Ecclesiastical Dogma?

[Thoughtfulone]

heresy!!

Thistle, here is an interesting read that might help you understand where I’m coming from:

"Concerning the extent of fallibility in the ordinary teachings of the Magisterium, it is not correct to try to extend the concept of ‘the truths necessary for salvation’ so that all the teachings of the Magisterium would be essential to salvation, and so that no teachings of the Magisterium would contain any error of any significance. There is a real possibility of errors on matters of faith and morals within the teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium. Those who attempt, in many various ways, to conclude that the ordinary teachings of the Magisterium are entirely without error, have gone astray from the true Catholic Faith, which teaches that only infallible teachings have the charism of certain truth, and that non-infallible teachings, while reliable as a guide to salvation, are not completely without the possibility of error.

A theologian has limited freedom to disagree with the non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium, because these teachings have a limited fallibility. But since these teachings cannot err to such an extent that they would lead anyone away from the path of salvation, a theologian can only disagree to that same extent. He cannot claim that an ordinary teaching contains an error that would lead anyone away from salvation. And his dissent must be based on a teaching of Tradition or Scripture, or on a more authoritative teaching of the Magisterium proper. Also, his dissent must include sacred assent to all infallible teachings and ordinary assent to the ordinary teachings of the Magisterium in general. Whoever dissents from all or most ordinary teachings of the Magisterium does not trust the Holy Spirit to guide the faithful to salvation. Thus a theologian can dissent from an ordinary teaching, but only if the point of dissent is not essential to salvation.

A theologian is free to seek new insights into Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium, including truths which are only implicit and have never before been taught explicitly by the Magisterium. The idea that theologians must only teach and defend what the Magisterium teaches, and that they must never seek the truth directly from Tradition and Scripture, is a heresy against the true Catholic Faith. In fact, all the faithful are required by the moral law to continually seek the truth on matters of faith and morals; to refuse to do so is a mortal sin of omission. If anyone says that speculative theology is only the domain of the Bishops, or only of theologians, he sins against the Holy Spirit, who gives the gift of fruitfulness in the search for truth to all the faithful."

catholicplanet.com/TSM/general-magisterium.htm

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Thistle, here is an interesting read that might help you understand where I’m coming from:

"Concerning the extent of fallibility in the ordinary teachings of the Magisterium, it is not correct to try to extend the concept of ‘the truths necessary for salvation’ so that all the teachings of the Magisterium would be essential to salvation, and so that no teachings of the Magisterium would contain any error of any significance. There is a real possibility of errors on matters of faith and morals within the teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium. Those who attempt, in many various ways, to conclude that the ordinary teachings of the Magisterium are entirely without error, have gone astray from the true Catholic Faith, which teaches that only infallible teachings have the charism of certain truth, and that non-infallible teachings, while reliable as a guide to salvation, are not completely without the possibility of error.

A theologian has limited freedom to disagree with the non-infallible teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium, because these teachings have a limited fallibility. But since these teachings cannot err to such an extent that they would lead anyone away from the path of salvation, a theologian can only disagree to that same extent. He cannot claim that an ordinary teaching contains an error that would lead anyone away from salvation. And his dissent must be based on a teaching of Tradition or Scripture, or on a more authoritative teaching of the Magisterium proper. Also, his dissent must include sacred assent to all infallible teachings and ordinary assent to the ordinary teachings of the Magisterium in general. Whoever dissents from all or most ordinary teachings of the Magisterium does not trust the Holy Spirit to guide the faithful to salvation. Thus a theologian can dissent from an ordinary teaching, but only if the point of dissent is not essential to salvation.

A theologian is free to seek new insights into Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium, including truths which are only implicit and have never before been taught explicitly by the Magisterium. The idea that theologians must only teach and defend what the Magisterium teaches, and that they must never seek the truth directly from Tradition and Scripture, is a heresy against the true Catholic Faith. In fact, all the faithful are required by the moral law to continually seek the truth on matters of faith and morals; to refuse to do so is a mortal sin of omission. If anyone says that speculative theology is only the domain of the Bishops, or only of theologians, he sins against the Holy Spirit, who gives the gift of fruitfulness in the search for truth to all the faithful."

catholicplanet.com/TSM/general-magisterium.htm

Ah! That’s a relief. Er, that this is spelled out that is . Excellent research! Is the issue of autoeroticism dealt with in the ordinary, then?

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Ah! That’s a relief. Er, that this is spelled out that is . Excellent research! Is the issue of autoeroticism dealt with in the ordinary, then?

Haha, thanks Well, that’s where it gets interesting. Yes, I believe so, and so is the teaching on contraception, actually. There are those who say that because contraception has been taught and believed by the bishops pretty much universally (a condition for infallibility of the ordinary magisterium) for so long that it is an infallible teaching, but I also disagree with that premise as well. Just before Humanae Vitae came out, the then Pope actually gathered a panel of theologians, scientists and bishops and basically asked them to come up with a way for them to change the Church teaching on contraception without putting the authority of the Church in question. Almost everyone there (even most of the bishops) voted to change the Church’s position after 2.5 years of study and debate, but the Pope still feared for the authority of the Church, so he went against the entire panel and kept the teaching “as-is”. This hardly constitutes a consensus against contraception does it? Also, I believe that part of the reason there was (if in fact, there ever really was) consensus on this issue was based on the false notion that sperm alone contained the totality of human life and that “spilling one’s seed” was basically tantamount to murder. We now know this to be untrue. So I would argue that this issue has not been infallibly taught. Just my 2 cents though

 

[davidv]

Haha, thanks Well, that’s where it gets interesting. Yes, I believe so, and so is the teaching on contraception, actually. There are those who say that because contraception has been taught and believed by the bishops pretty much universally (a condition for infallibility of the ordinary magisterium) for so long that it is an infallible teaching, but I also disagree with that premise as well. Just before Humanae Vitae came out, the then Pope actually gathered a panel of theologians, scientists and bishops and basically asked them to come up with a way for them to change the Church teaching on contraception without putting the authority of the Church in question. Almost everyone there (even most of the bishops) voted to change the Church’s position after 2.5 years of study and debate, but the Pope still feared for the authority of the Church, so he went against the entire panel and kept the teaching “as-is”. This hardly constitutes a consensus against contraception does it? Also, I believe that part of the reason there was (if in fact, there ever really was) consensus on this issue was based on the false notion that sperm alone contained the totality of human life and that “spilling one’s seed” was basically tantamount to murder. We now know this to be untrue. So I would argue that this issue has not been infallibly taught. Just my 2 cents though

Since this panel of “experts” was not the Magisterium, you claim of lack of consensus is not very strong.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Since this panel of “experts” was not the Magisterium, you claim of lack of consensus is not very strong.

The consensus does not have to be a consensus of the magisterium, but of Catholic bishops, not even down to the last man, but in general. There was definitely no consensus just before Humanae Vitae came out, and I would submit that the previous consensus (if indeed, there ever was one) was based upon false information and bad science re: how babies are made, making it flawed from the outset.

 

[TBurgess]

Is this how we are ending this conversation? Not good. Anybody ever heard of “The Theology of the Body”? It explains well why HV was right. It’s a little bit too intellectual for me but a # of authors bring it down to my level. Christopher West is the one who helped me understand it and it has completely changed my life. We all have that God sized hole in our hearts that only God can fill. Pope St.John Paul the Great shows us how God reveals himself most profoundly through our sexuality rightly understood. To me the fact that the CC keeps getting it right with the most unpopular kinds of things like this, is proof of it’s being infallible in matters of morals and faith.
I would challenge our Seniors to answer a question with respect and assuming the best of the questioner.I have been struggling with the follwing question for some time now and it seems to fit this conversation.
I understand that the church can’t reasonably have an infallible list of infallible teachings. Considering this, how does one explain that the churches teachings are without error? How is "The Magisterium " defined in the statement “The Church is without error in matters of morals and faith”? I know not every bishop has been without error nor every pope. There are those who are convinced church teaching has in fact been in obvious error in the past. If there is nothing I can point to and say “This was, is, and always will be church teaching. This was not but rather only mistakes of individuals.” how can I show them the truth?**I read all the Seniors in this forum and didn’t see anything understandable to me. Could someone please try again?
Thank you for this holy work.Peace be with you.