Vatican II changes things?

[human_being]

is Cardinal Rigali a liberal? do you know anything about him? he was a part of the Council.

I know he was the Archbishop of Philadelphia until recently and seemed to be well liked and respected. You can maybe look up the Catholic Standard and Times at www.cst-phl.com to find out back issues and such about him. I tried to post a link but it said that I must enable cookies to enter the site and I don’t do that.

 

[una_fides]

Of course we are to give religious assent to such teachings of our bishop and pope when they demand such assent, knowing that these teachings can change at a later date. It is only when they present a contradiction or a contrary sense to matters of faith or other matters of religious assent that assent is impossible. To try to assent to a contradiction or two contrary statements would be to break one’s rational ability. This is simple natural reason.

Thanks to the First Vatican Council, however, we do have statements to which we must give the assent of faith (that is the assent given to teachings which can not be revoked, reformed or in error). In Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason:*5. Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God Who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and Who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason.

1. God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.
2. Therefore We define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false.

…

1. Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds.

…

1. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
2. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding. May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding*.

And under the Canons, 4. On Faith and Reason:*3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

And so in the performance of Our Supreme Pastoral Office, We beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and We command, by the authority of Him Who is also our God and Saviour, all faithful Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off and elimination of these errors from the Church and to the spreading of the light of the pure faith.

But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, We warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this Holy See.*
I do my best to give religious assent to what is taught by my bishop and the Pope… If I have a “good reason” not to assent, then I do not…“good reason” encompassing that which are statements which are either contrary or contradictory in themselves, contradictory or contrary to what is real, or finally contradictory or contrary to teachings of higher authority.

I remember hearing about a saint who said that if the Church said the sky was gray when it appeared to be blue, he would believe the sky to be gray because of the authority of HMC. His eyes could be deceived, but the Church cannot. From the act of faith: “I believe these and all the truths which the holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived. Amen.”

tbc…

 

[una_fides]

The only way I see it that one could ever dissent from the ordinary Magisterium is if she were teaching contrary to the revealed faith. One would, however, first have to question whether he first understood properly and would have to do his best to reconcile the two teachings giving the Church the benefit of the doubt whenever possible but at the same time not deceiving himself. If one is unable to reconcile the teachings, he then can ask the Church for a clarification, but I’ve not yet found anywhere that the Church ever officially teaches that one has the permission to dissent from the teachings of her ordinary Magisterium. I’m not saying the Church hasn’t taught that somewhere, just that I haven’t found it, so if you have any sources that state the one can dissent from the ordinary Magisterium, please do share.

And yes faith must correspond to reason. Nevertheless, that does not mean that we have all the answers. To borrow from Fr. John CorapI: God has placed obvious limitations on our intelligence but none whatsoever on our stupidity. We cannot assume that we have all the answers or know better than HMC for to do so would be to be guilty of spiritual pride. Our conscience and our abiliity to reason has been deformed by sin, and for this reason, Christ has given us the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 TIm 3:15). If she ceasese to teach the truth from her official ordinary Magisterium, then wouldn’t she cease to be the pillar and foundation of truth? What then do we stand on when the Magisterium is blatently and continually teaching errors that contradict past infallible declarations? Furthermore, if the ordinary Magisterium is contradicting past infallible definitions, then wouldn’t that mean that the Church has slipped into heresy? How could this be? How could the Church be heretical? Such would be a contradiction of terms, as the Church would then be anathamatizing herself. (Again I’m speaking of the official ordinary Magisterium as definitively taught from the pope, such as from the Church’s catechism, etc. Not as in an individual homiliy from a bishop which could obviously very well contain many heresies and would not be an official teaching of the ordinary Magisterium.)

I was just reading from Donum veritatis last night, which is the Magisterium’s official response to dissent, etc. Here is an excerpt from paragraph 24:

"The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case,* raise questions* regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed.

When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church’s Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission."

The last bolded and underlined part I think is key because typically when people are dissenting they are do so stating that the Church has been habitually mistaken when teaching authoritatively–but not infallibly–on a particular issue.

I suppose the question can be raised as to what is meant by the word “habitually,” and perhaps that word has the understanding that the Church has been promulgating this particular teaching for quite some time, and not just over the past let’s say 10, 20, or 40 years… But then again, to say that one cannot believe the Church to be in error when teaching habitually would make it seem as if this habitual teaching by its very nature would therefore be infallible, since only infallible teachings cannot be in error. But again, we cannot be deailing with matters as defined as heretical correct? I mean could the Church consistantly teach heresy according to her official ordinary Magisterium? I don’t ever recall that happening in Church history before. Can a pope teach heresy according to the odinary Magisterium? If so, has it happened before? Are we permitted to even judge such things or speculate that a particular teaching is or is not heresy?

 

[ncjohn]

I mean could the Church consistantly teach heresy according to her official ordinary Magisterium? I don’t ever recall that happening in Church history before. Can a pope teach heresy according to the odinary Magisterium? If so, has it happened before? Are we permitted to even judge such things or speculate that a particular teaching is or is not heresy?

I think you’re getting on the right track with your questions, una. I see the key to it being the concept of “prudential” judgments, and I see quite a few of those through the history that are now considered by many to be infallible by virtue of having been around for a long time, or having been interpreted by most in some specific way, but which are really not matters of faith and morals but products of specific time frames and circumstances. The Syllabus of Errors, which is often cited as “infallible” is such a document on some items, though it does contain some doctrinal things also.

I had previously brought up the whole Gallileo affair as an example of what you are speaking to above. The Church had consistently believed and taught that the sun rotated around the earth. It was held to be a matter of faith and morals because to not accept that was considered a contradiction to scripture because of the Biblical passage that addressed the sun standing still. It was the basis for the charge of heresy, which requires a denial of a matter of dogma or doctrine, with which the Pope himself concurred.

But though it had been taught consistently, this was really a “prudential judgment” based on the best understanding they had at the time. Were they teaching “heresy” consistently up until then? Not in my opinion. They were simply erring in an interpretation of scripture based on inadequate information, which then got translated into a matter of faith and morals that it really wasn’t.

I don’t think this is at all an isolated instance. At the time of Vatican I there was a significant block of those present, at least as large as the group who had problems with Vatican II and larger by percentage, who had severe problems with proclaiming infallibility because they knew that there were instances in the Church’s history where seeming contradictions or seeming changes in position would make it difficult for many to accept that the Church hadn’t been trying to act infallibly when it wasn’t really.

The difference between these consistent prudential judgments and infallible doctrine and dogma are not always nearly as clear as some would try to make them out and interpretation of those older documents can be very difficult indeed, which is why the Church reserves to herself the authority to proclaim what her teachings are and what they mean. We are indeed allowed to ask for clarifications, but in the end we are required to assent once the Church has spoken. She may speak less than perfectly in some of those prudential judgments but unless and until they are modified we are still bound by them, however difficult that can be for us.

I don’t pretend to have any complete understanding on this but I have to admit that my coming to the position of acceptance that I came to resulted partly from asking the very questions you are asking here.

Peace,

 

[divinedisciple7]

Una Fides,

Stop this nit picking and stop trying to interpret things in such a way so that you can have the old ways. I have a personal preference for the TLM aswell but stop with the none-sense about whether or not there is room for dissent. Stop your proud arrogant dissenting spirit and humble yourself to the Magisterium which is the Pope. All authority Christ vested upon the successors of Peter. It is one thing to fight a heresy, but it is another to fight the Pope. If you keep going down this path, which you DO NOT want to reconcile yourself to the authority of the Pope, then you will fall ever deeper into dissent. If you think you have more or better understanding of scripture, Tradition and the doctors and fathers of the Church then the Father’s of the Second Vatican Council, then go become a priest and take things up with them. Try and debate with our Holy Father Benedict XVI.

He has forgotten more things about theology then you have probably learned. So do not think yourself wiser then our fathers. Rail in your dissenting spirit and be humble. For if any council was wrong or if anything contradicts itself, then this Church is not true and we are all wasting our time. If you believe there is contradiction in the Church then leave. But if you believe this is Christ’s true an living Church then humble yourself, form your conscience as to be faithful to Christ and His vicar.

God bless

 

[una_fides]

Una Fides,

Stop this nit picking and stop trying to interpret things in such a way so that you can have the old ways. I have a personal preference for the TLM aswell but stop with the none-sense about whether or not there is room for dissent. Stop your proud arrogant dissenting spirit and humble yourself to the Magisterium which is the Pope. All authority Christ vested upon the successors of Peter. It is one thing to fight a heresy, but it is another to fight the Pope. If you keep going down this path, which you DO NOT want to reconcile yourself to the authority of the Pope, then you will fall ever deeper into dissent. If you think you have more or better understanding of scripture, Tradition and the doctors and fathers of the Church then the Father’s of the Second Vatican Council, then go become a priest and take things up with them. Try and debate with our Holy Father Benedict XVI.

He has forgotten more things about theology then you have probably learned. So do not think yourself wiser then our fathers. Rail in your dissenting spirit and be humble. For if any council was wrong or if anything contradicts itself, then this Church is not true and we are all wasting our time. If you believe there is contradiction in the Church then leave. But if you believe this is Christ’s true an living Church then humble yourself, form your conscience as to be faithful to Christ and His vicar.

God bless

I do not at all appreciate your comments or your judgmental and accusatory statements. You have publicly called me “proud and arrogant” and claim I have a dissenting spirit when I was actually responding to someone else who claimed you could dissent and I was questioning whether or not that was true and was trying to get more information! I was actually taking the side that you could not dissent from the ordinary Magisterium but only question and was wondering if anyone had any additional information. Apparently something I posted must have angered you for you to respond in such a way. Could you please re-post what I said that you have a problem with? I have a feeling you likely mis-read what I had posted or are accusing me of something for which I am not guilty. My goal is to remain faithful to Holy Mother Church and her teachings, and if anything I say is ever found to be contrary to her teachings, I would promptly retract my statement and bring it into conformity with the Church. I completely submit myself to the authority of the pope and am not in a state of dissent from the Church’s teachings. In fact, I earlier was saying that submitting to the authority of the pope was necessary for salvation!

What on earth made you think that I do not submit to the pope? Again, I suspect you either misunderstood me or disagree with me as to what you may think the Church teaches on a particular issue. I invite you rather than attacking me viciously to comment specifically and charitably on what I might have said that you have a problem with and keep your comments on the substance of the matter rather than trying to impugn my motives or my intentions, which you have wrongfully judged.

I think your post was seriously lacking charity, and I would appreciate a retraction on your part.

 

[una_fides]

I think you’re getting on the right track with your questions, una. I see the key to it being the concept of “prudential” judgments, and I see quite a few of those through the history that are now considered by many to be infallible by virtue of having been around for a long time, or having been interpreted by most in some specific way, but which are really not matters of faith and morals but products of specific time frames and circumstances. The Syllabus of Errors, which is often cited as “infallible” is such a document on some items, though it does contain some doctrinal things also.

I had previously brought up the whole Gallileo affair as an example of what you are speaking to above. The Church had consistently believed and taught that the sun rotated around the earth. It was held to be a matter of faith and morals because to not accept that was considered a contradiction to scripture because of the Biblical passage that addressed the sun standing still. It was the basis for the charge of heresy, which requires a denial of a matter of dogma or doctrine, with which the Pope himself concurred.

But though it had been taught consistently, this was really a “prudential judgment” based on the best understanding they had at the time. Were they teaching “heresy” consistently up until then? Not in my opinion. They were simply erring in an interpretation of scripture based on inadequate information, which then got translated into a matter of faith and morals that it really wasn’t.

I don’t think this is at all an isolated instance. At the time of Vatican I there was a significant block of those present, at least as large as the group who had problems with Vatican II and larger by percentage, who had severe problems with proclaiming infallibility because they knew that there were instances in the Church’s history where seeming contradictions or seeming changes in position would make it difficult for many to accept that the Church hadn’t been trying to act infallibly when it wasn’t really.

The difference between these consistent prudential judgments and infallible doctrine and dogma are not always nearly as clear as some would try to make them out and interpretation of those older documents can be very difficult indeed, which is why the Church reserves to herself the authority to proclaim what her teachings are and what they mean. We are indeed allowed to ask for clarifications, but in the end we are required to assent once the Church has spoken. She may speak less than perfectly in some of those prudential judgments but unless and until they are modified we are still bound by them, however difficult that can be for us.

I don’t pretend to have any complete understanding on this but I have to admit that my coming to the position of acceptance that I came to resulted partly from asking the very questions you are asking here.

Peace,

John,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I will comment more on them later, but I have a quick question for you that I would like you to answer:
Do you believe that due to an increase in understanding that dogmas that have been affirmed by the Church can be understood in a different way then how the Church previously understood them?

 

[divinedisciple7]

Una Fides,

If I misinterpreted you, then I apologize.

But answer me this one question.

Humanae Vitae you assent or dissent ?

Afterwards I will explain myself further.

I pray peace for Christ’s one body.

 

[una_fides]

Una Fides,

If I misinterpreted you, then I apologize.

But answer me this one question.

Humanae Vitae you assent or dissent ?

Afterwards I will explain myself further.

I pray peace for Christ’s one body.

Though I haven’t read the entire document, yes, I do give a religious assent to its teachings as it is an exercise of the ordinary Magisterium. I do not see how I promoted dissent from the Magisterium’s teachings in any way. Can you please specifically reply to the content in whichever of my previous posts with which you have a problem? I think that would be more beneficial than railing insults. Thanks.

And since you are asking me a question, I would also like you to please answer the question I just asked ncjohn:
“Do you believe that due to an increase in understanding that dogmas that have been affirmed by the Church can be understood in a different way then how the Church previously understood them?”

 

[ncjohn]

Do you believe that due to an increase in understanding that dogmas that have been affirmed by the Church can be understood in a different way then how the Church previously understood them?

As much as I wish this was a simple yes-or-no question, I think it would be confusing to give a simplistic answer. The short answer is that no, I don’t think that dogma can be understood in a different way, though it can be understood in a clearer way…

We first have the issue though of determining what is actually dogma and what is doctrine, and then further what is really prudential judgment. There have been many statements about things being dogmatic that are not only not dogmatic but likely aren’t even doctrinal, i.e. the Syllabus of Errors as an entire document. There are teachings of the ordinary magisterium that are claimed to be doctrinal that I really don’t think are more than prudential judgment, even though some fall into that category you mention of having been around for a long time and still require our assent as long as they are in force.

True dogma and doctrine cannot change meaning though the understanding of them can become clearer. Prudential judgments, in which I would include much of what comes from the ordinary magisterium, are still binding but could be found to be inadequate or even in error, such as the aforementioned Gallileo issue.

Further complicating things is the attempt of laypersons to interpret and define which category different teachings fall into and to try to piece together different documents written in different styles to different audiences for different reasons at different times. The Church itself, to the best of my knowledge, does not have a definitive list of which documents, or teachings, or pieces of documents, fall into which categories, though I know that there have been theologians who have come up with their own lists. I think that there would be wide concensus that those things found in the Creed would be dogmatic. I would further assume that the two explicitly ex cathedra teachings on Mary would be considered dogmatic by pretty much one and all. Beyond that I think you’ll find greatly differing opinions on whether some things are dogmatic or doctrinal.

In the end though, for me the clincher is that I am required to, at the least, religious assent regardless of the category. And I am further instructed by the Church that she, and she alone, is the authoritative interpreter of her teachings. And with that, while I may raise an eyebrow from time to time wondering about something, I have to take her at her word unless and until something is clarified or changed from having been found to be a prudential judgment that better information has brought to greater clarity.

Hope that helps to at least clarify where I’m coming from. I’m not sure if I passed the test or not but if I am missing out on something I hope someone will correct me in my error.

Peace,

 

[una_fides]

I had previously brought up the whole Gallileo affair as an example of what you are speaking to above. The Church had consistently believed and taught that the sun rotated around the earth. It was held to be a matter of faith and morals because to not accept that was considered a contradiction to scripture because of the Biblical passage that addressed the sun standing still. It was the basis for the charge of heresy, which requires a denial of a matter of dogma or doctrine, with which the Pope himself concurred.
But though it had been taught consistently, this was really a “prudential judgment” based on the best understanding they had at the time. Were they teaching “heresy” consistently up until then? Not in my opinion. They were simply erring in an interpretation of scripture based on inadequate information, which then got translated into a matter of faith and morals that it really wasn’t.

Galileo was not excommunicated for heresy. He was found guilty for disobeying his order to not teach the Copernican system as a fact rather than just a theory. At the time, there was not enough evidence to prove it either way, and even Galileo admitted he did not have enough evidence. Please read these articles because I think you received some bad information on this subject:
catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0305sbs.asp

Here is an excerpt from the first article on infallibility:
"The Church has never claimed ordinary tribunals, such as the one that judged Galileo, to be infallible. Church tribunals have disciplinary and juridical authority only; neither they nor their decisions are infallible.

No ecumenical council met concerning Galileo, and the pope was not at the center of the discussions, which were handled by the Holy Office. When the Holy Office finished its work, Urban VIII ratified its verdict, but did not attempt to engage infallibility.

Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.

In Galileo’s case, the second and third conditions were not present, and possibly not even the first. Catholic theology has never claimed that a mere papal ratification of a tribunal decree is an exercise of infallibility. It is a straw man argument to represent the Catholic Church as having infallibly defined a scientific theory that turned out to be false. The strongest claim that can be made is that the Church of Galileo’s day issued a non-infallible disciplinary ruling concerning a scientist who was advocating a new and still-unproved theory and demanding that the Church change its understanding of Scripture to fit his.

It is a good thing that the Church did not rush to embrace Galileo’s views, because it turned out that his ideas were not entirely correct, either. Galileo believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe. We now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that it does move—it simply orbits the center of the galaxy rather than the earth.

As more recent science has shown, both Galileo and his opponents were partly right and partly wrong. Galileo was right in asserting the mobility of the earth and wrong in asserting the immobility of the sun. His opponents were right in asserting the mobility of the sun and wrong in asserting the immobility of the earth.

Had the Catholic Church rushed to endorse Galileo’s views—and there were many in the Church who were quite favorable to them—the Church would have embraced what modern science has disproved."

The topic involved also is not pertaining to faith and morals. It is scientific. Yes, it involves an interpretation of Scripture, but the Scripture itself is pertaining to science and not to faith and morals. The subject matter was of a scientific nature and was outside the scope of infallibility. The Church never authoritatively bound all Catholics to hold to a particular interpretation of the Scriptures in question. If so, please provide the documents that say something to the effect that “all the faithful are bound to believe _ as a matter of faith.” You can’t because it doesn’t exist. Also can you provide a papal declaration stating that to teach that the earth rotates, etc, is heresy because it contradicts Scripture and that all are bound to profess it as such?

The purpose of bringing up Galileo is to try to say that the Church can change her teachings. Yes and no. If the Church has bound all the faithful to believe a teaching concerning faith or morals, then no they cannot change. This did not occur in the case of Galileo, but it did occur in the case of the Syllabus of Errors.

 

[una_fides]

The difference between these consistent prudential judgments and infallible doctrine and dogma are not always nearly as clear as some would try to make them out and interpretation of those older documents can be very difficult indeed, which is why the Church reserves to herself the authority to proclaim what her teachings are and what they mean. We are indeed allowed to ask for clarifications, but in the end we are required to assent once the Church has spoken. She may speak less than perfectly in some of those prudential judgments but unless and until they are modified we are still bound by them, however difficult that can be for us.

When understanding the Church’s teachings we must first start by understanding her most authoritative pronouncements and then work our way down from there. If it’s possible that the Church can err according to the ordinary Magisterium, then we must be safeguarded against any errors by clinging to her more authoritative statements. We must do our best to reconcile the previous and the current as best as possible. If not reconciliation can be found, then it’s ok to question and to ask the Church for an explanation or clarification. The Church cannot later apply a different sense or understanding to a previously defined dogma. Vatican I is clear on this matter. We must bear this in mind when reading the Church’s teachings on NSOC.

I don’t pretend to have any complete understanding on this but I have to admit that my coming to the position of acceptance that I came to resulted partly from asking the very questions you are asking here.

I do not give the current ordinary Magisterium more weight than her previous infallible Magisterium. To do so, would be foolish to say the least. I believe she is guided by the Holy Spirit, but despite divine guidance, a recent insistance to appease people as well as other things can perhaps get in the way from her always being correct regaring her prudential judgements and other excersises of her ordinary Magisterial teachings. I do my best to reconcile her teachings, as I did earlier with NSOC. If the Church departs from the same sense that the dogma has always been understood as can be clearly evidenced from her past documents, then it is alright to question her in this regard and ask for a clarification. I believe however that the Church’s current teachings can be reconciled with her prior teachings on faith and morals–just not science.

 

[ncjohn]

Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.

There is much more to it than that, and I have nowhere indicated that the Pope exercised any charism of infallibility. Nor have I claimed that the tribunal’s findings or the Pope’s affirmation of them was any exercise in infallibility.

The point is that it was the consistent teaching of the Church that the earth was the center of the universe, based on the scriptural allusion. The charge of heresy was brought on that basis, affirming that it was considered a doctrinal issue since there can be no heresy without that. The excommunication and its reasons are not relevant to the topic; what is relevant is that it was a consistent teaching of the ordinary magisterium that did in fact change. It had been held to be a matter of faith and morals and was LATER determined to be a matter of science. Whether Gallileo was right or wrong is similarly irrelevant.

I bring it up only because of the “prudential judgment” concept in the teachings from the ordinary magisterium since it is such a well-known example, even if mostly misunderstood.

Peace,

 

[ncjohn]

When understanding the Church’s teachings we must first start by understanding her most authoritative pronouncements and then work our way down from there. If it’s possible that the Church can err according to the ordinary Magisterium, then we must be safeguarded against any errors by clinging to her more authoritative statements. We must do our best to reconcile the previous and the current as best as possible. If not reconciliation can be found, then it’s ok to question and to ask the Church for an explanation or clarification. The Church cannot later apply a different sense or understanding to a previously defined dogma. Vatican I is clear on this matter. We must bear this in mind when reading the Church’s teachings on NSOC.

I think we’re in almost 100% agreement here.

I do not give the current ordinary Magisterium more weight than her previous infallible Magisterium. To do so, would be foolish to say the least. I believe she is guided by the Holy Spirit, but despite divine guidance, a recent insistance to appease people as well as other things can perhaps get in the way from her always being correct regaring her prudential judgements and other excersises of her ordinary Magisterial teachings. I do my best to reconcile her teachings, as I did earlier with NSOC. If the Church departs from the same sense that the dogma has always been understood as can be clearly evidenced from her past documents, then it is alright to question her in this regard and ask for a clarification. I believe however that the Church’s current teachings can be reconciled with her prior teachings on faith and morals–just not science.

And I don’t see anything here I disagree with. The only caveat I thow in is that we have to be careful how we determine what documents are truly authoritative, and how we interpret them. That is where the great danger lies as those “authoritative” documents can have a mixture of dogmatic, doctrinal and prudential statements in them. While I’ll admit to being 100% sure in this statement, I don’t believe that documents themselves are held to be infallible; only teachings are held to be infallible. Individual documents from Vatican II, for instance, have statements in them that are dogmatic (though actually re-statements), doctrinal (either as restatements or as clarifications), prudential (reflecting teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium) and disciplinary. The teachings that arise from those statements fall into their appropriate categories whereas the documents themselves do not. I’m reasonably sure that applies to all documents, that it is the teaching or teachings, contained that are considered in their degree of authority.

This greatly impacts the ability to take statements out of a document and to declare individual statements to be infallible or dogmatic and is a prime reason why there is such danger in personal interpretation outside of the Church’s sole authority to do so.

Peace,