogmatic definitions, i.e., in the Ordinary Magisterium, infallibility is guaranteed by the complex of "countless other similar acts of the Holy See," or of a "long succession" of the successors of Peter.*

 

[SemperFidelis]

Clear Ideas on the Ordinary Magisterium:

Practical Application

Because it declared itself to be non-dogmatic, the charism of infallibility cannot be claimed for the last Council, except insofar as it was re-iterating traditional teaching. Moreover, what is offered as the Ordinary Pontifical Magisterium of the recent popes -apart from certain acts -cannot claim the qualification of the "Ordinary Infallible Magisterium." The pontifical documents on the novelties which have troubled and confused the consciences of the faithful manifest no concern whatsoever to adhere to the teaching of "venerable predecessors." They cannot adhere to them because they have broken with them. Look at the footnotes of Dominus Jesus; it’s as if the Magisterium of the preceding popes did not exist. It is clear that when today’s popes contradict the traditional Magisterium of yesterday’s popes, our obedience is due to yesterday’s popes: this is a manifest sign of a period of grave ecclesial crisis, of abnormal times in the life of the Church.

Finally, it is evident that the New Theology, which is so unscrupulous in contradicting the traditional teaching of the Roman Pontiffs, contradicts the Infallible Pontifical Magisterium; accordingly, a Catholic must in all conscience reject and actively attack it.

The Almost Total Eclipse of the “Authentic” Magisterium

The Church’s current crisis is not at the level of the Extraordinary or Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. This would be simply impossible. Furthermore, it is not at the level of the Extraordinary Infallible Magisterium because the Council did not wish to be a dogmatic one, and because Pope Paul VI himself indicated what theological "note" it carried: "Ordinary Magisterium; that is, it is clearly authentic" (General Audience of Dec. 1, 1966: Encycliques et discours de Paul VI, Ed. Paoline, 1966, pp.51, 52). Lastly, it is not at the level of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. The turmoil and division in the Catholic world have been provoked by a break with this doctrinal continuity. Such a break is the very opposite of the Ordinary Infallible Magisterium. Thus Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, or John Paul II’s intervention against women’s ordination in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis caused no dismay to the Church’s obedient sons. 

The present crisis is at the level of what is presented as the simply "authentic" Magisterium, which, as Cardinal Siri reminds us, "does not of itself imply infallibility" (Renovatio, op.cit.). But are we really dealing with the "authentic" Magisterium?

The author of Iota Unum [available from Angelus Press. Price: $24.95] wrote:

"Nowadays it is no longer the case that every word of the pope constitutes Magisterium. Now, very frequently, it is no more than the expression of views, ideas and considerations that are to be found disseminated throughout the Church,... and of doctrines that have spread and become dominant in much theology (Eglise et Contre-Église au Concile Vatican II, Second Theological Congress of SI SI NO NO, Jan. 1996)."

The Magisterium, however, even in its non-infallible form, should always be the teaching of the divine Word, even if uttered with a lesser degree of certitude. Nowadays, it is very often the case that "the Pope does not manifest the divine word entrusted to him," but rather "expresses his personal views" which are those of the New Theology. Here we are faced with a "manifestation of the decadence of the Church’s Ordinary ‘authentic’] Magisterium," a decadence which "is creating a very grave crisis for the Church, because it is the Church’s central point which is suffering from it" (ibid.).

Can one really speak of the "authentic" Pontifical Magisterium, or would it be more accurate to speak of an almost total eclipse of the Authentic Pontifical Magisterium in the face of an analogous crisis at the level of the episcopal Magisterium?

The Danger of Being Drawn into Error

Catholic are least prepared to meet the crisis of the Authentic Pontifical Magisterium because of the confusion in their minds regarding the distinction between the pope’s Ordinary Infallible Magisterium and his simply "authentic" Ordinary Magisterium. This problem was pointed out before Vatican II; it has caused and continues to cause Catholics to be drawn into error who wrongly believe that they should give equal assent to the pope’s every word, neglecting the distinctions and precise conditions which we now review.

"The command to believe firmly and without examination of the matter in hand... can be truly binding only if the authority concerned is infallible" (Billot, De Ecclesia, thesis XVII). That is why a firm and unconditional assent is demanded in the case of the Infallible Magisterium (whether Extraordinary or Ordinary).

As regards those non-infallible doctrinal decisions given by the pope or by the Roman congregations, there is a strict duty of obedience which obliges us to give an internal assent...that is prudent and habitually excludes all reasonable doubt, but this assent is legitimized [not by infallibility, but rather] by the high degree of prudence with which the ecclesiastical authority habitually acts in such circumstances" (entry "Église" in DTC, vol.IV, col.2209).

This is why we owe the "authentic" Magisterium not a blind and unconditional assent but a prudent and conditional one: 

Since not everything taught by the Ordinary Magisterium is infallible, we must ask what kind of assent we should give to its various decisions. The Christian is required to give the assent of faith to all the doctrinal and moral truths defined by the Church’s Magisterium. He is not required to give the same assent to teaching imparted by the sovereign pontiff that is not imposed on the whole Christian body as a dogma of faith. In this case it suffices to give that inner and religious assent which we give to legitimate ecclesiastical authority. This is not an absolute assent, because such decrees are not infallible, but only a prudential and conditional assent, since in questions of faith and morals there is a presumption in favor of one’s superior... Such prudential assent does not eliminate the possibility of submitting the doctrine to a further examination, if that seems required by the gravity of the question (Nicolas Jung, Le Magistère de l’Èglise, 1935, pp.153, 154).

These are just some of what I think constitute the most important parts. The rest can be found in the link above. Please discuss.

 

[Eucharisted]

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task “to preach the Gospel of God to all men,” in keeping with the Lord’s command.415 They are “heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers” of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

2033 The Magisterium of the Pastors of the Church in moral matters is ordinarily exercised in catechesis and preaching, with the help of the works of theologians and spiritual authors. Thus from generation to generation, under the aegis and vigilance of the pastors, the “deposit” of Christian moral teaching has been handed on, a deposit composed of a characteristic body of rules, commandments, and virtues proceeding from faith in Christ and animated by charity. Alongside the Creed and the Our Father, the basis for this catechesis has traditionally been the Decalogue which sets out the principles of moral life valid for all men.

2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice."76 The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.

2035 The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.77

2036 The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God.78

2051 The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task “to preach the Gospel of God to all men,” in keeping with the Lord’s command.415 They are “heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers” of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

2033 The Magisterium of the Pastors of the Church in moral matters is ordinarily exercised in catechesis and preaching, with the help of the works of theologians and spiritual authors. Thus from generation to generation, under the aegis and vigilance of the pastors, the “deposit” of Christian moral teaching has been handed on, a deposit composed of a characteristic body of rules, commandments, and virtues proceeding from faith in Christ and animated by charity. Alongside the Creed and the Our Father, the basis for this catechesis has traditionally been the Decalogue which sets out the principles of moral life valid for all men.

2034 The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice."76 The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.

2035 The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.77

2036 The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God.78

2051 The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed.

There is nothing in the new Catechism which contradicts what I posted above. What I posted just goes into more detail.

 

[diggerdomer]

These are just some of what I think constitute the most important parts. The rest can be found in the link above. Please discuss.

See Canon Law 747 ff vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

I’m not aware of any current (or recent) use of a distinct “authentic” Magisterium…do you know of any? seems like a term that was in vogue at some time or place but didn’t last.

 

[SemperFidelis]

See Canon Law 747 ff vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

I’m not aware of any current (or recent) use of a distinct “authentic” Magisterium…do you know of any? seems like a term that was in vogue at some time or place but didn’t last.

Scroll down to the part on the third level of Magisterial teaching:

brotherandre.stblogs.com/2007/11/10/the-three-levels-of-magisterial-teaching/

 

[diggerdomer]

Scroll down to the part on the third level of Magisterial teaching:

brotherandre.stblogs.com/2007/11/10/the-three-levels-of-magisterial-teaching/

Thanks. But still, that’s some person’s opinion. I didn’t see anywhere there that the Church used the phrase “authentic Magisterium” in contrast to the Ordinary or Extraordinary Magisterium. The Magisterium (as I understand, according to Church teaching) teaches either in the Ordinary way (e.g. individual Bishops, all Bishops in union with the Pope but not gathered in Council) or in Extraordinary form (e.g. Pope teaching ex Cathedra or Ecumenical Council).

Did I miss something in that reference you cited where the Church (Magisterium) uses the phrase “authentic Magisterium”?

 

[Just_Lurking]

See Canon Law 747 ff vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM

I’m not aware of any current (or recent) use of a distinct “authentic” Magisterium…do you know of any? seems like a term that was in vogue at some time or place but didn’t last.

Could you explain why you don’t think the use of the term “authentic magisterium” in canons 752 and 753 of the current canon law meets your criterion.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JustLurking,

Could you explain why you don’t think the use of the term “authentic magisterium” in canons 752 and 753 of the current canon law meets your criterion.

I don’t think brother Diggerdommer is claiming that “authentic magisterium” is not used. What he is contending is this supposed definition that “authentic magisterium” is somehow distinct from the Ordinary or Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church.

I agree with brother Diggerdommer. I think this distinction is used by certain Catholics to find a rationale for disobeying the Magisterium of the Church (“authentic” or otherwise). If that’s not the reason, then forgive the presumption, but it certainly can be the case.

Blessings

 

[Just_Lurking]

I don’t think brother Diggerdommer is claiming that “authentic magisterium” is not used. What he is contending is this supposed definition that “authentic magisterium” is somehow distinct from the Ordinary or Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church.

The authentic magisterium is just the ordinary, non-infallible magisterium. The term “authentic” is used to put a positive spin on the concept, as in authentic = authoritative and binding, as opposite to the term “non-infallible” (or worse yet, “fallible”), which has a negative sort of connotation. But they are just different terms for the same type of magisterium.

I guess I still don’t understand the question Diggerdommer is asking.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Just Lurking,

The authentic magisterium is just the ordinary, non-infallible magisterium.

For my view on the “non-infallible magisterium” see this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=378327&page=2 , beginning with post #20.

The term “authentic” is used to put a positive spin on the concept, as in authentic = authoritative and binding, as opposite to the term “non-infallible” (or worse yet, “fallible”), which has a negative sort of connotation. But they are just different terms for the same type of magisterium.

I guess I still don’t understand the question Diggerdommer is asking.

I think the three of us are actually in agreement on the matter.

Blessings

 

[diggerdomer]

Could you explain why you don’t think the use of the term “authentic magisterium” in canons 752 and 753 of the current canon law meets your criterion.

I interpret that “authentic” magisterium to mean, really, the magisterium. It’s not a third category of magisterium, it’s an adjective describing the magisterium that is like an “umbrella” term. It’s not distinguising between infallible or non-infallible teachings, it’s not distinguishing between the Ordinary or Extraordinary means of exercising the magisterium, it’s not distinguishing between definitive or non-definitive teachings…it’s embracing all those subsets of “magisterium.”

 

[diggerdomer]

The authentic magisterium is just the ordinary, non-infallible magisterium. The term “authentic” is used to put a positive spin on the concept, as in authentic = authoritative and binding, as opposite to the term “non-infallible” (or worse yet, “fallible”), which has a negative sort of connotation. But they are just different terms for the same type of magisterium.

I guess I still don’t understand the question Diggerdommer is asking.

I disagree that the authentic magisterium (as used by the Church) is only the non-infallbile exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium. That’s my question. The authentic magisterium means all exercises of the magisterium (as I read it) not only the Ordinary non-infallible exercise of it.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I disagree that the authentic magisterium (as used by the Church) is only the non-infallbile exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium. That’s my question. The authentic magisterium means all exercises of the magisterium (as I read it) not only the Ordinary non-infallible exercise of it.

Thanks for the explanation. Is it the term or the concept itself that you are having problems with? That is, do you agree that there are four distinct levels of magisterial teaching as described in canon law: (1) canon 750 §1, (2) canon 750 §2, (3) canon 752, and (4) canon 753; with (1) and (2) being infallible, and with (3) and (4) being non-infallible but nonetheless authoritative and binding?

 

[diggerdomer]

Thanks for the explanation. Is it the term or the concept itself that you are having problems with? That is, do you agree that there are four distinct levels of magisterial teaching as described in canon law: (1) canon 750 §1, (2) canon 750 §2, (3) canon 752, and (4) canon 753; with (1) and (2) being infallible, and with (3) and (4) being non-infallible but nonetheless authoritative and binding?

Maybe I am getting hung up on terms. Anyway, at the risk of hurting my brain more…here goes…

I read c. 750 as describing two distinct levels of magisterial teaching not in terms of how the magisterium teaches, but rather in the distinction of matters that must be believe/held (regardless of the precise way the magisterium chooses to teach them). We must believe everything in 750.1 because it’s considered divinely revealed (along with the other descriptive statements attendant to considering those matters as such). We must “accept and hold” (or embrace and retain) everything in 750.2 as well. The Church does not use “believe” there because 750.2 is talking about truths that are not themselves divinely revealed. Both 750.1 and 750.2 describe what Catholics must believe/hold/etc. i.e. rejecting those matters could lead to heresy, apostasy, or schism. In that sense, i.e. how we are to receive these matters, there’s no practical difference between them (again, in that sense). These matters may be taught by the Church with or without exercising the charism of infallibility.

I agree that 752 refers to matters that are not taught infallibly. But, again, such matters may be taught by an ecumenical council, or by the Pope, or by the Pope and bishops in union while dispersed throughout the world. SO, as I understand it, again this could be via the extraordinary magisterium (e.g. ecumenical council) or ordinary magisterium (e.g. Papal encyclical). Yes, these teachings are binding, but not in the same way as those in 750 are (that’s why, I think, 751 about heresy, apostasy, and schism follows 750). They are binding but do not require the “assent of faith” that matters in 750 do.

753, too, refers to matters that are not taught infallibly. It refers to matters that are not taught the way those in 750 and 752 are, i.e. not taught by the Pope and college of Bishops. Teachings of individual bishops, bishops’ conferences, local or regional synods of bishops, etc., fall here. All of this would, again as I understand it, be an exercise of the ordinary magisterium.

All teaching of the magisterium (Bishops) is “authentic” because of their office as pastors of the Church (e.g. because they represent Christ, they are teachers of the faith and rulers of the Church cf. canon 212.1, also canons 386 and 756.2).

Does this clarify or just muddy the waters more?

 

[Just_Lurking]

Does this clarify or just muddy the waters more?

A little of each!

I’ve also heard the teachings covered by canons 752 and 753 described as the “merely authentic magisterium” to address the fact that the teachings covered by canon 750 §1 and §2 could hardly be called “inauthentic”.

It’s a little like calling a Senator a Congressman (or Congresswoman). It’s not so much incorrect as it is inapt, because the Senate is the upper body of Congress, so using the less prestigious term just isn’t done.

These matters may be taught by the Church with or without exercising the charism of infallibility.

My understanding is that the teachings covered by canon 750 §1 in particular, but also canon 750 §2, must necessarily be taught infallibly. But I think this is a side issue to the main purpose of this thread.

 

[diggerdomer]

I’ve also heard the teachings covered by canons 752 and 753 described as the “merely authentic magisterium” to address the fact that the teachings covered by canon 750 §1 and §2 could hardly be called “inauthentic”.

I’ve never heard that. I would question what someone presenting it that way means. Have you heard this from some authoritative teaching of the Magisterium, or some other opinion? Meaning, the word “merely.” As I said, my understanding is that all teaching of the Magisterium (the teachings described by 750, 752, and 753) are authentic. I don’t see where the Church says otherwise. As I read 752 and 753, they too are matters that the Magisterium teaches authentically.

My understanding is that the teachings covered by canon 750 §1 in particular, but also canon 750 §2, must necessarily be taught infallibly. .

Nope, does not need to be taught infallibly.

 

[Just_Lurking]

I’ve never heard that. I would question what someone presenting it that way means. Have you heard this from some authoritative teaching of the Magisterium, or some other opinion? Meaning, the word “merely.”

Just random people. Here is a Google search for “merely authentic magisterium”.

Nope, does not need to be taught infallibly.

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.