Obedience to the Magesterium

[catholic03]

Pax Christi:

I sincerely believe that, under pain of sin, the faithful Catholic is obliged to support and agree with all of the doctrines promulgated by the magisterium of Holy Mother Church. However, what constitutes a doctrine? For example, Michael Voris of Church Militant says that the change to the death penalty in the Catechism in “not binding on the faithful”. I of course agree with the change, but, using this as an example, is the faithful Catholic allowed to believe in the previous view on the death penalty, or is the new view binding on the faithful.

I suppose what I am asking is this: “What constitutes a doctrine that one must accept under pain of sin”?

God Bless.

 

[ioannes_pius]

That is a very good question.

What are we to do when a Pope comes along and teaches something contrary to several past magisterial teachings?

 

[Vico]

Pax Christi:

I sincerely believe that, under pain of sin, the faithful Catholic is obliged to support and agree with all of the doctrines promulgated by the magisterium of Holy Mother Church. However, what constitutes a doctrine? For example, Michael Voris of Church Militant says that the change to the death penalty in the Catechism in “not binding on the faithful”. I of course agree with the change, but, using this as an example, is the faithful Catholic allowed to believe in the previous view on the death penalty, or is the new view binding on the faithful.

I suppose what I am asking is this: “What constitutes a doctrine that one must accept under pain of sin”?

God Bless.

On 9 January 1989, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published new formulas for the Professio Fidei:

5. The first paragraph states: “With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.” The object taught in this paragraph is constituted by all those doctrines of divine and catholic faith which the Church proposes as divinely and formally revealed and, as such, as irreformable.11

These doctrines are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and defined with a solemn judgment as divinely revealed truths either by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ‘ex cathedra,’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium .

These doctrines require the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful. Thus, whoever obstinately places them in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of Canon Law.12

6. The second proposition of the Professio fidei states: “I also firmly accept and hold
each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.” The object taught by this formula includes all those teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area, 13 which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed .

Such doctrines can be defined solemnly by the Roman Pontiff when he speaks ‘ex cathedra’ or by the College of Bishops gathered in council, or they can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church as a “sententia definitive tenenda”. 14 Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Church’s Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters.15 Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine 16 and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church .

https://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm

 

[catholic03]

That is what I worry about. What happens if the next Holy Father decides that same-sex marriage is fine. I lose so much sleep over this possibility. What are we to do then?

 

[catholic03]

Could someone please simplify the pronouncement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

God Bless.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Could someone please simplify the pronouncement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The language is intentionally nebulous. The Church tries to define things without being legalistic. But under JPll things leaned toward being more legalistic, so the language in this CDF document, which isn’t “binding” either, is awkward. Quite frankly, I don’t think it’s very good. There are probably better explanations out there of your question other than those paragraphs from that CDF document.

 

[Emeraldlady]

catholic03:

Could someone please simplify the pronouncement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The language is intentionally nebulous. The Church tries to define things without being legalistic. But under JPll things leaned toward being more legalistic, so the language in this CDF document, which isn’t “binding” either, is awkward. Quite frankly, I don’t think it’s very good. There are probably better explanations out there of your question other than those paragraphs from that CDF document.

I kind of understand the problem the Church has in composing documents. It has to navigate a path between those who interpret through a lens of legalism and those who interpret through a lens of relativism. Not an easy job.

 

[thistle]

I suppose what I am asking is this: “What constitutes a doctrine that one must accept under pain of sin”?

Catholics are bound by all teachings which are summarised in the CCC, both infallible and non-infallible.

 

[catholic03]

Thank you. I suppose then that Michael Voris is wrong. He thinks he is such an authority.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

When it comes to moral teachings, a person can accept that the Church teaches X and abide by X in their daily life without necessarily agreeing with X. That is what obedience to authority is all about. If we all agreed on everything all the time, then there would be no need for authority or obedience.

Michael Voris would like to substitute his own authority for that of the Magisterium, which is wrong.

 

[Vico]

Could someone please simplify the pronouncement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

God Bless.

Two categories of doctrines:

1. Doctrines that require the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful. Those that the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.
2. For everything definitively proposed* by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals requires firm and definitive assent by all members of the faithful.

Canon Law (both Latin and eastern):

CIC Canon 750. CCEO Canon 598

§ 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[John_Martin]

While no laymen is an authority, that said, when they quote an authority, Scripture or Tradition then they can be confident in that authority. To reject them at that point means that you reject the authority upon which such people rest

If you’re correct, we should never see “nihil obstat” in front of any publication.
But, in fact, protesters do misinterpret and selectively quote actual authority in order to cause division, dissent, and call for popular uprisings.
What do faithful authorities say about Mr. Voris’ words? Will our faith and obedience become defective if we take up his stance? Is there any issuing “nihil obstat” for him?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

These canons are related to people who are taking an office in the Church. They don’t really answer the OP’s question.

Also, I think that the “assent of theological faith” is called on for infallible teachings. At least for theologians it is.

 

[commenter]

Those who hold office must themselves in conformity with the magisterium of all time. The Tradition of the Church is the limit and scope for all those in office. That includes the Pope.

It might be argued that there should be no more Councils, no more papal encyclicals, etc. If everything is already present in the Magisterium of all time, then everything is either heretical or redundant.

But how do things get into the “magisterium of all time”? They must come through via the Living Magisterium.

Sola Traditio or Private Interpretation of Tradition, assumes that Tradition is obvious, and self-explanatory. They must accept the need for a Living Magisterium in the past - that’s where all that Tradition came from - but not in the present.

Denial of the current Living Magisterium goes against the Catholic Faith. Once you deny Pope Francis’ addition to the Catechism, you open the door for the next guy to deny St JP 2’s whole new Catechism, then someone else will scrap the Trent Catechism as a Novelty.

Where would it end?

 

[Feanor2]

I wouldn’t listen to Michael Voris. He does nothing good to serve the Church

 

[Crusader13]

Thank you. I suppose then that Michael Voris is wrong. He thinks he is such an authority.

Michael Voris would like to substitute his own authority for that of the Magisterium, which is wrong.

I wouldn’t listen to Michael Voris. He does nothing good to serve the Church

Unfortunately, these topics always have to get steered towards criticizing the individual based upon what some perceive him to be doing. The topic, as you posted, is about whether or not we are obliged to agree with all of the doctrines promulgated by the magisterium, which is a question entirely separate from the issue of whether or not Michael Voris can be cited as a valid resource.

Your last comment makes it difficult to know if you were truly bothered by the issue at hand or if you were simply upset because someone like Michael Voris, has the audacity to bring up such an issue.

If you truly believe Voris to be an absolute authority unto himself, then perhaps you should ask the question of whether or not the apostolate and mission of Michael Voris and Church Militant can be accepted as credible and representing the best interests of the Catholic Church.

That way we aren’t trying to answer two separate issues, hidden beneath one question.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

Voris’s bishop has said he isn’t to speak for the Church. He’s not even allowed to use the word “Catholic” in the name of his so-called apostolate anymore. Therefore, you really shouldn’t equate him with the magisterium. In fact, you’re better off avoiding him period.

 

[commenter]

Mr. Voris isn’t wrong to read and interpret Tradition. We all should, just as we all should read and interpret the Bible. But Catholics leave the final interpretation of both to the Living Magisterium.

Most Protestants in effect accept the magisterium as authoritative up to the 4 th century, with the canon of the NT. Lutherans, Anglican, EO accept as authoritative, up to later dates. The Old Catholics accept as authoritative up to perhaps the early 1800s.

Now there’s a movement that says authoritative up to about the mid 1950s. This is reflected in certain websites.

 

[awesomecatholic]

When the Pope speaks Ex Cathedra, it means his statement is believed to be revealed by God and then it has to be obeyed.

 

[Vico]

These canons are related to people who are taking an office in the Church. They don’t really answer the OP’s question.

Also, I think that the “assent of theological faith” is called on for infallible teachings. At least for theologians it is.

It does pertain to the OP.

Related to, but it applies also outside that scope for it states: “These doctrines require the assent of theological faith by all members of the faithful.”

Also note that the second category is also infallible.

Professio FIdei Excerpt:

1. With regard to the nature of the assent owed to the truths set forth by the Church as divinely revealed (those of the first paragraph) or to be held definitively (those of the second paragraph), it is important to emphasize that there is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable character of the assent which is owed to these teachings. The difference concerns the supernatural virtue of faith: in the case of truths of the first paragraph, the assent is based directly on faith in the authority of the Word of God (doctrines de fide credenda ); in the case of the truths of the second paragraph, the assent is based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium (doctrines de fide tenenda ).