Papal Infallibility & the Magisterium

[MaryBernard]

Lately, I’ve been thinking about how papal infallibilty is so misunderstood, even by Catholics. I know that the pope is only infallible when he pronouces Church doctrine. What I’m having a hard time understanding is the role of the Magisterium in proclaiming dogma. Can the pope proclaim a new dogma by himself or does the Magisterium “have” to be involved? And a related question: Have any dogmas been declared without having a Council called?

 

[LEMAITRE]

As far as I am aware, no Pope has ever declared dogma without the Magisterium. I may be wrong, I’m sure a more knowledgeable Catholic will correct me. Then there is the different types of Magisterium below to consider.

Extraordinary Magisterium refers to a special exercise of their teaching office by either the Pope and bishops together, or the Pope alone, in which a definitive judgment is given. When a General Council pronounces a solemn definition, this is an exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium. So is an ex cathedra definition by the Pope: a decision definitively settling the question.

By contrast Ordinary Magisterium refers to the exercise of the teaching office without a solemn definition being given. This is the case with the day-today teaching of bishops in their dioceses, or the greater part-almost the entire part-of the Popes teaching. (Most of these teachings have already been defined infallibly.)

The term Ordinary Universal Magisterium means an exercise of the Church’s teaching office where there is complete agreement, or fairly close to complete agreement, among the Catholic Bishops of the world that a particular doctrine is certainly true, but without a solemn definition.

The Extraordinary Magisterium is infallible. A definition given by a General Council or an ex cathedra definition by a Pope cannot be erroneous.

Likewise, the Ordinary Universal Magisterium is infallible. The fact that the bishops are dispersed throughout the world’ (in the words of Vatican II quoted above) does not make any difference.

What of the Ordinary (but not universal) Magisterium? Is it infallible? No, as Vatican II indicates in the quotation above concerning statements that are not ex cathedra.

 

[Nita]

…And a related question: Have any dogmas been declared without having a Council called?

One that comes to mind is the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Although all bishops had been contacted, no Council was called.

 

[sweetpetunia]

One that comes to mind is the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Although all bishops had been contacted, no Council was called.

^ The other well-known infallible “ex cathedra” statement is regarding the Assumption of Mary

 

[mardukm]

One that comes to mind is the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Although all bishops had been contacted, no Council was called.

Indeed. Collegiality is not equivalent to conciliarism. Certain non-Catholics think that the Church’s infallibility can only be exhibited in a Council, which I believe is a false notion.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Lately, I’ve been thinking about how papal infallibilty is so misunderstood, even by Catholics. I know that the pope is only infallible when he pronouces Church doctrine. What I’m having a hard time understanding is the role of the Magisterium in proclaiming dogma. Can the pope proclaim a new dogma by himself or does the Magisterium “have” to be involved? And a related question: Have any dogmas been declared without having a Council called?

It should be noted that the Fathers of Vatican 1 changed the title of the decree on infallibility from

The infallibility of the Pope

to

The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope.

This was done because the Fathers objected to the idea that infallibility belonged to the Pope ALONE when the Pope exercises infallibility. It is, rather, the infallibility of the CHURCH’s teaching office (i.e. the Magisterium) that is being exercised by the Pope in a unique way. Take note of the definition that states explicitly that the infallibility that the Pope possesses is the selfsame infallibility that God wished to endow His Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Lately, I’ve been thinking about how papal infallibilty is so misunderstood, even by Catholics. I know that the pope is only infallible when he pronouces Church doctrine. What I’m having a hard time understanding is the role of the Magisterium in proclaiming dogma. Can the pope proclaim a new dogma by himself or does the Magisterium “have” to be involved? And a related question: Have any dogmas been declared without having a Council called?

I think you might be misunderstanding the meaning of the Latin word “magisterium” which may in turn be causing confusion. The magisterium is the teachING (the content), not the teachERS (in this context, the bishops), who are magisters. “Magisterium” can also refer to the teaching office of the bishops, but not the bishops themselves (sort of like the difference between the presidency as an instituted office with authority versus the president himself–the person occupying the office.)

 

[MarcoPolo]

It should be noted that the Fathers of Vatican 1 changed the title of the decree on infallibility from

The infallibility of the Pope

to

The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope.

This was done because the Fathers objected to the idea that infallibility belonged to the Pope ALONE when the Pope exercises infallibility. It is, rather, the infallibility of the CHURCH’s teaching office (i.e. the Magisterium) that is being exercised by the Pope in a unique way. Take note of the definition that states explicitly that the infallibility that the Pope possesses is the selfsame infallibility that God wished to endow His Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

Where can I read about this change in the title?

 

[MarcoPolo]

being exercised by the Pope in a unique way.

Would you say papal infallibility is a special charism that protects his expression of a magisterial teaching?

 

[mardukm]

I think you might be misunderstanding the meaning of the Latin word “magisterium” which may in turn be causing confusion. The magisterium is the teachING (the content), not the teachERS (in this context, the bishops), who are magisters. “Magisterium” can also refer to the teaching office of the bishops, but not the bishops themselves (sort of like the difference between the presidency as an instituted office with authority versus the president himself–the person occupying the office.)

That’s an excellent point, brother Dave. The sources I’ve read on the Magisterium always point out that natural confusion.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Where can I read about this change in the title?

I read about it in Dom Chapman’s seminal book on Vatican 1, from which I get most of my info.

Last I looked, it was over $50 on the I-net. If you want, I’ll take the time to type out the text from Dom Chapman’s book and present it here.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Would you say papal infallibility is a special charism that protects his expression of a magisterial teaching?

Not necessarily. In the same way, the charism of inspiration (which is surely more explicit and profound than the charism of infallibility) did not prevent the authors of Scripture from speaking according to their own experiences, backgrounds, linguistic styles, etc.

I would expect a dogma pronounced ex cathedra to be expressed according to each current Pope’s own manner of expression.

Does that help?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[MarcoPolo]

I read about it in Dom Chapman’s seminal book on Vatican 1, from which I get most of my info.

Last I looked, it was over $50 on the I-net. If you want, I’ll take the time to type out the text from Dom Chapman’s book and present it here.

Blessings,
Marduk

No, thank you. But thank you for offering - and for the info.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Not necessarily. In the same way, the charism of inspiration (which is surely more explicit and profound than the charism of infallibility) did not prevent the authors of Scripture from speaking according to their own experiences, backgrounds, linguistic styles, etc.

I would expect a dogma pronounced ex cathedra to be expressed according to each current Pope’s own manner of expression.

Does that help?

Blessings,
Marduk

Yes. But even so, would his expression still be his expression of a magisterial teaching.

 

[mardukm]

Yes. But even so, would his expression still be his expression of a magisterial teaching.

That’s how I understand it.

Are you asking if the terminologies themselves are protected from error? Part of me would say “no” because that would amount to the charism of inspiration, which it is not. Part of me wants to say “yes” because the terminology would only reflect what is in the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[MarcoPolo]

That’s how I understand it.

Are you asking if the terminologies themselves are protected from error? Part of me would say “no” because that would amount to the charism of inspiration, which it is not. Part of me wants to say “yes” because the terminology would only reflect what is in the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

No, I was asking because I’ve followed some of your low Petrine, I think you call it, explanations, and it seems like sober theology. Thus, if the papacy’s infallibility was in some sense magisterially intertwined, even if he has the certain privilege of protected articulation, I think that could be a building block with the Orthodox.

 

[mardukm]

No, I was asking because I’ve followed some of your low Petrine, I think you call it, explanations, and it seems like sober theology.

My professed ecclesiology is High Petrine, not Low Petrine.

Some principles of the Low Petrine ecclesiology that do not align with the High Petrine view are its denial of:
(1) the necessity of a head bishop (some proponents even deny the existence of a head bishop).
(2) that a head bishop has inherent authority distinct (though never separated) from the body of bishops;
(3) that a head bishop has actual and true authority in his sphere of jurisdiction.

Some principles of the Absolutist Petrine ecclesiology opposed to the HIgh Petrine view are:
(1) a head bishop can act unilaterally.
(2) a head bishop can replace a fellow bishop at his mere and sole discretion.
(3) a head bishop can intervene in the affiairs of a local Church at his mere and sole discretion.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[MarcoPolo]

My professed ecclesiology is High Petrine, not Low Petrine.

Some principles of the Low Petrine ecclesiology that do not align with the High Petrine view are its denial of:
(1) the necessity of a head bishop (some proponents even deny the existence of a head bishop).
(2) that a head bishop has inherent authority distinct (though never separated) from the body of bishops;
(3) that a head bishop has actual and true authority in his sphere of jurisdiction.

Some principles of the Absolutist Petrine ecclesiology opposed to the HIgh Petrine view are:
(1) a head bishop can act unilaterally.
(2) a head bishop can replace a fellow bishop at his mere and sole discretion.
(3) a head bishop can intervene in the affiairs of a local Church at his mere and sole discretion.

Blessings,
Marduk

Ah! High Petrine is what meant then, as opposed to Absolutist. Thx for clarifying.