Scripture and the magisterium

[I_Love_My_Wife]

I have a question: many of the arguments I’ve read against sola scriptura (scripture can be easily misinterpreted, it needs an interpreter, etc.) seems like criticism that can apply to Church documents as well. I have seen numerous arguments among faithful orthodox Catholics about what documents and statements are infallible and which are not. For example, some say that CDF statements are not infallible, others say they are. Some say certain statements made in V2 are infallible, some say they’re not. Some say that canonizations of Saints are infallible, some say they’re not. Some say that only 2 infallible statements have been made by the popes, some say that there have been many more (though I’ve never seen examples). These are not discussions I’ve seen between orthodox and heterodox Catholics, but between orthodox Catholics, such as on this board itself and on Jimmy Akin’s website.

So my question is: if the Magisterium infallibly interprets Scripture, who, if anyone, infallibly interprets the Magisterium?

The reason that I ask this question is that it seems to render the function of the Magisterium moot. Sure, it might be infalible. So is scripture. If the people, the bishops, and even the popes all interpret it wrong, what is the true, actual value of having the Magisterium?

 

[Franciscan]

I have a question: many of the arguments I’ve read against sola scriptura (scripture can be easily misinterpreted, it needs an interpreter, etc.) seems like criticism that can apply to Church documents as well. I have seen numerous arguments among faithful orthodox Catholics about what documents and statements are infallible and which are not. For example, some say that CDF statements are not infallible, others say they are. Some say certain statements made in V2 are infallible, some say they’re not. Some say that canonizations of Saints are infallible, some say they’re not. Some say that only 2 infallible statements have been made by the popes, some say that there have been many more (though I’ve never seen examples). These are not discussions I’ve seen between orthodox and heterodox Catholics, but between orthodox Catholics, such as on this board itself and on Jimmy Akin’s website.

So my question is: if the Magisterium infallibly interprets Scripture, who, if anyone, infallibly interprets the Magisterium?

The reason that I ask this question is that it seems to render the function of the Magisterium moot. Sure, it might be infalible. So is scripture. If the people, the bishops, and even the popes all interpret it wrong, what is the true, actual value of having the Magisterium?

The Magisterium is the LIVING body that Guards and interprets Tradition/Scripture.

The problem you’re struglling with is that the Magisterium has chosen to be “pastoral” in it’s approach(rather than forcefull) to guarding the deposit of faith from those who teach against it.

 

[I_Love_My_Wife]

The Magisterium is the LIVING body that Guards and interprets Tradition/Scripture.

The problem you’re struglling with is that the Magisterium has chosen to be “pastoral” in it’s approach(rather than forcefull) to guarding the deposit of faith from those who teach against it.

That’s not it at all. The question is not just in regards to Vatican II, but how to interpret the statements of various popes which may or may not be infallible, or how to interpret the status of infallible statements of the councils.

Perhaps for now the answer to this question will satisfy me: how do we know what is infallible in a council? Is EVERYTHING that is written infallible, or only particular “solemn proclamations”? I have heard some people say that latter, and that in Vat2 there were no infallible statements. If the latter is the case, how do we know what falls under the category of such a statement?

 

[Verbum]

Hi I L M W,

Our bishops and the Pope have received the mandate to teach. We therefore have received the mandate to be taught. True Catholics don’t ask themselves whether this or that statement is infallible, they try to determine what the teaching is and they follow the teaching to the best of their ability.

Verbum

 

[Franciscan]

That’s not it at all. The question is not just in regards to Vatican II, but how to interpret the statements of various popes which may or may not be infallible, or how to interpret the status of infallible statements of the councils.

Perhaps for now the answer to this question will satisfy me: how do we know what is infallible in a council? Is EVERYTHING that is written infallible, or only particular “solemn proclamations”? I have heard some people say that latter, and that in Vat2 there were no infallible statements. If the latter is the case, how do we know what falls under the category of such a statement?

I understand your point. It’s a valid question.

 

[davidv]

Perhaps for now the answer to this question will satisfy me: how do we know what is infallible in a council? Is EVERYTHING that is written infallible, or only particular “solemn proclamations”? I have heard some people say that latter, and that in Vat2 there were no infallible statements. If the latter is the case, how do we know what falls under the category of such a statement?

For most of us the distinction is unecessary. See Verbum’s reply in post #4. For many that attempt this distinction, it is my opinion that they are attempting to justify their disobedience.

 

[volzcpa]

If I may elaborate on Verbum’s post #4, I think it may help you if you try to understand what infallibility is and what it isn’t. You can begin with the CA article on infallibility

Christ gave Peter and the apostles his own authority to oversee his church. Christ said to Peter “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." and he said to all of the apostles “lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Infallibility has been defined to apply to teaching on matters of faith and morals. Infallibility prevents the Church (magisterium) from teaching error. It does not guarantee that the Pope will give his teachings as clearly or as timely or as boldly as he should, it just guarantees that what he does teach in faith and morals will not be in error. Therefore, as Catholics, we are to follow the teachings of both the ordinary magisterium and the extraordinary magisterium whether they be from Papal pronouncements (which are very few) or by other teachings such as Ecumenical Council documents, Encyclicals, the Catechism of the Catholic Church or any other teaching on faith and morals by the pope or the bishops in union with the pope. If you have not already done so, I recommend you read the Didache, written early in the second century, which gives extensive list of matters of faith and morals as taught by the apostles.

We walk by faith not by sight, so we need to first accept the teachings of the Church and, then, if we do not understand them, pray for understanding and the Holy Spirit will give us understanding.

 

[Mintaka]

There used to be books on the hierarchy of doctrine that talked about this. Probably this is something you learn in theology school…

 

[Spirithound]

A little trick i’ve found to be quite useful (but not infallible ) is when the pope uses the words “declare and define” in the same sentence, it’s probably infallible