Where is the Magisterium?

[ontheway1]

There are many discussions about the Magisterium. My question is - where is it? The church has issued thousands of statements and documents during the last 2000 years. How many are part of the Magisterium and are they collected somewhere?

 

[Genesis315]

The “magisterium” is merely the teaching authority of the Church. It is exercised by the bishops, and in particular the bishop of Rome as chief teacher (in the past, it was sometimes ccalled the “ecclesia docens”–the “teaching church”). They do so every day–it is part of the normal, ongoing life of the Church.

There’s no complete collection of every instance a bishop teaches–they are constantly doing so, constantly handing on, defending, expounding upon, and applying the deposit of faith once delivered to the Saints. That’s the whole point of a “living” Magisterium (ie a teaching authority made of living people)–while old letters and documents may be lost to history, the contents of the faith will not be.

It should be noted, the Magisterium is, in a general sense, infallible inasmuch as the Church as a whole cannot defect from this faith, by the promise of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. While individual bishops and even Popes may teach erroneously in particular instances, such errors will not prevail over the entire Magisterium. The true faith will never cease to be taught in the Church. On the flipside, when all bishops (including the Pope) teach in agreement, they are infallible. For the same reason, those particular acts of the Magisterium which definitively lay down the rule of faith for the whole Church cannot err.

 

[goout]

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

 

[ontheway1]

While individual bishops and even Popes may teach erroneously in particular instances, such errors will not prevail over the entire Magisterium.

This makes sense but also creates a situation where and individual is not in a position to determine if what is taught by the current bishop or pope (I am not pointing at anyone here) is a heresy, for instance.
We have to assume that the good padres would never do such a thing, but there are statements being made that can make one wonder.

 

[Genesis315]

The ordinary teaching of individual Popes and bishops must be given a certain kind of respect (obsequium religiosum) given their divinely instituted authority to teach–but only the teaching of the universal Church, which cannot err, receives unconditional faith.

I like to think of it this way: in a classroom, a student should generally take to heart and mind what the teacher teaches. That is the rule–the teacher is authorized to teach and the student is there to learn. Students should not be disruptive, nor should they let the lesson go in one ear and out the other.

But sometimes the teacher might teach something that just doesn’t seem right to the student based on his prior learning from other trusted, authorized teachers. The student may need to seek further explanation or clarification. There’s nothing wrong with this.

The teacher may mistakenly get something clearly wrong, that the student might want to address with the teacher after class in a respectful way. There might even be rare, extreme situations where a student might be obliged in conscience to stand up right then and there and defend the truth or good morals for the good of all.

In general, if we follow teachers in good faith, and they lead us astray, the faith of the Church covers us:

St. Thomas:

The simple have no faith implied in that of the learned, except in so far as the latter adhere to the Divine teaching. Hence the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 4:16): “Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ.” Hence it is not human knowledge, but the Divine truth that is the rule of faith: and if any of the learned stray from this rule, he does not harm the faith of the simple ones, who think that the learned believe aright; unless the simple hold obstinately to their individual errors, against the faith of the universal Church, which cannot err, since Our Lord said (Luke 22:32): “I have prayed for thee,” Peter, “that thy faith fail not.”
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3002.htm#article6

Pope Innocent IV says there is no sin in getting something wrong “so long as he believes that this is the faith of the Church. In that case, the faith of the Church replaces his opinion, since, though his opinion is false, it is not his faith, rather his faith is the faith of the Church.” (Commentaria in quinque libros decretalia, Ad liber I)

continued…

 

[Genesis315]

continued from above…

St. Vincent de Lerins gives some good advice for times where confusion seems to prevail:

What is to be done if one or more dissent from the rest.

[7.] What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.

[8.] But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in various times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm

 

[ontheway1]

So, to a man in the street, or a Catholic in a pew, there really is no answer. We believe what is said from the pulpit, and if it sounds strange, we just …take it with a grain of salt?
If, for example, the pope decides to pray with the Muslims or co-celebrate with the Lutherans, are we to take this as a sign that all religions are “cool”?
And if my pastor addds a prayer to the mass and this prayer is to convince the parishoners to give more money to the church (actually happenned), then this is now part of the celebration? (thankfully, someone must have said something to him, because the prayer was removed shortly)
Who can interpret the magisterium and how?

 

[commenter]

Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.

Well, yes and no.
There are LOTS of potential documents that might pertain to a particular topic. I haven’t read them. True, I see excerpts from ONE document selected by my favorite website. Then that website will print a few paragraphs from a current pope and bishop, they disagree with.

The problem is that I don’t know the context of that quoted ancient document. Did it deal with all cases, or response to a particular question? I don’t know what other documents may exist that may be more authoritative, or relevant.
Some other website, with their own interpreting theologian, could choose or weight some other ancient document, and bring the reader to an opposing position, even while also citing “as antiquity” as their source.

So unfortunately antiquity is somewhat subject to modern manipulation. The pope, and bishops in union with him, are the most reliable interpreters of antiquity, and Tradition in general.

 

[Genesis315]

So unfortunately antiquity is somewhat subject to modern manipulation. The pope, and bishops in union with him, are the most reliable interpreters of antiquity, and Tradition in general.

In his book, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost, Cardinal Manning enunciated this same principle:

The enunciation of the faith by the living Church of this hour, is the maximum of evidence, both natural and supernatural, as to the fact and the contents of the original revelation. Neither is any bad example they might give.

Of course, random utterances by churchmen are not necessarily equivalent to the “enunciation of the faith by the living Church.” There are also have been times when things get messy.

Toward @ontheway1 's point above, we can know the faith–even the world seems to know it, which is why when a bishop or pope seems to say or do something contrary to it, it makes the news. Even dissenters know what it is and argue it should be changed, etc.

Ultimately, if you want to look at primary sources, we have the irreformable dogmatic judgments of the general councils and of the popes and those things that have been handed on without question continuously by the councils, popes, and other bishops, and the curia that assist them in this task.

(priests changing the liturgy and stuff has to do with governmental authority, not teaching authority–only the supreme authority in the Church can modify rites or delegate authority to others to do so).

 

[commenter]

The fact that the pope can, when guided, teach infallibly, is no assurance he will teach infallibly.

• He may want to, but doesn’t know the answer;
• He may think he knows the answer, but God steers him away from teaching what would be a wrong answer;
• There might not be any specific truth that needs to be defined or affirmed at this moment;
• The pope may choose not to teach or reaffirm something at this time for various other reasons, which we really don’t know. We don’t see the whole picture.

 

[po18guy]

Primarily, the Catechism - a rare, hard to find book that few Catholics seem to possess.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Yes, I would say the Catechism is going to cover at least 99 percent of any question that might come up. It is written and disseminated precisely so that the lay faithful don’t have to go plowing through Magisterial documents trying to make heads or tails of them.

 

[Dovekin]

Ultimately, if you want to look at primary sources, we have the irreformable dogmatic judgments of the general councils and of the popes and those things that have been handed on without question continuously by the councils, popes, and other bishops, and the curia that assist them in this task.

Ultimately we have Sacred Scripture. It was inspired by the same Holy Spirit that inspired Popes and Councils.

Of course, the Magisterium interprets all of this for us. I have a broader idea of magisterium than most here. I see magisterium as rooted in the preaching we hear at Church. We hear Christ when Scripture is read liturgically, and deacons, priests, and bishops apply/augment/interpret when they preach. That is the magisterium, though it is also expressed in documents and discussions. Of course, extraordinary infallibility does not apply to all preaching, but particularly applies only to statemnts addressed to the whole Church and not those to a particular congregation in a homily.