I don't understand the expression:

[Thinker_Doer]

“the church teaches”.

What does this mean? The expression: “The pope teaches” is perfectly sensible. The pope is person, and person can teach. The expression: “The Magisterium teaches” is problematic, since the magisterium is the “teaching authority”, which is a concept, but an “authority” is not a person, who can teach. The church is composed of individuals, who are able to teach… but what they say is frequently different from what others say. So which individual should be taken as a correct representation of what the church “teaches”?

 

[Theo520]

“the church teaches”.

It’s not precise and the user could be referring to something the Pope has said or written, or to interpretation of the Catechism, or a number of other official documents.

 

[Lion_IRC]

The Church is us. We teach. By our words and our deeds.
We teach what we were taught.
…by our priests, by our pope, by Our Lord, in the bible, from revelation. ETC

The Church is more than one person

Pray that we are teaching God’s Truth not our own error.

 

[ASC]

It means that Jesus taught it, as did the apostles and church fathers, and that the catechism and the leaders of the church continue to teach it today. “The church teaches” is a nice summary of this.

 

[snarflemike]

It refers to The Magisterium. That could be the Pope, or Church Councils, or what has been handed down from the Apostles (Sacred Tradition).

 

[fhansen]

The Church has a unified voice in her teaching authority, consisting of the magisterium which is comprised of the bishops and the office of the papacy. Her teachings are most completely and officially assembled in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[Emeraldlady]

“The Church teaches” just refers to the 2000 years of institution ordained by Christ. It could be similar to saying “science teaches us”.

 

[Crusaderbear]

Like in school, “the text says…” doesn’t mean literally, it’s a figure of speech defining the sources of the knowledge being imparted.

 

[midori]

The IRS says my taxes are due by April 15th.

Harvard says you’d better get your paperwork in if you want to register for the fall semester.

The Supreme Court says that’s unconstitutional.

Organizations have authority to speak on subject x, and they do so all the time.

So in this case, the Magisterium is made of the Pope and the Bishops, because they have been given the authority to interpret x. So they do so, collectively (such as in the case of conferences or councils) or individually (encyclicals, homilies, etc).

It’s especially fun, because you’ll recognize “magister” as the root for “magisterium.” Who’s your magister? It’s your teacher. (Although it could mean other things as well.) So the Magisterium is the collective group of people who have the authority to teach. Yes, I can teach Sunday school, or I can answer a trivia question, or I can have my own educated opinion… but my teaching authority is wayyyy different from the Pope’s or a Bishop’s. And that’s why they’re part of the Magisterium, and I’m not.

 

[Thinker_Doer]

Thank you for the answers.

@Theo520 says that it is not precise, and I agree to it. Not just not precise, it has no informational value whatsoever. What is missing is the details. Who, or what was the originator of the claim? This is important, since we are all “fallen”, and can make mistakes.

@Emeraldlady said that it is similar to the expression “science teaches us”, and this shows the difference between the two approaches. “Science teaches us” is NOT an argument. If anyone would attempt to use this expression as a specific answer to a specific question, it would not be accepted as a valid answer.

The IRS says my taxes are due by April 15th.
Harvard says you’d better get your paperwork in if you want to register for the fall semester.
The Supreme Court says that’s unconstitutional.

These wordings are all imprecise. Certain members of these institutions “say” these things. And they are often disputed.

So in this case, the Magisterium is made of the Pope and the Bishops, because they have been given the authority to interpret x. So they do so, collectively (such as in the case of conferences or councils) or individually (encyclicals, homilies, etc).

Unfortunately the “proclamations” are not always consistent. Some of them are subject to change. And when it comes to individual cases, there are huge variations, sometimes totally contradicting each other. The individual apologists frequently bring up such contradictory proclamations under the label: “the church teaches”.

The problem is that the expression “the church teaches us” is a generic phrase, without an explanation. Furthermore, different people will try to use it under different, sometimes under contradictory quotations. The expression is used as a “final” argument - without details. If the argument would quote “chapter and verse”, that would be different.

 

[Gorgias]

These wordings are all imprecise. Certain members of these institutions “say” these things.

OK, so it’s not precise. It’s shorthand. If it makes you feel better to substitute “the teachings of the Church, as found in Sacred Scripture and the Sacred Tradition of the Apostolic teaching of the Magisterium…”, then feel free to do so. But, “the Church teaches” is a more manageable way to express that notion. Once you know that this is what it means, then you’re good to go… right?

And they are often disputed.

Hmm… I would think that this is a non sequitur, unless what you’re trying to say is that, unless we say “the Magisterium teaches infallibly that…”. If so – that is, if you feel that “the Church teaches” leads us to dispute the authority of the teaching – then that’s a unique opinion…

If the argument would quote “chapter and verse”, that would be different.

OK… I think that this is what you’re trying to say: that, in the absence of a direct quote from Scripture or Magisterial documents, folks either don’t believe it’s authoritative or mischaracterize teachings that are authoritative. Is that what you’re getting at?

(BTW… welcome to CAF!)

 

[Thinker_Doer]

If it makes you feel better to substitute “the teachings of the Church, as found in Sacred Scripture and the Sacred Tradition of the Apostolic teaching of the Magisterium…”, then feel free to do so.

No, it is still imprecise. See below.

Hmm… I would think that this is a non sequitur, unless what you’re trying to say is that, unless we say “the Magisterium teaches infallibly that…”. If so – that is, if you feel that “the Church teaches” leads us to dispute the authority of the teaching – then that’s a unique opinion…

What leads to the dispute is the inconsistency exhibited by the posters. Some assert that “action A” is THE teaching, others say that “action B” is THE teaching. And two different teachings cannot be both infallible. By the way, where does this claim of infallibility come from?

OK… I think that this is what you’re trying to say: that, in the absence of a direct quote from Scripture or Magisterial documents, folks either don’t believe it’s authoritative or mischaracterize teachings that are authoritative. Is that what you’re getting at?

Yes, that is closer.

(BTW… welcome to CAF!)

Thank you.

 

[Gorgias]

What leads to the dispute is the inconsistency exhibited by the posters. Some assert that “action A” is THE teaching, others say that “action B” is THE teaching. And two different teachings cannot be both infallible.

OK… so, one of them is wrong. I’m still not seeing the problem you’re asserting here: saying “the Church teaches” isn’t the source of the error – it’s the misstatement of the teaching itself.

Yes, that is closer.

OK, then, ask them: “hey, can you show me where the Church teaches that?”

 

[Thinker_Doer]

OK… so, one of them is wrong.

At least one… maybe both. But that brings up the next question: “how can the apologist establish which one is correct (if any) and which one is not?”

OK, then, ask them : “hey, can you show me where the Church teaches that?”

Yes, this is a good advice. I tried it many times, but never received an acceptable answer. Asking two people the same question always resulted in three answers… sorry. But I will keep on trying.

 

[Theo520]

@Theo520 says that it is not precise, and I agree to it. Not just not precise, it has no informational value whatsoever. What is missing is the details. Who, or what was the originator of the claim? This is important, since we are all “fallen”, and can make mistakes.

Depending on the situation, it could be used as a logical fallacy

Appeal to Authority

 

[DIERM]

(BTW… welcome to CAF!)

This…and you may be the first group rather than individual with a screen name,

On your group’s first post it was said, “This is the first time Thinker_Doer has posted — let’s welcome them to our community!” LOL

 

[Gorgias]

“This is the first time Thinker_Doer has posted — let’s welcome them to our community!” LOL

(I think it’s a gender correctness thing. If there’s no knowledge of the gender of the poster, then “them” is the pronoun used, to avoid potential offense being given.)

 

[Thinker_Doer]

It is unlucky that in English there is no generic way to refer to humans. In some other languages (for example Hungarian) there is no gender (either natural or grammatical), there is only one expression to refer to humans, and another one to refer to everything else. Very convenient. No “he”, “she” and “it” or the German “Er”, “Sie”, “Es”.

As for the “Thinker-Doer” it is a logical assumption that it refers to a male… for a female it could be “Thinkess-Doess” - like “actor - actress”. But there is no reason or logic is languages, with the possible exception of some artificial languages, like Esperanto.

 

[Gorgias]

As for the “Thinker-Doer” it is a logical assumption that it refers to a male… for a female it could be “Thinkess-Doess” - like “actor - actress”.

Hmm… so, we can choose between “Thinker-Doer” and “Thinker-Duress”…?

 

[Thinker_Doer]

Hmm… so, we can choose between “Thinker-Doer” and “Thinker-Duress”…?

Or anything else which works as a unique identifier. If you like short abbreviations, T-D would work just fine.