Do you agree with everything in the Magisterium?

  • Thread starter Thread starter alphonsus1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
alphonsus1 said:
If you throw out Jesus giving Peter the authority to teach on Faith and morals, and the Magisterium, then you throw out the entire logical reason to be Catholic in the first place and not something else.
Click to expand...
The reason to be Catholic is to love and serve Christ and to be happy with him.
alphonsus1 said:
GIVEN you know something is part of the infallible Magisterium, would you ever voluntarily and deliberately doubt its Truth? (That is the very definition of heresy in the Cathechism).
Click to expand...
You left out “obstinate.”
 
The definition does not matter immensely.

It matters immensely to whether you must assent to an individual teaching, but not to the question I was intending to ask.

I was intending to ask: given you knew it was part of the infallible/ non-infallible Magisterium, would you assent. And you said yes to the infallible Magisterium, which is good!
 
Last edited:
It does though. Here.
The magesterium (non infallible)
Can we agree that the Pope teaches?
Can we agree he leads?
So, is what the Pope teaches the magesterium? Non infallible?
 
Last edited:
alphonsus1 said:
I was intending to ask: given you knew it was part of the infallible/ non-infallible Magisterium, would you assent. And you said yes to the infallible Magisterium, which is good!
Click to expand...
Gee thanks. I’m glad you approve.
 
I can give you a definition from the Church, and we can go into detail about specific teachings, but that would derail the thread. That was not my question I was intending to ask.

The point is, the Church has a Magisterium, with teachings that can be categorized has infallible or non-infallible. It claims the infallible teachings have no chance of error. Do you agree with that? That is what I’m asking, about the concept of an infallible Magisterium, and whether if you knew with certainty a teaching was part of the infallible Magisterium, would you assent? I should have worded my question better!

Some people say no, they still would not assent. They often proudly say that they would still not agree.
 
Last edited:
alphonsus1 said:
Do you agree with every issue of Faith and Morals in the infallible Magisterium?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I believe all the teachings of the Catholic Church, with due regard to the level of authority with which the teachings are promulgated.
 
No, the fact that Jesus is God, is an argument for Christianity, not an argument for being Catholic over Eastern Orthodox.

The Orthodox could say exactly the same thing that you are saying! So your rebuttal provides no justification for picking a particular Christian denomination to be a part of.

Finally, I corrected my post to include obstinate. The “obstinate” is to distinguish between formal and material heresy. Someone may believe something that is materially heretical, but be misled and ignorant. It is also possible they do not have enough knowledge of the object to commit an act on the objective level.

But whether you are guilty of material or formal heresy is to be judged by God.
 
Last edited:
You tell me which is which? I cant tell you I agree with a non infallible magisterial teaching if you wont define what that is.
Can you please offer how you would answer your own question. Do you agree with everything in non infallible and infallible magesterium teaching?
 
What is the parameter of a non infallible teaching? That doesn’t derail anything it allows someone to answer your question.
 
Last edited:
neophyte said:
40.png
alphonsus1:
Do you agree with every issue of Faith and Morals in the infallible Magisterium?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I believe all the teachings of the Catholic Church, with due regard to the level of authority with which the teachings are promulgated.
Click to expand...
What levels of authority are those?
 
Two separate issues.

The normal Magisterium: Yes. That is the sacred deposit of faith - revealed truth.

The rest is always excellent advice and good to follow, but, like private revelations, is not binding on the faithful.
 
Last edited:
Whilst I do not agree with everything in the magesteriusm I try to obey everything in it to the best of my ability, this can sometimes be difficult as a Catholic I am learning new things I can and can’t and shouldn’t do every day
 
Fine, I’ll give some broad definition, but I do not want this thread to go rigorously into the nuances.

The Magisterium is the Church’s teaching authority vested with the Pope and Body of Bishops. For a teaching to be incorporated into the Magisterium, it must be declared and defined as an issue of Faith and Morals in documents that have the capacity to be authoritative (papal bulls, encyclicals, apostolic exhortions, etc).

The infallible Magisterium are those subset of the teachings that have no possibility of error. They are declared as solemn definitions of Faith and Morals at ecumenical councils, when the Pope speaks and invokes the extraordinary Magisterium (ex cathedra), or with other Ordinary teachings. These ordinary teachings are either part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, which require the participation of the Pope and Body of Bishops dispersed throughout the world, or part of the Pope’s ordinary teachings that are also definitive and irreformible.

It is way more nuanced than that. But I do not want this thread to be about the nuances of infallibility.
 
Last edited:
You’ll not be alone @FOG. Today our priest said doubt is not sin, doubt leads to questioning and searching for the answer. Thomas “doubted” because he wasn’t there to experience the risen Christ with the other disciples. Christ revealed himself to them, and then to Thomas.
 
Last edited:
Ok, I think we’d all agree that we believe that which has been declared infallible. How do you define the “non-infallible magisterium?”
 
Dlee said:
Today our priest said doubt is not sin, doubt leads to questioning and searching for the answer. Thomas “doubted” because he wasn’t there to experience the risen Christ with the other disciples. Christ revealed himself to them, and then to Thomas.
Click to expand...
Yes, the same point made by my previous Pastor.
 
alphonsus1 said:
The Orthodox could say exactly the same thing that you are saying!
Click to expand...
They could, if being with Christ is the point of belonging. And it is! That does not make it any less of a reason to be Catholic. In fact, this is almost the definition of the Church, which is more extensive than the visible Catholic Church. (Though the Church only subsists in the visible CC)

In any event, the answer I gave was based on the answer to Why did God make you? in the Baltimore Catechism. It is why each of us is alive, and why some of us belong to the Church. I do not know what logic there is to other answers, but my reason for being Catholic is the same as my reason for living.
If I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.
1 Cor 13:2
Click to expand...
 
  • I´m skeptical towards papal infallibilty, but I accept it under the right circumstances.
  • I think we as Catholics always should recieve the Eucharist both as the blood and the body. Because Jesus says we are to consume both.
 
Yes, there can be many reasons for being Catholic, Orthodox, and Christian, but for one Christian denomination to be True over another requries having a reason why that one is the fullness of Truth. That is the entire logical reason for being Catholic and not just Christian, or Eastern Orthodox.

That is Papal infallibility.
 
Last edited:
alphonsus1 said:
Fine, I’ll give some broad definition, but I do not want this thread to go rigorously into the nuances.

The Magisterium is the Church’s teaching authority vested with the Pope and Body of Bishops. For a teaching to be incorporated into the Magisterium, it must be declared and defined as an issue of Faith and Morals in documents that have the capacity to be authoritative (papal bulls, encyclicals, apostolic exhortions, etc).

The infallible Magisterium are those subset of the teachings that have no possibility of error. They are declared as solemn definitions of Faith and Morals at ecumenical councils, when the Pope speaks and invokes the extraordinary Magisterium (ex cathedra), or with other Ordinary teachings. These ordinary teachings are either part of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, which require the participation of the Pope and Body of Bishops dispersed throughout the world, or part of the Pope’s ordinary teachings that are also definitive and irreformible.

It is way more nuanced than that. But I do not want this thread to be about the nuances of infallibility.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that starting point. I think the non infallible magesterium is when the Church or Pope teaches on faith and morals. With technology the modern world has different ways of communicating and many if not all people can read or hear what the pope has to say in real time. So, when the pope teaches on a subject it is a situation the Church has never dealt with before. 200 years ago I could go through my whole life as a Catholic and not once every hear or see what a pope thought about the american revolution or the issues facing Catholic South America. Or what the Church dictated in holland. But now, today, we have the ability to not only know what this pope thinks about any subject he chooses to speak about but we have access to 2000 years of popes and councils on our phones in our pockets every where we go! So, my answer is too nuanced. I will confine my example to the current pope. He has taught morally and theologically to the Masses. One thing I would disagree on is say, his statement that a couple could use condoms in the case of Zika areas. But I don’t live in those areas so I may not agree but I need not deal with it personally. Or his statements on the death penalty. I find it inconsistent with historical theology so I disagree, but I’m not on a death penalty jury. (Actually after the pope’s statements the government should bar all Catholics from hearing a death penalty case.)

So there are indeed things that one may disagree with but we should give them very high weight. Higher weight than our political opinion. We should also obey when possible even if we disagree or do not understand. But there are cases where one could disobey and still be faithful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top