Teaching magisterium

  • Thread starter Thread starter Future_Prodigy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Future_Prodigy

Guest
I am confussed as to what this entails. I always thought the only things catholics ‘had’ to believe where those things declared infallbily but then i found out very few things have been declare infalliblly yet we are to hold them as part of our orthodox faith. What is it exactly that has to be believed by the church? I emphaize the has to be belieevd part.

I have been told that the churhc teaches infallblly concerning faith and morals but what about the churches stance in the past concerning the condemnation and outright genocide of protestant peoples (i know they did it also, but this is not in the context of the question), or their endorsing of the taking of indulgences to raise money (even though i know it was instituted out of a sincere response to a shallow current spirtuality). The church has both silently condoned and endorsed many tourblesome belifs thorughout the ages and I am unsure as to how these certain beliefs fit into the teaching magisterium. For example, i often wonder if say contraception within th ebonds of marriage is being taught in the similar manner as indulgences in the high middle ages? Did everyone have to believe that then, as we do now with contraception, etc?
 
Future_Prodigy said:
I am confussed as to what this entails. I always thought the only things catholics ‘had’ to believe where those things declared infallbily but then i found out very few things have been declare infalliblly yet we are to hold them as part of our orthodox faith. What is it exactly that has to be believed by the church? I emphaize the has to be belieevd part.

I have been told that the churhc teaches infallblly concerning faith and morals but what about the churches stance in the past concerning the condemnation and outright genocide of protestant peoples (i know they did it also, but this is not in the context of the question), or their endorsing of the taking of indulgences to raise money (even though i know it was instituted out of a sincere response to a shallow current spirtuality). The church has both silently condoned and endorsed many tourblesome belifs thorughout the ages and I am unsure as to how these certain beliefs fit into the teaching magisterium. For example, i often wonder if say contraception within th ebonds of marriage is being taught in the similar manner as indulgences in the high middle ages? Did everyone have to believe that then, as we do now with contraception, etc?
Click to expand...
A Catholic needs to ascent with mind and spirit to those doctrines and dogmas found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
 
Ronald L. Conte, Jr., one of my favorite lay apologists and a member of Catholic Answers forums, summed it up best. Here is the gist of what he says: Vatican I defined infallibly, and Vatican II reiterated, the requirements for a papal pronouncement to be infallible. (1) The Roman Pontiff (2) speaks ex cathedra (3) to define (4) that a doctrine pertaining to faith and morals (5) must be held by the whole Church. The Sacred, or Extraordinary, Magisterium, teaches infallibly and has the charism of certain truth; the Extraordinary Magisterium cannot err. Full assent is required. Dogmatic theology belongs to this level.

The Ordinary Magisterium is not infallible; it has the charism of certain salvation because its teachings, even if they contain errors, cannot endanger the salvation of those faithful souls who are sincere and willing, thanks to the Holy Spirit. Ordinary theology belongs to this level.

The General Magisterium is fallible; it has the charism of certain fruitfulness since all the faithful, being baptized and confirmed, produce lasting fruits from their sincere search for the truth. Speculative theology belongs to this level.
 
From my understanding the 2nd coming and bodily ressurection have not been spoken about ex cathedra yet we have to hold to them or we are herectic. This si very confusing. How are contraception spoken of in the church? How was indulgences and other topics i mentioned above spoken of?
 
Dissent from teaching on contraception is not faithful dissent. The Magisterium has consistently taught that it is intrinsically wrong and tradition and scripture say the same, so there is no basis for faithful dissent.
 
Unlike other faiths who bowed to public pressure, the Catholic Church has always taught that artificial contraception is an abomination to the Lord.

BTW, what do you call a Catholic couple that practice NFP? The parents of many children!!! 😉
 
I know what you guys are saying, the churhc has always taught on this issue and we have to obey… so under what category of teaching does it fall?

I ask because the church as stated above has taught on other issues which today no one would follow. Yet we are told we must obey the churches teachings. Do you understand what i am getting at. I am a history student and also a religion and culture student and we noramlly don’t get exposed to the ‘good’ things of the church in history. Most secualr universities are just that, teaching a secular agenda. Yet, in that agenda there is sheds of truth. I have a problem with authority especially because of what has been both silently condoned, outright condemned, and forcibily pushed through teachings.
 
Future_Prodigy said:
I am confussed as to what this entails. I always thought the only things catholics ‘had’ to believe where those things declared infallbily but then i found out very few things have been declare infalliblly yet we are to hold them as part of our orthodox faith. What is it exactly that has to be believed by the church? I emphaize the has to be belieevd part.
Click to expand...
No where does has the Church taught that only very few things have been declared infallibly. That is the talk of theologians and scripture scholars. The source of all heresies in the Church are Catholic theologians and scripture scholars. None of these scholars has ever been infallible. They cannot be trusted. If it wasn’t for the Popes, who are constantly correcting the errors of these scholars, the Catholic Church would have split up years ago into various competing sects.
The Popes have never taught error, and can be totally trusted in their teachings.
The good theologians such as Aquinas and Augustine admit they cannot be trusted and they said they submitted everything they taught to the judgment of the Church, under the Popes

Since the scholars today don’t like being corrected for their errors, they make up the false idea that the Popes have seldom taught infallibly.

There are, clearly, only four tests of infallibility: The Pope must be
(1) intending to teach
(2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, that is as Pope (ex cathedra) and not as a private theologian.
(3) a matter of Faith or morals
(4) to be held by the universal Church.

Unless one of these is missing, the Pope is teaching infallibly. Thus,** everything the Popes teach for the whole Church are infallible**, unless one of these points are missing.
I have been told that the churhc teaches infallblly concerning faith and morals but what about the churches stance in the past concerning the condemnation and outright genocide of protestant peoples (i know they did it also, but this is not in the context of the question), or their endorsing of the taking of indulgences to raise money (even though i know it was instituted out of a sincere response to a shallow current spirtuality). The church has both silently condoned and endorsed many tourblesome belifs thorughout the ages and I am unsure as to how these certain beliefs fit into the teaching magisterium. For example, i often wonder if say contraception within th ebonds of marriage is being taught in the similar manner as indulgences in the high middle ages? Did everyone have to believe that then, as we do now with contraception, etc?
Click to expand...
Code: 
 If a Pope condones or endorses a belief, that is not a teaching. 
For it to be a teaching it must have to be held by the whole Church, be related to faith or morals, the Pope must be intending to teach, and He must be teaching "ex cathedra", as head of the Church.
Thus, if a Pope commands that all men over the age of 60 be killed, that is not a teaching. That is a command and not a teaching, in which the Pope did not intend to give a teaching, it was not specified to be held by the whole Church.
And of course, since it contradicts a teaching of the Church, it must NOT be followed.
 
StRaphael said:
Ronald L. Conte, Jr., one of my favorite lay apologists and a member of Catholic Answers forums, summed it up best. Here is the gist of what he says: Vatican I defined infallibly, and Vatican II reiterated, the requirements for a papal pronouncement to be infallible. (1) The Roman Pontiff (2) speaks ex cathedra (3) to define (4) that a doctrine pertaining to faith and morals (5) must be held by the whole Church. The Sacred, or Extraordinary, Magisterium, teaches infallibly and has the charism of certain truth; the Extraordinary Magisterium cannot err. Full assent is required. Dogmatic theology belongs to this level.

The Ordinary Magisterium is not infallible; it has the charism of certain salvation because its teachings, even if they contain errors, cannot endanger the salvation of those faithful souls who are sincere and willing, thanks to the Holy Spirit. Ordinary theology belongs to this level.

The General Magisterium is fallible; it has the charism of certain fruitfulness since all the faithful, being baptized and confirmed, produce lasting fruits from their sincere search for the truth. Speculative theology belongs to this level.
Click to expand...
Here’s a link:

catholicplanet.com/TSM/general-magisterium.htm
 
randy carson i did not get to read that article yet so if your post answered this, please forgive me.

So i must reitterate my point again:

I know what you guys are saying, the churhc has always taught on this issue and we have to obey… so under what category of teaching does it fall?

I ask because the church as stated above has taught on other issues which today no one would follow. Yet we are told we must obey the churches teachings. Do you understand what i am getting at. I am a history student and also a religion and culture student and we noramlly don’t get exposed to the ‘good’ things of the church in history. Most secualr universities are just that, teaching a secular agenda. Yet, in that agenda there is sheds of truth. I have a problem with authority especially because of what has been both silently condoned, outright condemned, and forcibily pushed through teachings.

We are not so blinded by history that we have forgotten what has been done in ht epast have we? I am honestly curious as to how the church taught certain things which all faithful were supposed to follow… such as the acceptable killing of heretics, the collecting of indulgences, sexual abuse in native populatios, etc (you know the same old argument i just want to know how the church spoke about these matters)
 
I was under the impression that indulgences were not illegal or immoral, unless one abused it. What the Church taught was correct. What the priests practiced was immoral.

The burning of heretics? I think that the Church could ex-communicate them. But the secular authorities were the ones that would burn them, without any say from the Church. I may be wrong on this point, though.

Did the Church condone secual abuse in the native populations?
 
burning of herectis was done by secular authorities yes but they were passed over to them because the church could not kill them themselves. To try and pass the buck on this issue denies the sin. The church would persecuate them and then hand them over for capital punishment, their hands are in no way clean of the blood.

As for native populations in canada. The church silently condoned the matter and knew about it yet just moved the parish priest to another location (this is one of the dark pasts of the churhc in canada).
 
Future_Prodigy said:
burning of herectis was done by secular authorities yes but they were passed over to them because the church could not kill them themselves. To try and pass the buck on this issue denies the sin. The church would persecuate them and then hand them over for capital punishment, their hands are in no way clean of the blood.
Click to expand...
OK, so you’ve got to look at it from a different view point.

a) The Church sees someone as teaching heresy.
b) They condemn him and give him a chance to recant.
c) The person refuses to recant and so is teaching in error.
d) The Church pronounces them anathema. As far as the Church is concerned, end of story.
e) The local authorities, however, know that a united church makes for a happy kingdom.
f) the individual is then taken into custody by the secular authorities, not at the behest of the Church, but at the behest of the local authorities.

I don’t know if this is the case all the time (and I would seriously doubt it), but I’ve heard of this scenario numerous times.
As for native populations in canada. The church silently condoned the matter and knew about it yet just moved the parish priest to another location (this is one of the dark pasts of the churhc in canada).
Click to expand...
Did the Pope teach that this was right? That would mean the gates of hell had prevailed against the Church.

Did the Pope know that it was happening? If not the Pope, probably the bishop? That means that the Gates of Hell had prevailed against those persons, but not the Church.
 
Future_Prodigy said:
randy carson i did not get to read that article yet so if your post answered this, please forgive me.

So i must reitterate my point again:
Click to expand...
My apologies for not responding sooner…I was not following this thread actively.

Your question seems to be: Were Catholics in the past required to believe certain teachings of the Church in the same way that Catholics today are required to believe the teaching against artificial birth control?

The “certain teachings” you name are: a) condemnation and outright genocide of protestant peoples, and b) the sale of indulgences to raise money.

Is this what you’re asking?
 
sure, we can stick with those… like how were those teachigns of the church proclaimed, did all the faithful have to support them? I just have trouble when i read histroy. Especially the crusades were the pope directly spoke on behlaf of the church and made it meritorious to go on the trip ti kill the heathens, thus allowing safe passage into heaven and expiation of your sins. These sort of things hinder my ability to trust in the papacy fully till this day.
 
Future_Prodigy said:
sure, we can stick with those… like how were those teachigns of the church proclaimed, did all the faithful have to support them? I just have trouble when i read histroy. Especially the crusades were the pope directly spoke on behlaf of the church and made it meritorious to go on the trip ti kill the heathens, thus allowing safe passage into heaven and expiation of your sins. These sort of things hinder my ability to trust in the papacy fully till this day.
Click to expand...
What exactly did the Pope say? Can you enlighten me?
 
Future_Prodigy said:
sure, we can stick with those… like how were those teachigns of the church proclaimed, did all the faithful have to support them? I just have trouble when i read histroy. Especially the crusades were the pope directly spoke on behlaf of the church and made it meritorious to go on the trip ti kill the heathens, thus allowing safe passage into heaven and expiation of your sins. These sort of things hinder my ability to trust in the papacy fully till this day.
Click to expand...
The Pope did say something to that effect. What you need to understand is that the Church (Perfect) is run by man (imperfect). That is why it’s been around for nearly 2000 years. You see throughout history the various heresies, abuses, and scandals that rocked the Church, yet it stood its ground, as per Jesus’ promise that the Gates of the Netherworld will not prevail against the Church.

When the Pope issued his decree giving indulgences to the crusaders, he did it without the backing of the Magisterium, the teaching body of the Church consisting of all the bishops. Because of this, the Pope did not issue an infallible statement, so it was erroneous and held no water. However, when the Pope makes a statement such as there is no salvation outside the Church, he is correct and without error, because he says it in communion with the Magisterium. Note the difference.
 
I have the primary documents from my history classes and dont really want to pull them out if i dont have to. Anyone who knows medieval history can pull NUMEROUS documents issued from the vatican that are horrendous crimes.

dbacks - you say it had no water but arent these the criteria for an infallible statement:

There are, clearly, only four tests of infallibility: The Pope must be
(1) intending to teach
(2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, that is as Pope (ex cathedra) and not as a private theologian.
(3) a matter of Faith or morals
(4) to be held by the universal Church.

IT doesnt say the whole magisterium and bishops would have to be in aggrement with the Pope. I thought the whole argument for supremacy is to safeguard truth in the case that the whole church might not aggre with the Pope, yet it is the truth so he must protect it.

Carson you niled it on the spot - “Your question seems to be: Were Catholics in the past required to believe certain teachings of the Church in the same way that Catholics today are required to believe the teaching against artificial birth control?”

That is exactly my problem. I fear that if the papacy had the supremacy and power it did now in the medieval times, all kinds of atrocites would have been commited.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top