Talk:Magisterium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Catholicism Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Expanded the article and clarified several points with quotes from Vatican II. --Ronconte 03:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Your changes are excellent. I made one minor addition. Lawrence King 05:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not correct to say that a Catholic can disagree with non-infallible teaching based on prayer and conscience. Such a disagreement must be based on something infallible, such as Tradition, Scripture, or prior infallible teachings of the Magisterium. --Ronconte 12:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think now we're quibbling over small things. The document that I linked to in our other argument makes it clear that Catholic teachers cannot publicly dissent from non-infallible church teachings (a rule which many of them disobey). Individuals can dissent, and this does require prayer and conscience, but it also requires reference to other church teachings, so your addition seems reasonable. Lawrence King 20:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected the erroneous claim that the ordinary teachings of the magisterium are infallible. This is a common point of confusion. The ordinary and universal magisterium, despite the name, is not actually a part of the non-infallible ordinary magisterium; it is a part of the infallible sacred magisterium. --Ronconte 12:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Changed to "According to Catholic doctrine, the Magisterium is able to teach or interpret the truths of the Faith, and it does so infallibly within the Sacred Magisterium." from "According to Catholic doctrine, the Magisterium is able to teach or interpret the truths of the Faith infallibly." because upon reading the original statement, its meaning may very well be taken to mean that all Magisterium teachings are infallible. The article later clears it up to show that not all teachings of the Magisterium are infallible, only ones of the Sacred Magisterium. I felt that, while one may be left wondering what Sacred Magisterium is when it's mentioned right in the first paragraph, since it is later defined, it was better then implying that all teachings of the Magisterium are infallible in the first paragraph, and then later correcting it. 12:20 10 May 2006

The term "Sacred" Magisterium is a general term and does not describe the level of authority invoked for a particular act of teaching. I believe that that author of the section entitled "Sacred Magisterium" is referring to what is normally called the "Solemn" or "Extraordinary" Magisterium (See the CDF Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei and Pope John Paul II's General Audience speech on 24 March 1993, entitled The Holy Spirit Assists the Roman Pontiff). COMMENT ADDED: 7 August 2007 - 5:25PM.

Contents

[edit] Dispute tag added

I added the dispute tag because there is already a dispute ongoing at traditionalist Catholics that is managing to find its way across to other articles like this one and Church Dogma like Dei Verbum. (Runwiththewind 10:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC))

Sorry, I must have missed it. What, specifically, is being disputed? Name it or the tag should be withdrawn. TMLutas 07:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe the tag should stay. Right now the article requests many citations for what could be minority views WP:UNDUE stemming from the troubles over at traditionalist Catholics with respect to infallibility. Catechism of the Catholic Church #891. "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council."


Levels of the Magisterium citation - This is from page 201 of Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine by Archbishop Michael Sheehan, revised by Fr. Peter Joseph ISBN 1-901157-14-8, Saint Austin Press 2001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markanthony1980 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The information in the table can also be derived from the Code of Canon Law. As to Infallibility, the infallibility is only for councils, not ordinary (no pun intended) magisterial proclamations. Wfh 10:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

...led by the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) who serves as primus inter pares ("first among equals") within the episcopacy. ...

Since when does the Roman Catholic Church ditch the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, papal primacy? As an orthodox christian I would be glad if that would be the case but I think it is not fact yet ..." Rdr Innocent 05:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still a dispute?

Is this still a matter of dispute? If there's an issue with the article, I'd like to help fix it, but if not, I'd like down the tag. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I will return to this page in one week. If I do not find a good reason to dispute the FACTUAL accuracy of this article (besides traditionalist dissent, which would merit AT MOST the addition of a section concerning the dispute near the bottom of the article) I will remove the factual accuracy dispute tag. I'll make sure the tag stays gone, too. Feel free to help me out with this one week from the following time: TechsysPete (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] fallible to non-infallible

I changed "fallible papal teachings" to "non-infallible papal teachings". "Fallible papal teachings" at least implies that they are wrong. "Non-infallible" just says that these teachings are non infallible, leaving the question of whether they are correct or incorrect open. Jhobson1 23:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jhobson1. TechsysPete (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] His Dark Materials

The (or rather a) Magisterium is a significant entity in Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy. 81.153.111.37 (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is ought to be added to the article, or a separate article should be created as at the moment the HDM articles link here. --Robhu (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was searching for when I got here, something should be done about this. NeoRicen (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] submission of faith

I'm confused about how the article understands the relation between certain infallible teachings of the Sacred Magisterium, such as doctrines defined at an Ecumenical (General) Council by the bishops in union with the Pope, and the submission of faith (obsequium religiosum).

According to the chart in the article, such teachings should be accepted with a full assent of faith. Yet in Lumen gentium 25 we read:

"Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held. This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith" (emphasis added).

This passage indicates that the definitions of ecumenical councils where the bishops are gathered in unison and in union with the Pope require only the submission of faith, not a full assent of faith. This seems to be Vatican II's understanding of the submission of faith as applied to general conciliar definitions. (See also Francis A. Sullivan, Magisterium, Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church, p.61.)

Currently, although it quotes from Lumen gentium, the article reflects the mind, not of Vatican II, but of Vatican I that such definitions are to be believed with "catholic and divine faith," or a full assent of faith, not mere submission of faith. (See D-S 3011.) Perhaps this matter could be addressed in a revision.

Dr. Peter Spotswood DillardPsdillard (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What matters more than the source of the teaching is the level of teaching. Sullivan's Magisterium says on page 61:
"However, when Lumen gentium says that such definitions must be adhered to 'with the submission of fatih', it does not specify 'divine faith'. The reason given by the Theological Commission involves its intention not to exclude the possibility that a council might define a truth which is not strictly revealed, but is required for the defence or explanation of revealed truth'."
Thus, the definitions of an ecumenical council may require a full assent of faith (for revealed truths), or they may require only a submission of faith (for truths not strictly revealed), depending on the nature of the definition. Any suggestions on how to revise the table to incorporate this distinction? -- Cat Whisperer (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


Cat Whisperer makes an excellent point. I suggest the following changes for the author's consideration.

Distinguish between primary objects of infallibility, which are formally revealed truths demanding full assent of faith, from secondary objects of infallibility, which, though not formally revealed truths, are required for the defense or explanation of formally revealed truths and demand only submission of faith. (Examples of secondary objects of infallibility can be found in Sullivan, Magisterium, pp.135-136.)

Then revise the table to reflect this distinction:

3. Bishops proposing definitely, dispersed, but in unison, union with Pope. Where what they propose is a primary object of infallibility, it is an ordinary and universal teaching of the Church that is infallible and that demands full assent of faith. Something required for the defense or explanation of such a proposal is a secondary object of infallibility; again this is an ordinary and universal teaching of the Church that is infallible, but it only demands religious submission of intellect and will.

4. Bishops, in union with Pope, defining doctrine at General Council. Where what they define is a primary object of infallibility, it is an extraordinary and universal teaching of the Church that is infallible and that demands full assent of faith. Something required for the defense or explanation of such a definition is a secondary object of infallibility; again this is an extraordinary and universal teaching of the Church that is infallible, but it only demands religious submission of intellect and will.

5. Pope ex cathedra. Where what he pronounces is a primary object of infallibility (e.g., the Immaculate Conception), it is an extraordinary and universal teaching of the Church that is infallible and that demands full assent of faith. Something required for the defense or explanation of such a pronouncement is a secondary object of infallibility (e.g., perhaps Scotus's theory of how Christ's foreseen merits are applied to the Blessed Virgin Mary to free her from the penalty of Original Sin); again this is an extraordinary and universal teaching of the Church that is infallible, but that only demands religious submission of intellect and will.

Finally, it might be observed that it is a matter of speculative theology whether and why any secondary object of infallibility is truly an infallible teaching but requires only religious submission of intellect and will, as opposed to full assent of faith. I don't believe Fr. Sullivan resolves this matter in his book.

Dr. Peter Spotswood DillardPsdillard (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a good way to improve the article. You can go ahead and make the changes yourself, if you'd like. -- Cat Whisperer (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


>>To ensure continuity of style, I would prefer for the author to make any changes he/she deems appropriate in light of the foregoing discussion. I'm happy to look over and comment on any draft prior to its being posted on the article page. I believe a draft could be sent to my talk page.

Dr. DillardPsdillard (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)