F
fakename
Guest
I was wondering, if all catholics came to a unanimous agreement independently would that be magisterial? Would it be non-fallible or infallible?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
runningdude
Guest
What you are describing sounds like it could be Sensus Fidelium (sp?) (sense of the faithful).
B
Bookcat
Guest
Apart from the successor of Peter?
No.
What your prob. thinking of here is:
Catechism
92 “The whole body of the faithful. . . cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals.”
No.
What your prob. thinking of here is:
Catechism
92 “The whole body of the faithful. . . cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals.”
F
fakename
Guest
yeah, is that basically the same as magisterial?Apart from the successor of Peter?
No.
What your prob. thinking of here is:
Catechism
92 “The whole body of the faithful. . . cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals.”
B
Bookcat
Guest
This is in the matter of their *“belief” *not of teaching…yeah, is that basically the same as magisterial?
Magisterium is the “teaching office” of the Church (that is what the Latin word actually means too). See the Catechism section vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2A.HTM
(as to a related magisterial infallible teaching…see the universal ordinary magisterum)
F
fakename
Guest
also, what level of fallibility is licit dissent?
B
Bookcat
Guest
It is more a question of the various kinds of assent we are to give…
For example some things one must give the assent of Faith…or other definitive assent based on Faith in the Holy Spirit…some things we give the religious submission of intellect and will…
It is not about dissent…but rather assent
We profess our Faith and hold fast to it.
And of course there is also then “faith seeking understanding…”
For example some things one must give the assent of Faith…or other definitive assent based on Faith in the Holy Spirit…some things we give the religious submission of intellect and will…
It is not about dissent…but rather assent
We profess our Faith and hold fast to it.
And of course there is also then “faith seeking understanding…”
F
fakename
Guest
Please elaborate on the differences between teaching authority and belief.It is more a question of the various kinds of assent we are to give…
For example some things one must give the assent of Faith…or other definitive assent based on Faith in the Holy Spirit…some things we give the religious submission of intellect and will…
It is not about dissent…but rather assent
We profess our Faith and hold fast to it.
And of course there is also then “faith seeking understanding…”
Also, I’m really asking this here, what is the level of authority that licit dissent has? Such a thing does exist.
B
Bookcat
Guest
The Church teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.Please elaborate on the differences between teaching authority and belief.
Also, I’m really asking this here, what is the level of authority that licit dissent has? Such a thing does exist.
I believe this teaching…and I am very correct!
The whole Church believes…and is correct…
If a Catholic dissents from this teaching…well they are very incorrect …etc
As to dissent…it does not have any authority.
As to assent…that is part of our life as Christians…where we profess our Faith and live the Teachings of the Church…
T
thistle
Guest
Dogmas and Doctrines
Doctrine - any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful.
The truth may be either formally revealed (as the Real Presence), or a theological conclusion (as the canonization of a saint), or part of the natural law (as the sinfulness of contraception). In any case, what makes it doctrine is that the Church authority teaches that it is to be believed. This teaching may be done either solemnly in ex cathedra pronouncements or decision of an ecumenical council, or this teaching may be taught ordinarily in the exercise of the Church’s magisterium or teaching authority.
Dogmas are those doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God.
The difference in Dogmas and Doctrines is the level of certainty with which the magisterium teaches. Dogmas are taught with absolute certainty (beyond all doubt whatsoever), whereas doctrines are taught with moral certainty (similar to beyond reasonable doubt).
Dogmas require the assent of faith, meaning that obstinate doubt or denial of the truth of the dogma is the sin of heresy–a sin against the virtue of faith.
Doctrines require religious submission of intellect and will. Refusal to submit to doctrines of the Church is not a heresy, not a sin against faith, but a sin against charity. We are called to “obey our leaders and submit to them” (Heb 13:17). To dissent with doctrine is incompatible with humility, loyalty, and charity. It is a matter of placing one’s own fallible intellect and will above that of the mind of the Holy Catholic Church.
Doctrine - any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful.
The truth may be either formally revealed (as the Real Presence), or a theological conclusion (as the canonization of a saint), or part of the natural law (as the sinfulness of contraception). In any case, what makes it doctrine is that the Church authority teaches that it is to be believed. This teaching may be done either solemnly in ex cathedra pronouncements or decision of an ecumenical council, or this teaching may be taught ordinarily in the exercise of the Church’s magisterium or teaching authority.
Dogmas are those doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God.
The difference in Dogmas and Doctrines is the level of certainty with which the magisterium teaches. Dogmas are taught with absolute certainty (beyond all doubt whatsoever), whereas doctrines are taught with moral certainty (similar to beyond reasonable doubt).
Dogmas require the assent of faith, meaning that obstinate doubt or denial of the truth of the dogma is the sin of heresy–a sin against the virtue of faith.
Doctrines require religious submission of intellect and will. Refusal to submit to doctrines of the Church is not a heresy, not a sin against faith, but a sin against charity. We are called to “obey our leaders and submit to them” (Heb 13:17). To dissent with doctrine is incompatible with humility, loyalty, and charity. It is a matter of placing one’s own fallible intellect and will above that of the mind of the Holy Catholic Church.
F
fakename
Guest
But one can dissent by adhering to the teaching of a bishop. But a bishop teaches magisterially. So dissent has to have some authority?As to dissent…it does not have any authority.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Authority is in the Teaching office of Church"But one can dissent by adhering to the teaching of a bishop. But a bishop teaches magisterially. So dissent has to have some authority?
… not dissent.
But while the teaching of a local Bishop certainly has authority…it is not that he can just teach what he wants…
Now is it possible to not follow something a local Bishop says? To give a clear example…there are have been Bishops in history who embraced all manner of heresy …denied something of the Catholic Faith …say the reality that “Jesus is truly the Son of God”.
He was …teaching contrary to the Catholic Faith…he is not here in communion with Peter in his teaching.
But it is not that there is dissent here …but rather assent…assent to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
B
Bookcat
Guest
These major documents from the CDF will be of help:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html
and
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html
and an article from Ignatius Insight of Ignatius Press can be of help:
ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/wmay_authority_nov06.asp
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html
and
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_1998_professio-fidei_en.html
and an article from Ignatius Insight of Ignatius Press can be of help:
ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/wmay_authority_nov06.asp
F
fakename
Guest
I speak here of licit dissent, not illicit dissent.Authority is in the Teaching office of Church"
… not dissent.
But while the teaching of a local Bishop certainly has authority…it is not that he can just teach what he wants…
Now is it possible to not follow something a local Bishop says? To give a clear example…there are have been Bishops in history who embraced all manner of heresy …denied something of the Catholic Faith …say the reality that “Jesus is truly the Son of God”.
He was …teaching contrary to the Catholic Faith…he is not here in communion with Peter in his teaching.
But it is not that there is dissent here …but rather assent…assent to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
So given that two bishops can lawfully disagree, and at the same time be teaching lawfully, then are both teachings magisterial?
B
Bookcat
Guest
They are the “local” bishop of their respective diocese’s …So given that two bishops can lawfully disagree, and at the same time be teaching lawfully, then are both teachings magisterial?
If one has some particular norm in place in his diocese that is not contrary to the Church etc …but is “within his authority”…that is how he prudently judges to direct the matter in his diocese.
Another Bishop may have a different “legit” approach in his diocese.
Prudential judgments can vary from Bishop to Bishop
But of course if say a Bishops wakes up some morning and starts issuing orders that abortion is ok…or contraception etc…well then he is off his rocker and not teaching authoritatively there at all…
F
fakename
Guest
I think licit dissent is more than a prudential judgment. Licit dissent is when someone comes to a different conclusion than the magisterium on a non-fallible doctrine, with the aid of scripture, higher authority, or tradition. Assuming that a bishop can teach his licit dissent (which must be the case or else lay people would never have the choice to decide b/t which bishop was correct in such a matter, when they evidently do), what authority is his teachings?They are the “local” bishop of their respective diocese’s …
If one has some particular norm in place in his diocese that is not contrary to the Church etc …but is “within his authority”…that is how he prudently judges to direct the matter in his diocese.
Another Bishop may have a different “legit” approach in his diocese.
Prudential judgments can vary from Bishop to Bishop
But of course if say a Bishops wakes up some morning and starts issuing orders that abortion is ok…or contraception etc…well then he is off his rocker and not teaching authoritatively there at all…
B
Bookcat
Guest
I was referring in that last post to various things of a prudential nature…disciplines etc.I think licit dissent is more than a prudential judgment. Licit dissent is when someone comes to a different conclusion than the magisterium on a non-fallible doctrine, with the aid of scripture, higher authority, or tradition. Assuming that a bishop can teach his licit dissent (which must be the case or else lay people would never have the choice to decide b/t which bishop was correct in such a matter, when they evidently do), what authority is his teachings?
There can variety here in how Bishops decide “certain things” within his authority to decide…within his diocese.
Your talking about a matter of doctrine that is to be given religious assent of intellect and will.
A Catholic (and the includes a Bishop…) is to give his assent (in the various degrees) to the Teachings of the Church…and if an individual Catholic (or Bishop) is struggling with something (often a “Faith seeking understanding”) they are not to “teach” others that which is contrary to the Teachings of the Catholic Church.
An individual Bishop is to teach what the Church Teaches and is not really to be teaching anything contrary to the Teachings of the Catholic Church…
Can. 386 §1. A diocesan bishop, frequently preaching in person, is bound to propose and explain to the faithful the truths of the faith which are to be believed and applied to morals. He is also to take care that the prescripts of the canons on the ministry of the word, especially those on the homily and catechetical instruction, are carefully observed so that the whole Christian doctrine is handed on to all.
§2. Through more suitable means, he is firmly to protect the integrity and unity of the faith to be believed, while nonetheless acknowledging a just freedom in further investigating its truths.
He is to protect and teach the integrity of the faith…Not teach something else.
I would not say he should at all be teaching what you are referring to. Nor would it seem to me to have any authority if such took place.
To give a high example:
The Bishops who even were heretics in history…certainly did not teach their heresy with authority…error has no authority.
Though of course one must be careful…for an individual person or group of persons can go of themselves into troubled waters…thinking that they know better then a particular bishop or they misunderstand what actually is the case at hand…and end up not listening to legit teaching…due to their misunderstandings or their being lead astray by “legit sounding” groups or writers that are in fact mistaken. In doubt…presumption stands with the Bishop.
Now if a Bishop were to start teaching that say contraception was ok…or abortion was ok …what have you of like things …well that would be clearly a Bishop teaching contrary to the Teachings of the Church and should not be listened to in such a matter (and he needs to take a sabbatical and get his difficulties ironed out)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.